The Criminal Assertions of a Nation-State
Introduction
Since the collapse of the
Roman Empire there has been general assertions of criminal behaviors by
nation-states, both internally and externally (Dunn, 1999; Mazish, 2006). The borders that have been crafted by world
leaders has the ability to present cultural conflicts and, in turn, cause
criminal activities that are placed upon the individuals within the identified boundaries
(Nash, Crabtree, & Dunn, 2000; Stearns, 2010). In many cases, the assertions attack the
geographical landmarks on a general level and transpire into individual
assumptions about a particular group of people.
Once more, this happens both internally and externally by
nation-states. This is seen when
political leaders deliver speeches about foreign counterparts participating in activities
that are not considered to be acceptable, and the communication from the public
figure shapes the beliefs of citizens in their country as well as in
individuals across the globe. For
example, when President Trump refers to sanctions that ought to be placed on
North Korea he is criminalizing an entire country for its perceived negative
actions by a few of its leaders (Hornsey, Gallois, & Duck, 2008; Osnos,
2018). These types of referrals assume
that landmarks are guilty of behaviors and transitions into individual
perceptions from the United States believing that citizens from a foreign
country condone the perceived negative actions and, in turn, criminalizes them as
well – this is done without communicating with citizens from the criminalized
country. The same example can be
implemented into how foreign citizens in external countries view the disdain
that has been projected. Thus,
nation-states assert criminal thinking to other areas and even permeate
ill-conceived thinking within its boundaries.
The idea that nation-states can forge general thinking is outlandish,
yet it has been occurring for thousands of years in human history.
As the political-criminal
assertions are manifested, coupled with the understanding that there is global
community, the ideas about a particular country spread into governmental projections
in international formats and cause global consensus about ideations on how to
address the projections that caused the global consensus about a specific
nation-state (Cornwall & Brock, 2005; Zúborová, 2015). Because of the global consensus of reactive
sanctions, ordinary citizens take on the labels given by the world
leaders. Turmoil, stress, bigotry, and
outright prejudices are formed because of this (Altheide, 1997; Lewis, 2012). Blind support is also given in many cases
because of false patriotism and the conceptions about human rights on a
domestic and international level (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, &
Young, 2008). That is, citizens praise
the actions by world leaders without much insight about the matters that have
been presented, as well as condone general criminal labels about a culture
without much knowledge about the people who make up the culture that is being
criticized (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008).
With this being stated,
this essay will present how nation-states formulate deviant behaviors that are
accepted by other nation-states and the citizens within the boundaries of the
criticizing countries, the specific misconceptions of false pride that
eventually support the criminal behaviors of world leaders and external nations, and discuss how political desires of world leaders causes global chaos, war,
and inhumane actions against innocent people.
Lastly, references and examples will be implemented in order to allow
the reader to glean the premise of this essay and comprehend the policy
implications that should be implemented without having skeptical thoughts about
the content within this essay.
The External and
Internal Formulating of Criminal Assertions by Nation-States
Deviancy is used by
political leaders to justify sanctions and violence against foreign
nations. These internal assertions have
many justifications, but political gain is the primary variable why leaders
initiate campaigns against foreign adversaries – or create adversaries (Jackson, 2004; Skoll, 2010). Internal formulations are noticed all
throughout human history. Early on, many
nation-states sought to increase their borders and to reap the resources that
other lands utilized for sustainment. As
history progressed, these intrusions became subtler due to the advent of human
rights and political attrition that is common in our world today. More specifically, after World War Two it was
considered to be barbaric to assault another nation-state for the personal gain
and domestic tranquility of a country.
The horrible activities of the Third Reich caused national leaders to be
more careful with their speeches, foreign affairs, and decision-making about
the use of violence. Internal advents of
criminal assertions on external nation-states began to be shaped through
economics, and political leaders used ideas of employment, higher taxes, and
family concerns to criminalize foreign countries and to justify actions taken
to make the citizens in their country patriotic towards the claims that were
being conveyed (Jackson, 2004; Skoll, 2010).
For example, the United States’ current trade war with China serves as a
justification to be prejudiced against Chinese culture, the country’s politics,
and Chinese people domestically and abroad (Jackson, 2004; Rapping, 2003; Skoll,
2010; Swanson & Bradsher, 2018). The
concept of delivering negative depictions about increased prices for products
causes social turmoil internally – and externally – and Americans are left with
the idea that because of the Chinese their prosperity will diminish. Criminal assertions can also be described
with the comprehension of demonization and judicial conduct that caters to the
political conveyances that are abundant in the above-mentioned example.
Moreover, internal
criminal assertions by nation-states manifest from individual desires to be
viewed as righteous. This concept is
similar to the scare tactics that are used to justify foreign sanctions and to instill
patriotism on a general level; however, the individuality of the political
leader who ascertains a movement against another country has roots in
personality traits that many psychologists and psychiatrists have identified in
their studies (Jackson, 2004; Post, 1986; Skoll, 2010). For instance, narcissism tends to be the
primary causation of such chaos for these leaders, and with the power and
authority that is desired – as well as already attained – the inability to
utilize authentic diplomacy is disregarded by these narcissistic leaders
because of the personal desires to be liked by many people in the short-term
and long-term and their self-generated thoughts about how great they are or
should be (Cheliotis, 2011; Post, 1986).
Power retention is also very relevant in these decision-making processes
and how nation-states perform criminal assertions (Cheliotis, 2011; Post, 1986). Second to this, internal criminal assertions
by nation-states are construed because of anti-social and borderline
personality traits by world leaders.
Specifically, anti-social behavior is exhibited when world leaders
disregard the rights of others, lack empathy about the discourses and residual
effects of decision-making, praise themselves for taking action or no action on
a particular issue, and are manipulative and impulsive in their activities that
radiate from their authority – especially toward external entities and
nation-states (Cheliotis, 2011; Post, 1986; Sharp & Sieswerda, 2013). For example, the callous military tactics
that are used in territories that are suggested to be harboring terrorism is an
ideal illustration. The idea of using
less violent actions and the casualties that happen is the main premise of this
example for anti-social behaviors by world leaders. Real-life examples can be delivered by
observing bombings, chemical warfare, and additional military practices in the
Middle East (Maynes, 1998; Sullivan & Shear, 2018). Most recently, the chemical warfare and
bombings in Syria serves as an example of internal causations of criminalizing a
nation-state and how the internalizations come to light (Cheliotis, 2011; Maynes,
1998; Post, 1986; Sullivan & Shear, 2018).
Innocent people are attacked and criminalized because of the unusual
desires to cause mass harm, and there may be further harm if military action is
taken by external countries, that is.
Pedagogy, unfortunately, takes place because of this.
As aforementioned,
borderline personality traits are apparent in discourses described above. In particular, abrupt mood swings, inability
to have stable relationships in both domestic and global mechanisms, self-harm,
and identity are all found within the decision-making processes of world
leaders that ascertain internal exertions that, in turn, criminalize
nation-states on a general and specific level (Cheliotis, 2011; Post, 1986;
Sharp & Sieswerda, 2013). Withal,
these defects serve as a catalyst for the subjugation of media and
citizen-based perceptions that are accumulated via the depictions that are
projected into a culture – propaganda, in other words. Nonetheless, borderline personality disorder
within world leaders is exhibited when they change discourse in policy
adherence that is conjured prior to an event, dismiss foreign allies and
expectations and create new enemies in the world, cause social turmoil that
makes them appear self-defeating and hypocritical, and use the criminalization
as an identity that is comprehended by themselves, their peers, and the public (Cheliotis,
2011; Post, 1986; Sharp & Sieswerda, 2013).
More specifically on the concept of identity, world leaders routinely
adjust to events and social issues that arise and fail to maintain a stable
identification of who they are and what they represent (Cheliotis, 2011; Post,
1986; Sharp & Sieswerda, 2013). This
is noticed when world leaders change their opinions on an issue, deviate from
campaign strategies, and use the criminal assertions of a nation-state to
justify the lack of identity that they once proclaimed (Cheliotis, 2011; Post,
1986; Sharp & Sieswerda, 2013). The
evolution of a political leader is one thing, yet when it includes criminal
assertions towards an external nation-state and has no association with what
they once proclaimed it can be inferred that the individual lacks a stable
identity of themselves and uses political issues to circumvent the descriptions
and feelings of identity that they, again, proclaimed in previous periods of
their lives.
External formulations of
criminal assertions upon a nation-state can be done without political
associations or the depictions that are given to individuals by government
leaders (Altheide, 1997; Farrell, Hayward, & Young,
2008; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010).
That is, the sheer presence of an organization or symbol in an
environment has the ability to project criminal assertions on an entire nation
and the individuals within the country’s borders. To be more precise, subjective and objective
realities have the power to persuade individuals to believe something given
their understanding of an organization, symbol, or environment. These understandings are rooted with cultural
experiences and, in turn, do have the ability to label a nation-state and
individuals within the country in a criminal manner (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008;
Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010). For
instance, the presence of the United Nations, non-profit organizations,
anti-government flags and artwork, statues, and memorials or shrines allow
perceptions to be forged by individuals without any direct communication about
the environment and the circumstances that are unfolding in an area. Biased interpretations exist because of the conceptions
and misconceptions about the above-mentioned materials and the life experiences
by the individual participating in the observing (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell,
Hayward, & Young, 2008; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010). In addition to this, criminal assertions take
place because of the cultural elements that are viewed as odd by external
parties. Such as, seeing different
behaviors that are not common in the individuals’ livelihood and the anxiety
that manifests from these observations causes deviant perceptions that are
placed on entire regions and the people who reside within the jurisdictions (Altheide,
1997; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010). In sum, cultural conflicts, symbols, and
presences of entities – as seen in the media – foster criminal assertions on
entire nation-states because of the fear of unknown activities and abnormal
processes according to the observer (Altheide, 1997; Farrell, Hayward, &
Young, 2008; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010).
Social Status and
Criminal Assertions on Nation-States
Social elites are
responsible for delivering criminal assertions and the comprehension of the
consensus of the global capitalism structure is the primary mechanism that is
utilized to assert criminal ideations on nation-states from external parties
(Altheide, 1997; Gidron & Hall, 2017; Skoll, 2010). The common misunderstanding that the media is
responsible for this needs to be briefly discussed. That is, the media depictions are not under
complete control by the social elites and simply serve as entities that depict
images and situations for others to see.
In many social scientific postulations – especially critical scholarship
– the media is viewed as the main culprit for criminal assertions and culture
biases. This is untrue in the
understanding of criminal assertions by world leaders and the deviant
assumptions that are placed on entire countries. The media devices, in the delivered
philosophy in this essay, are simply conduits that convey the images and
scenarios that are being attacked by world leaders. Moreover, once these images are broadcasted
into a society it is the individual and their cultural understandings of
themselves and externalities that cater to the world leaders’ assertions of
criminal and deviant behaviors by and in a nation-state.
Social status comes into
effect because the world leaders can only coalesce with each other to
dictate which assertions will be conveyed and to manufacture the practices to
assert the criminalization (Altheide, 1997; Gidron & Hall, 2017; Skoll,
2010). It is the laypeople that are
responsible for meting out the criminal assertions that the world leaders
configure (Altheide, 1997; Skoll, 2010).
This is to be understood not only with military or law enforcement
operations, but with a massive consumption and projection of individuality by
ordinary people. More precisely,
criminal assertions that are depicted by world leaders and the media have the
ability to cause thinking and behaviors because of the selection of images and
notions that are simultaneously delivered by the configured images (Altheide, 1997; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010; Young, Rebbellon,
Barnes, & Weerman, 2014). Common
people are responsible for carrying out the beliefs and accusations that world
leaders create (Altheide, 1997; Skoll, 2010).
With this being stated, factual evidence is not always perverted. Meaning that realistic events that are
depicted still make their way into a culture and, in turn, cause the individual
to think about the images and react because of their cultural norms,
expectations of normalcy, and desire to rectify behaviors that they feel are
uncanny (Altheide, 1997; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010; Young, Rebbellon, Barnes,
& Weerman, 2014).
Moreover, social
stratification has an influence on these thoughts and behaviors and does so
without much insight into the comprehension of social classification being
present. In other words, laypeople abide
by their morals and do so without telling themselves that they are being
controlled or forced to react in a particular manner (Altheide, 1997; Rapping,
2003; Skoll, 2010; Young, Rebbellon, Barnes, & Weerman, 2014). This is not an understanding of conspiracy
theories or governmental intrusions on the ability of free thought. It is an understanding that the proletariat
is free and has the ability to react however they feel fit, yet the reactive
mechanisms are forged because of the actions by the social elites – world
leaders, that is. Criminal assertions
about a nation-state are sustained and supported by the common people in the
world and communication about these assertions becomes normalized because the
desire of human beings to socialize; the world leaders are responsible for delivering
these interactions into their cultures (Altheide, 1997; Rapping, 2003; Skoll,
2010; Young, Rebbellon, Barnes, & Weerman, 2014). Case in point, social structure shapes the
criminal assertions on and from nation-states because of the massive numbers in
the lower social classes and cognitive attributes of human beings, and the
criminal assertions are guided by the inclinations that higher members in the
world develop.
Informal and
Formal International Laws
Codified laws and
informal regulations are also required to present when discussing the criminal
assertions of a nation-state. International
consensus on moral conduct exists even when there is no specific regulation
that can be identified (Stearns, 2010; Zúborová, 2015). As the International Criminal Court was
created to enforce global interpretations of behaviors that are deemed as
inappropriate, there are still many activities that are unable to be regulated
or enforced because of the development of nation-states and their proscribed
norms (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Ferrell,
Hayward, & Young, 2008).
Constitutions, world power, and cultural norms allow world leaders to
bypass many discrepancies that other nation-states deem as unethical and
intrusive (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008). Policing countries comes with resistance and
hesitation because of the adherence and understanding of political correctness
regarding cultural differences – yet it still occurs (Andreas & Nadelman,
2006; Viano, Magallanes, & Bridel, 2003).
Nevertheless, internal
laws and informal rules are used by world leaders to justify criminal
assertions on a country and to implement methods that would displace behaviors
that are not in line with a country’s deliverance of acceptable behaviors (Ferrell,
Hayward, & Young, 2008; Stearns, 2010).
Moreover, this occurs in more than one fashion from a nation-state
because of the previously mentioned global consensus of acceptable behaviors
and desired political attrition. That
is, given the fact that there is a global community of super-powers that
dictate the decency that is expected by all nation-states, any nation-state
that does not have an adequate level of authority and does not fall in line
with the consensus is viewed as an outsider and weaker in the norms and values
that are accepted by the political rulers of industrialized nations (Altheide,
1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008). These outsider nation-states are not always
participating in terrible actions that require communal attention by the elite
nation-states.
Formal and informal laws
come into effect and are enforced through sanctions and ignoring the weaker
nation-states and thus further alienates the nation-states that cannot acquire
similar power or do not desire to enter the spectrum of normalcy that is
delivered by the super-powers of the world.
Less powerful nation-states are criminalized because of their lack of
industrialization and participation in the global market – even if a
nation-state’s inability to do so is natural and not chosen by its civilians and
government leaders (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Ferrell,
Hayward, & Young, 2008). Ignoring
commodities and other resources are disregarded through formal regulations and
the wealth that nation-states can use to surpass a weaker country. Simply put, because the less powerful nation
has little to offer wealthier external nation-states they are criminalized and
ignored because of the inability to return favors in a political and economic
fashion (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Ferrell, Hayward, &
Young, 2008). In sum, criminal
assertions by nation-states happens because poorer countries are unable to
produce rewards for the super-powers and the formal laws in the world serve as
justification to further assert deviant labels on a less powerful country (Altheide,
1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008;
Stearns, 2010).
Conformity in
Political Beliefs and Criminal Assertions
Criminal assertions on
nation-states also occurs because of minimal conformity to political attributes
of a world leader and overall governmental structure that is not in line with
external nation-states and their political leaders’ associations (Altheide,
1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Stearns, 2010; Viano, Magallanes, &
Bridel, 2003). When a country does not
support a world leader’s ideas and behaviors they are admonished in an
international spotlight. This is seen
when dissenting political leaders are deemed as tyrannical and inept to global
issues that are suggested to impact the world and, specifically, it is done by countries
that have conventional democratic processes (Altheide, 1997; Andreas &
Nadelman, 2006; Stearns, 2010; Viano, Magallanes, & Bridel, 2003). Not all of these assertions are placed on
homicidal leaders who target their own citizens or participate in actions that
deplete free will of citizens criticizing government-related functions. That is, when a political leader does not
adhere to requests or contribute to politically motivated campaigns he or she
is deemed as farcical and incoherent to the inferred important issues that most
others would participate in (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006;
Stearns, 2010; Viano, Magallanes, & Bridel, 2003). Criminalization occurs because retaliation
manifests in many of the situations that are within the previously mentioned
example. For instance, lack of military,
financial, and external political support all becomes evident when a political
leader dismisses the decisions of another world leader. This transitions into general labels on an
entire nation-state, and thus demonizes the country and the individuals who
reside within it (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Stearns, 2010;
Viano, Magallanes, & Bridel, 2003).
Atypical government
structures cause nation-states to insult and chastise the countries that are
functioning on an irregular basis.
Again, this is not only with countries that have dictatorships or
extreme militarism. Less powerful
countries that do not implement wealthy politicians into their system, or
nation-states that rely solely on popular votes and participate in
protestations about governmental corruption, are viewed as less developed and
archaic in their activities (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006;
Stearns, 2010; Viano, Magallanes, & Bridel, 2003). Many smaller countries that operate on
sincere citizen demands – and not an oligarchy – are criminalized by the world
leaders on a general level. Which, in
turn, causes individuals in the criticizing nation-states to formulate biased
opinions because of the prejudiced actions and depictions by their government
leaders. Criminalization takes shape in
ethnic prejudices and disparaging attitudes about the atypical government
structures and the citizens who live in the countries that have these
irregularities (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008; Rapping,
2003; Skoll, 2010). Once more, cultural
conflicts contribute to criminalizing a country on a general level and, in
turn, causes individuals to outcast an entire nation-state because of the norms
and values that they are not used to (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, &
Young, 2008; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010).
Policy
Implications
World leaders who base
their reputations on capitalistic schemes and faulty notions of human rights
need to be quelled with devotion towards understanding external cultures and
respecting outside ways of living. Second
to this, grouping up on countries that do not have typical democratic
governance and wealth that other nation-states have acquired should be
eliminated. A global consensus about
humane behaviors and proper governance is acceptable, yet the callous
discourses and disenfranchising of nation-states that happens because of
political dissent towards external leaders and countries can be ceased with
developing international assistance programs for financial needs and learnings
on cultural differences. Training
seminars can be taught at international summits by citizens of the
nation-states and culture barriers can be diminished by proper learnings of the
presentations.
Tolerance for
militaristic approaches should be shunned by the international community and
when there is an incident that includes the requirement of military action it
should include countries that are not as wealthy or typical in their governance
with the status quo that currently exists.
Media depictions should include coverage on in-depth issues in other
countries and show world leaders attempting to learn about other cultures and
making allies, rather than disparaging broadcasts of world leaders making crude
remarks about external nation-states and its leaders and citizens. Regulating the media in this fashion would
allow for peaceful transitions that produce efforts for all of humankind to
respect each other. Ordinary citizens
would benefit from this as well, and the media depictions would cause more
cultural awareness and better appreciations for people from other
nation-states.
Social stratification
needs to be augmented so that citizens from all walks of life are able to live
prosperously and not be labeled in a detrimental manner. Capitalism does not have to include poor attitudes
about people from lower economic and social backgrounds. The idea that worth and value can have
importance without celebrity-like statuses or economic affluence is the main
idea within this policy implication.
World leaders should practice tolerance and appreciation for people from
all social statuses in their jurisdictions and externally. Elements of socialism would properly deter
such callous activities on the global level.
Decreasing or increasing budgets so that basic human services and
utilities are covered would transition into a capitalistic system that truly
allows all citizens an equal opportunity for positive social mobility and, in
turn, would produce positive benefits towards external cultures. Peace and harmony can be established through
better social classification systems.
The fact is that social status exists and, currently, it has negative
repercussions for individuals when attempting to comprehend external cultures.
References
Altheide, D.
(1997). The news media, the
problem frame, and the production of fear.
The
Sociological
Quarterly, 38(4), 663-664.
Andreas, P., & Nadelman, E. (2006). Policing the globe: Criminalization and crime control
in international relations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cheliotis, L. K.
(2011). Violence and narcissism:
A Frommian perspective on destructiveness
under authoritarianism. The
Canadian Journal of Sociology, 36(4), 337-360.
Cornwall, A., & Brock, K. (2005).
What do Buzzwords do for development Policy? A critical
look at
"participation", "empowerment", and "poverty reduction." Third
World
Quarterly,
26(7),
1043-1060.
Dunn, R.
(1999). The new world history: A
teacher's companion. Bedford/St.
Martins: Macmillan.
Ferrell, J., Hayward, K., & Young, J. (2008).
Cultural criminology: An invitation. London:
SAGE.
Gidron, N., & Hall, P. A. (2017).
The politics of social status: Economic and cultural roots of
the populist right. The
British Journal of Sociology, 68(S1), S57-S84.
Hornsey, M. J., Gallois, C., & Duck, J. M. (2008).
The intersection of communication and
social
psychology: Points of contact and points
of difference. Journal of
Communication, 58(4),
749-766.
Jackson, J.
(2004). Experience and
expression: Social and cultural
significance in the fear of
crime. British
Journal of Criminology, 44(6), 946-966.
Lewis, C. S.
(2012). Tough-on-crime tolerance:
The cultural criminalization of bigotry in the
post-civil rights era. Critical
Criminology, 20(3), 275-292.
Maynes, C. W. (1998).
The Middle East in the twenty-first century. Middle
East Journal, 52(1),
9-16.
Mazlish, B.
(2006). The new global history. New
York: Routledge.
Nash, G., Crabtree, C., & Dunn, R. (2000).
History on trial: Culture wars and
the teaching of
the
past
(2nd ed.). New York: Random House.
Osnos, E. (2018,
January 3). Donald Trump and North
Korea: Big button, small president.
The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/sections/news/donald
trump-and-north-korea-big-button-small-president.
Post, J. M.
(1986). Narcissism and the charismatic
leader-follower relationship. Political
Psychology,
7(4),
675-688.
Rapping, E.
(2003). Law and justice as seen on TV. New
York: New York University Press.
Sharp, C., & Sieswerda, S. (2013).
The social-cognitive basis of borderline and antisocial
personality disorder:
Introduction. Journal of Personality Disorders 27(1), 1-2.
Skoll, G. R. (2010). Social theory of fear: Terror, torture, and death in a post-capitalist
world.
United States: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Stearns, P. N.
(2010). Globalization in the world. New
York: Routledge.
Sullivan, E., & Shear, M. D. (2018, April 11). Trump promises strike on Syria and warns
Russia against backing
Assad. The New
York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/world/middleeast/trump-syria-attack.html.
Swanson, A., & Bradsher, K. (2018, April 5). Trump doubles down on potential trade war
with
China. The New
York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/business/trump-trade-war-china.html.
Viano, E. C., Magallanes, J., & Bridel, L. (2003).
Transnational organized
crime: Myth,
power, and profit. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Young, J. T., Rebbellon, C. J., Barnes, J. C., &
Weerman, F. M. (2014). Unpacking the
black
box of peer similarity in deviance:
Understanding the mechanisms linking personal
behavior,
peer behavior, and perceptions. Criminology, 52, 60-86.
Zúborová, V.
(2015). Buzzwords in politics?
Communication and disources of national politics
in context to the local
and regional level. Journal of Universal Excellence, 4(3), A12
A30.
Comments
Post a Comment