By Bertrand Russell . Introduction by Colin Heston.

This collection of essays is not merely a pacifist manifesto; it is a profound philosophical inquiry into the nature of justice, the psychology of conflict, and the responsibilities of individuals—especially thinkers and educators—in times of national crisis. Russell, a mathematician and philosopher by training, brings to bear his analytical precision and moral clarity in dissecting the arguments used to legitimize war. His opposition to World War I was not rooted in naïve idealism but in a deep conviction that war, particularly modern industrial war, represents a failure of reason and humanity.

The book opens with an appeal to the intellectuals of Europe, urging them to resist the tide of militarism and to uphold the values of truth and justice even when doing so is unpopular or dangerous. Russell believed that intellectuals had a duty to question the narratives presented by their governments and to advocate for peace, not as a passive withdrawal but as an active moral stance. This appeal is followed by essays such as “The Ethics of War,” “War and Non-Resistance,” and “Why Nations Love War,” each of which explores different dimensions of the war impulse—from philosophical arguments to psychological and sociological observations.

One of the most striking aspects of Justice in War-time is Russell’s willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. He examines the role of imperialism, economic interests, and historical rivalries in fueling conflict, and he critiques the Entente policy and the diplomatic maneuvers that led to war. His essay “The Danger to Civilization” warns of the long-term consequences of war on democratic institutions, civil liberties, and the moral fabric of society.

In the broader context of Russell’s life and work, Justice in War-time marks a pivotal moment. It reflects his transition from a primarily academic philosopher to a public intellectual deeply engaged with the political and ethical issues of his time. The book also foreshadows themes that would recur in his later writings on peace, nuclear disarmament, and civil liberties.

Today, Justice in War-time remains a powerful reminder of the importance of moral courage and intellectual integrity. In an age where war continues to be justified through appeals to patriotism, security, and national interest, Russell’s essays challenge us to ask deeper questions: What is justice? Who benefits from war? And what is the role of the individual in resisting injustice?

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 191p.

By Jessica Davis

Illicit actors in Afghanistan, including drug traffickers, warlords, terrorist groups, and even former government officials, exploit the country to achieve their own political and economic objectives. Historical and contemporary sources demonstrate that there are patterns in how these actors raise, manage, store, move, and obscure money. This paper provides a historical and contemporary overview of illicit financing activities in Afghanistan. It uses a terrorist financing framework to explain the various mechanisms involved in how illicit actors raise, use, move, store, manage, and obscure their funds. Specific jurisdictions used for illicit finance and global financial vulnerabilities that illicit actors with a nexus to Afghanistan exploit in their financial activities are discussed, outlining the threat-agnostic capabilities that could tackle some of these illicit financial challenges.

To raise funds, illicit actors engage in the production and trafficking of narcotics, taxation and extortion activities, illegal mining and timber production, and any other activities that can generate revenues. Depending on the actor in question, management of the acquired funds might be centralised, within the purview of a financial head, or decentralised, with control vested within several stakeholders. Illicit actors store some of their funds in cash within Afghanistan and use hawalas and banks to both store and transfer wealth out of the country. Since the Taliban takeover, international sanctions have largely ended the ability of banks to transact with most aspects of the global financial sector, with the exception of regional banking relationships that remain intact. Therefore, in addition to hawalas, common methods of moving money out of Afghanistan include bulk cash couriers, the transfer of precious metals and stones, and trade-based money laundering schemes. Wealth is moved out of Afghanistan to several key jurisdictions. Much of it makes its way to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where funds are invested in businesses and real estate. Funds are also moved to Pakistan, Turkey, and to a lesser extent Iran and other neighbouring or proximate countries.

The stability of illicit financing mechanisms over time and across illicit actors presents opportunities for detection and disruption. However, this also applies to limitations of disruption opportunities. Since illicit actors in Afghanistan raise most of their funds within the country, there are few opportunities to disrupt internal Afghan revenue sources in the post-August 2021 context. As such, other detection and disruption opportunities that can be used to combat illicit financing with a nexus to Afghanistan must be examined. The policy options elaborated in this report include: enhancing the monitoring of aid and donor funding entering the country, facilitating the adoption of foreign asset and beneficial ownership tracing, introducing reforms to the hawala and banking sectors, and addressing deficiencies in international sanctions regimes.

A regionally coordinated policy approach to counter illicit financing from Afghanistan can reduce the ability of illicit actors to access their wealth and fund their activities. However, without access to a cooperative government in Afghanistan, there are limits to what can be achieved. Nonetheless, many of the policy and disruption opportunities available to counter illicit Afghan finance also serve to strengthen the integrity of the global financial system, address existing policy gaps in other jurisdictions, and can generally serve to enhance international cooperation on counter-illicit financing.

SOC ACE Research Paper No 11.

Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham, 2022. 32p.

By David Blake Johnson, Joshua J. Robinson, Daniel Semenza, and Alexi Thompson

We test the effectiveness of several common gun prevalence proxy variables against what are arguably the best measures of gun prevalence: firearm sales and concealed carry permits. With a comprehensive count of gun sales and concealed carry permits (by county and year) in the states of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, we make two main observations: First, gun sales/concealed carry permits are positively correlated with federal firearm licenses (gun dealers) per mile. Second gun sales/concealed carry permits are not significantly positively correlated with federal firearm licenses per capita or the proportion of gun suicides to total suicides. We then discuss why this occurs and the limitations of using legal gun sales as a gun prevalence measure. Last, we show how the competing measures differ in terms of their associations with gun homicide. We find our preferred measure to have a strong positive association with gun homicides while many others do not. Consequently, we advise researchers to use gun dealers as a measure of gun prevalence and specifically in a way that considers markets bleeding over arbitrary lines (e.g., county, city, or neighborhood).

Unpublished Paper, (May 25, 2022), 41p,