The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the influence of an internationalizing coalition on political leaders is a key mediating variable in the relationship between trade interdependence and international conflict. In the literature, scholars have contradicting theories and empirical conclusions about whether trade interdependence promotes peace or conflict. In this article, I argue that, dyadically, the pacifying effect of trade interdependence is conditional upon the influence of an internationalizing coalition on both political leaders. When the support of internationalizing coalitions is important to both leaders’ political survival, the leaders will be more reluctant to use militarized measures to solve international disputes because the use of force will compromise the internationalizing coalitions’ opportunity to make money. On the other hand, if the support from the internationalizing coalitions is not important to both leaders’ political survival, the leaders will feel less constrained to use militarized measures. The underlying assumption is that internationalizing coalitions always prefer a peaceful and stable commercial environment to a conflictual one, because a conflictual situation hurts their commercial interests. I use a game-theoretical model to demonstrate the logic of this theory and then test it with logit and generalized estimating equations (GEE) models using data from 1962 to 2001. Besides, the game-theoretical model also points to a phenomenon that is worth paying attention to: as the influence of internationalizing coalitions on both political leaders increases, the probability of a militarized interstate dispute decreases, but this does not guarantee a positive peace-under some situations peace is built under the disguise of successful coercions. Based on this finding, a policy implication regarding the Cross-Strait relationship is suggested in the last part of this paper.

Brownfield redevelopment is meant to correct environmental injustice but the redevelopment process and benefit distribution could result in injustice again. However, brownfield redevelopment justice has rarely drawn public attention because people wrongly believe that a revitalized brownfield site indicates that justice has been served for pollution victims. To evoke discussions on brownfield redevelopment justice, this paper focuses on justice issues involved in processing brownfield revitalization, including the application of several main justice perceptions, as shaped by Bentham, Nozick, Kant and Rawls, on brownfield practice, and the examination of the justice perceptions held by the authors of the current brownfield redevelopment literature. This paper finds that the justice presented in the current literature can be classified into two categories. There is that literature which believes in utilitarianism and laissez-faire which emphasizes an efficient redevelopment process. There is also other literature that believes in freedom and equality, which emphasizes distributive justice, including the equal distribution of redevelopment opportunities among brownfield communities and the equal distribution of redevelopment benefits among stakeholders. In addition, there is procedural justice, with its focus on meaningful public participation in the decisionmaking process. This paper contends that the justice perceptions that are discussed are not contradictory to each other when applied to brownfield redevelopment and concludes that a human-respecting justice perception should be developed for brownfield redevelopment embedded in a specific Taiwanese social context.