With the Royal Commission now behind them and the Depression receding, Vickers-Armstrongs was once again able to fully focus on business and the needs of their customers. They began to rebuild their exports, but then the international market was reluctantly put aside for British rearmament in anticipation of renewed conflict. Vickers-Armstrongs faced a tsunami of orders across all areas of their business and initially struggled to meet British war needs but ultimately rose to the occasion. Vickers-Armstrongs employees served in government and the firm also oversaw shadow factories in addition to significantly expanding its own production. Their interwar investments in tanks and aircraft were vital to the British war effort, and the Supermarine Spitfire became iconic. In the aftermath of the war a familiar threat to the future of the firm reemerged: nationalization. Vickers-Armstrongs were unable to prevent it and the English Steel Corporation was nationalized by the Labour Government, complicating Vickers-Armstrongs operations. However, when the government fell, the incoming Conservative Government enabled denationalization of English Steel, returning it to the Vickers-Armstrongs fold. The era closes with rearmament for the Korean War.

Supporters of ISDS often justify the continued existence of ISDS on the basis that disputes are denationalized, thus keeping foreign investors out of domestic courts which may lack independence, be less efficient, or are biased against foreigners. This justification, unwittingly perhaps, strengthens a perception that foreign investors proceed directly to the international sphere. However, this chapter finds that many investors do avail themselves of domestic courts prior to an ISDS case and asks why this is the case. Looking at two states with transitional judiciaries and two states with well-functioning judiciaries, the author uncovers a rich data on the impressive scope of claims brought by foreign investors in the host states where they are investing; and Gáspár-Szilágyi concludes with some reflections on the role of domestic litigation in the legitimation of ISDS. (This abstract needs development)

This chapter engages with the neglected correlation between the religionization of the Israeli military and the religionization of politics. It is argued that we can identify four main stages of the relationship between the religionization of military and politics. During the formative period of the state and the military (1950s–60s), the partial religionization of the military reflected similar processes in the general society. In the second stage, following the 1967 War, the responses to the war’s aftermath strengthened ethno-national religionization. However, ethno-national religionization prompted the proponents of this process – the national-religious sector – to develop an extra-military avenue for upward mobility in the form of the settlement enterprise in the Occupied Territories. The third stage (1980s–90s) was characterized by the denationalization of Israeli politics with the Oslo Accords at its center, during which the national-religious sector increased its strongholds in the military by leveraging new opportunities created by the partial retreat of secular groups from the military as an avenue of upward social mobility. The fruits of this move were felt in the fourth stage (2000s), when the religionization of the military occurred in tandem with, and was bolstered by, the religionization of politics.