Original Sword Designs,Now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,New York,Entered in Competition to Make Admiral Seymour’s City of London Sword of Honour in 1882

This paper examines two rare original Sword Designs, which have recently come to light, patterns said to be the two sides of the Sword of Honour awarded with the Freedom of the City of London to Admiral Seymour, Baron Alcester, Commander-in-Chief HM Ships and Vessels Mediterranean, for the Egyptian Campaign in 1882. The paper places the designs in their historical and iconographical context and assesses, by examining various evidence, if the patterns are, in fact, the original designs of the sword actually presented to Seymour at the Guildhall in 1883.     

A study of peacekeeping,peace-enforcement and private military companies in Sierra Leone

The four military interventions into the conflict in Sierra Leone between 1995 and 2000 met with varying degrees of success. One of the more effective ones was launched by a private military company (PMC) early in the conflict. In the following paper a comparison is made between different aspects of the PMC intervention and the interventions by national military and by multilateral forces from regional and international organisations. The findings are that the interventions of the PMC and national forces were more successful due to their clear peace-enforcing mandate, unitary structure, elite counterinsurgency training, intelligence-gathering capabilities, relationship with the public, incentive to win as efficiently as possible and role as a force multiplier for local forces. The failure of multilateral peacekeeping forces in peace-enforcing roles suggests that small contingents of elite special forces, whether donated unilaterally by governments or hired in a competitive PMC market, are not only likely to be more effective in bringing violent conflict to a halt, but could at the same time be helpful in building the capacity, loyalty and professionalism of local militaries.     

The Good Faith Assumption

There are a number of competing paradigms on nonproliferation issues, each with their own self-consistent set of axioms that have to be dealt with on their own terms. If these different approaches are not appropriately acknowledged during discussions, they can become a permanent barrier to the resolution of underlying issues. This article identifies some of the key interest groups that are involved in discussions of nuclear nonproliferation issues and seeks to delineate the paradigmatic differences between these groups. These differences in approach can give rise to the perception that one or more of the parties to any discussion are arguing in bad faith. While bad faith may be a cause of at least some of the disputes that arise on nonproliferation issues, assuming bad faith as an explanation for these differences is counterproductive; it prevents any serious discussion of the issues underlying such disputes and obstructs attempts to reach a common understanding.