Please join us in congratulating Anna Grzymala-Busse, the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Professor of International Studies in the Department of Political Science, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and the Director of the Europe Center, winner of the American Political Science Review's 2025 Heinz I. Eulau Award. The award honors the best articles published during the previous calendar year in American Political Science Review (APSA) and Perspectives on Politics. Dr. Eulau served as the president of APSA from 1971 to 1972, and this award was established to honor his contributions to the discipline.

In her award-winning article, “Tilly Goes to Church: The Religious and Medieval Roots of European State Fragmentation,” Professor Grzymala-Busse challenges traditional views of how European states formed, demonstrating how the medieval Catholic Church deliberately maintained divided political power to protect its influence.

The Award Committee shared the following on her article and selection:

Anna Grzymala-Busse’s “Tilly Goes to Church: The Religious and Medieval Roots of European State Fragmentation” challenges paradigmatic understandings of state development, according to which centralizing European states overcame fragmentation in the early modern era by consolidating strong states through warfare. Critics of this bellicist account have noted several empirical challenges: namely, the fragmentation of Europe was in fact highly persistent; concomitant institutions such as taxation and courts, which were supposedly consequents of mobilization for conflict, arose prior to warfare; and war did not lead uniformly to state consolidation.

In this paper, Gzrymala-Busse proposes a new explanation for these discordant patterns. She focuses on a critical but often ignored actor: the Catholic Church. Fragmentation, she argues, was a direct and intended consequence of concerted papal effort, especially starting in the 11th century, to weaken the authority of those rulers the Church saw as a threat to its autonomy.  Thus, where states became relatively consolidated, including medieval England, France, and Spain, this was due to alliances between secular rulers and popes; while fragmentation was a function of Church-secular conflict, as in especially the Holy Roman Empire. Where states consolidated, institutions such as courts, parliaments and administrations arose often in mimicry of the Church, and appeared substantially earlier than required by early modern warfare.

The paper leverages rich argumentation and information drawn from a wealth of secondary sources, as well as original data on state boundaries, the timing of institutional innovations, the presences of proxy wars funded by popes, and indicators of secular conflict to test the association between papal conflict and fragmentation. It adds up to a compelling account, underscoring not only of the drawbacks for the paradigmatic understanding of European state development but also providing a novel and convincing empirical explanation for patterns of state consolidation and fragmentation.

"Tilly Goes to Church" was also awarded the Best Article Prize by the Comparative Politics section of the American Political Science Association in June 2024. You can read the full article here.

Congratulations, Professor Grzymala-Busse, on this high honor!

The Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law proudly congratulates its 2025 graduating class of honors students on their outstanding original research conducted under CDDRL's Fisher Family Honors Program. Among those graduating is Charles Sheiner, an International Relations major, who has won a Firestone Medal for his research on the electoral impact of Biden-era spending programs. Additionally, two students were selected as recipients of the CDDRL Outstanding Thesis Award. Adrian Feinberg, an International Relations major who is also minoring in History, Film & Media Studies, was honored for his research revealing how postwar Yugoslavia utilized the justice system to build state power and suppress dissent. Adelaide Madary, a Political Science major, was honored for her research exploring how local leadership shapes the responses of rural Calabrian communities to immigration, fostering hospitality in some towns and resistance in others.

On April 17, 2025, Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), alongside The Europe Center and the Hoover Institution, hosted a seminar entitled “The Russo-Ukraine War: Peace for Our Time?” featuring Syracuse University Professor of Political Science Brian Taylor. The seminar examined the state of the war, the prospects for peace, and the political dynamics shaping both Ukrainian resistance and Russian aggression. Taylor emphasized that, despite mounting casualties and economic costs, peace remains unlikely in the foreseeable future due to the ideological rigidity and strategic goals of Vladimir Putin’s regime.

Putin’s own speeches, notably from February 2022 and June 2024, underscore his belief that Ukraine lacks legitimate statehood and is a ‘Western puppet.’ He accuses Kyiv of fostering “neanderthal nationalism” and allowing NATO to develop Ukraine as a military outpost. These views culminated in his June 2024 and April 2025 peace proposals, which demand complete Ukrainian military withdrawal from occupied regions, recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, and Ukraine’s permanent neutrality, demilitarization, and “denazification.” These demands remain wholly unacceptable to Ukraine, where President Zelensky has repeatedly asserted that ceding territory violates the constitution and would betray over a million Ukrainian citizens still living in unoccupied portions of the contested areas.

The seminar highlighted three core issues blocking peace: territorial integrity, security guarantees, and domestic political sovereignty. Ukraine insists on reclaiming all occupied land and seeks NATO membership or bilateral security commitments from Western powers. Meanwhile, Russia demands not only territorial concessions but also structural constraints on Ukraine’s military capabilities and internal laws. The Kremlin's calls for “denazification” include repealing post-2014 legislation on language and historical memory — proposals Ukraine sees as direct infringements on its sovereignty.

Territorially, the stakes are high. Ukraine holds parts of Kherson, Donetsk, and Zaporizhzhia, and is unwilling to legitimize Russian claims. International law supports Ukraine’s position: the UN Charter, Budapest Memorandum, and several treaties confirm Russia’s previous recognition of Ukrainian borders. The war, as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg described, is the largest attempted annexation in Europe since World War II — a recolonization effort with severe implications for the international order.

On the battlefield, the war shows no signs of abating. Russian casualties exceeded 400,000 in 2024 alone, yet recruitment incentives and resource reserves remain robust. Some analysts argue that Putin is ideologically committed and politically insulated, making him indifferent to the war’s costs. Ceasefire discussions, while briefly floated in early 2025, have faltered amid escalating demands.

Taylor also explored the U.S. political context. President Donald Trump’s shifting rhetoric — from claiming he could end the war in 24 hours to hedging that he would “like to get it settled” — reflects uncertainty about future American policy. According to Russian sources, Putin believes he can manipulate Trump to secure favorable terms.

Ultimately, Taylor concluded that both sides see more advantage in fighting than in negotiating. The war is deeply rooted in Putin’s imperial ambition and ideological confrontation, not just geopolitics. Without dramatic shifts in leadership or battlefield fortunes, peace will remain elusive.

A full recording of Professor Taylor's seminar can be viewed below:

On February 26, the Visiting Fellows in Israel Studies program at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) was pleased to host Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat for a talk on his new book, The Art of Diplomacy. Eizenstat’s distinguished career in Washington, spanning five decades, included his work as a former ambassador to the European Union and as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. He spoke with Stanford faculty and students about the importance of diplomacy and the dangers of isolationism. Drawing from personal experience and examples from close colleagues such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, Eizenstat identified the attributes and strategies necessary for diplomacy. Leaders engaged in diplomacy require “unsympathetic empathy,” courage, and intellect. They must know the other side’s history and culture, come to negotiations prepared, and possess stamina — both mental and physical — for months-long or years-long negotiations.

Eizenstat shared how his connection to Israel has inspired some of his teaching. He described how Jimmy Carter’s incremental progress and knowledge of his fellow negotiators allowed him to drive the Camp David Accords. In his stories about the Oslo Accords, he also highlighted the utility of back channels in negotiations.

Outlining the role of leverage in diplomacy, Eizenstat noted that whereas positive leverage involves giving the other side what they want, negative leverage includes actions such as sanctions and military support. He argued that sanctions are ineffective in the current era and that military force should come as a last resort. Offering analyses of the War in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, the Gulf War, and the war in Gaza, Eizenstat described successful and unsuccessful uses of war in diplomacy. If resorting to war, leaders must prioritize national interests, stay equipped to change their plans, have good intelligence, understand local alliances and advantages, and establish post-war strategies.

During the question and answers portion of the seminar, Eizenstat spoke about deterrence, credibility, and strategic decision-making in international conflicts, referencing Obama's red line in Syria, Kennedy’s Cuban Missile Crisis strategy, and the current situation in Ukraine. He also emphasized the roles public opinion and public pressure play in diplomacy, noting that they are far more powerful in democracies.

You can listen to the audio of Ambassador Eizenstat's presentation below:

McGill University Professor of Political Science Juliet Johnson unpacked how central banks use their own museums to support the ‘stability narrative’ and promote confidence in financial institutions. She discussed her research in a recent REDS seminar co-sponsored by CDDRL and The Europe Center.

Central banks may be unique among government bureaucracies because of their investment in their own museums. Central banks focus on public outreach because monetary systems depend on collective belief in the value of money, as it is one of the most essential social contracts upon which modern society is built.

Museums can be effective instruments for improving faith in money and financial institutions. Visitors are unusually receptive to learning from museums because museums are often viewed as neutral, trusted guides. The number of central bank museums has increased significantly over the last two decades, and some get many visitors yearly. The Museum Bank Indonesia has an impressive 10,781 Google reviews and a 4.7-star rating.

The nearly 60 central bank museums that focus on economic education (in addition to numismatics and/or art) promote what Johnson calls the stability narrative, which is that central banks can maintain the value and security of money, represent the nation, and have become progressively more effective over time.

Through interactive exhibits and games, these museums aim to teach visitors that the central bank is needed to fight the evils of inflation. For example, the Bank of Finland museum has a display that features a green inflation monster to convey this sentiment. They use the exhibits to emphasize how people can be personally affected by inflation and, in many cases, to explain why maintaining a 2% inflation rate is ideal for protecting the value of money.

Central banks convey a sense of security to visitors through exhibits about detecting counterfeit money, regulating banks, and displaying their wealth, such as with gold bars. They tie their work to national pride through art displays about national heroes depicted on currency and by relating their work to prominent historical events. Through visual timelines, they convey how central bankers have learned from past mistakes and solved problems, making them more equipped to continue ensuring the stability of our financial system.

The rise of central bank museums exhibits the importance of improving public confidence in money and the financial institutions that control it, legitimizing an essential aspect of our society.