Numerous areas of skull base neurosurgery and interventional neuroradiology overlap. Interventional neuroradiology techniques can often be employed in combination with open skull base surgery to provide solutions to complex cerebrovascular and oncological problems. This chapter describes the indications for, and technical nuances of, combined microsurgical and endovascular treatment of cerebrovascular and skull base disease. In particular, three major disease states are discussed: intracranial aneurysms, arteriovenous malformations of the brain and dura, and skull base tumors.

LAW AND THE AMERICAN STATE, FROM THE REVOLUTION TO THE CIVIL WAR

General

There are few broad comparative studies that would allow us to better understand early American political development from a transnational or global perspective. One valuable overview is Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, Volume II: The Rise of Classes and Nation States (New York, 1993). One source for a concise account of the British case in the mid-nineteenth century is the chapter titled “The Nature of the State,” in K. Theodore Hoppen, The Mid- Victorian Generation, 1846–1886 (Oxford, 1998), 91–124. Especially in the United States, social scientists’ interest in the autonomous capacities of the state increased starting in the 1980s. This was evident in the essays collected in Peter Evans, Dietrich Reuschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, eds., Bringing the State Back In (New York, 1985). More recently, theorists have warned against attributing too much coherence and power to formal state organizations: see George Steinmetz, ed., State/Culture: State-Formation after the Cultural Turn (Ithaca, 1999) and Joel S. Migdal, State in Society: Studying How States and Societies Transform and Constitute One Another (New York, 2001). A stimulating discussion of the deficiencies of conventional notions of state power may be found in Peter Baldwin, “Beyond Weak and Strong: Rethinking the State in Comparative Policy History,” Journal of Policy History 17 (2005), 12–33.

LAW, COLONIZATION, LEGITIMATION AND THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND

The most recent comparative account of the British and other European colonizing projects in the Americas is J. H. Elliot, Empires of the Atlantic World Britain and Spain in America 1492–1830 (New Haven, 2006). See also Anthony Pagden, Lords of all the World. Ideologies of Empire in Britain, France and Spain, 1400–1800 (New Haven, 1995) and “The Struggle for Legitimacy and the Image of Empire in the Atlantic to c. 1700,” in Nicholas Canny ed., The Origins of Empire, The Oxford History of the British Empire (Oxford, 1998), vol. I, 34–54. David Armitage, The Ideological Origins of the British Empire (Cambridge, 2000) provides the most authoritative account of the objectives of the early empire. The articles collected in David Armitage, ed. Theories of Empire, 1450–1800 (Aldershot, UK, 1998) cover aspects of all the European claims to America. Klaus E. Knorr, British Colonial Theories 1570–1850 (Toronto, 1944) provides a still useful survey. See also Peter Miller, Defining the Common Good: Empire, Religion and Philosophy in Eighteenth-Century Britain. (Cambridge, 1994). For the notion of composite monarchies see J. H. Elliott, “A Europe of Composite Monarchies,” Past and Present 137 (1992), 48–71.

The rituals of possession employed by European settlers in America are discussed in Patricia Seed, Ceremonies of Possession in Europe’s Conquest of the New World, 1492–1640 (Cambridge, 1995). An earlier, but legally more sophisticated account is also to be found in Friedrich August von der Heydte, “Discovery, Symbolic Annexation and Virtual Effectiveness in International Law,” American Journal of International Law 29 (1935), 448–71. One of the most extensive accounts of the early English claims to sovereignty in North America is still John Thomas Juricek, English Claims in North America to 1660: A Study in Legal and Constitutional History, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1970, pp. 512, 669–71, which is unfortunately unpublished and is likely to remain so.

LAW AND THE STATE, 1920–2000

I borrow the concept of a political regime from Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek, “Regimes and Regime Building in American Government,” Political Science Quarterly 113 (1998–99), 689–702 and my understanding of state capacity and state autonomy from Daniel P. Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy (Princeton, NJ, 2001).

William J. Novak, The People’s Welfare (Chapel Hill, NC, 1996); Morton Keller, Affairs of State (Cambridge, MA, 1977); and Stephen Skowronek, Building a New American State (New York, 1982) are essential readings on the nineteenth-century origins of administration in the United States. Thomas K. McCraw, “Regulation in America: A Review Essay,” Business History Review 49 (1975), 159–83 and Robert L. Rabin, “Federal Regulation in Historical Perspective,” Stanford Law Review 38 (1986): 1189–326 provide valuable overviews of command-and-control regulation in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Morton Keller’s Regulating a New Economy (Cambridge, MA, 1990) and Regulating a New Society (Cambridge, MA, 1994) are indispensable guides to the American state from 1900 to 1933. Barry D. Karl, The Uneasy State (Chicago, 1983), an interpretive synthesis for the years 1915 to 1945, emphasizes the continuing force of localism in the twentieth-century state. John Teaford, The Rise of the States (Baltimore, 2002) is an excellent study of state governments from the 1890s through the 1980s.