A Response to Jeremy Waldron's Law and Disagreement

This article offers a critical response to arguments developed by Jeremy Waldron on the subject of democracy and constitutional rights. In particular it responds to three claims made by Waldron: first, he claims contemporary Western societies are characterised by deep and intractable disagreement; second, collectively binding decisions should be reached by democratic means alone; and third constitutional devices, such as bills of rights, should be rejected because they act as constraints on democracy. I argue that Waldron is unable to argue for the primacy of democracy from the baseline of intractable disagreement that he posit. He implicitly relies upon a position of moral consensus to confirm the priority of democracy over alternative decision-making procedures. Further, the moral stance that Waldron takes towards democracy is based upon a Kantian theory of justice which is shared by liberal-constitutional theorists, such as Rawls and Dworkin, who advocate bills of rights. Finally, Waldron does not provide the arguments necessary to justify the rejection of bills of rights. Good reasons exist for tempering democratic procedures with constitutional devices. However, this conclusion is qualified. It depends upon counterfactual claims that can be resolved only by taking into account the specific institutional and cultural practices of particular political systems.     

Beyond Marx-Weber: A Diversified and International Approach to the State

Marx initiated the definition of the development of the modern state as a process of expropriation of powers. Weber took over this idea and added to it two more definitions of the state: as the holder of a monopoly of the means of violence and as an authority based on rational-legal legitimation. These three definitions of the state held up well until after the second world war. hut since then new developments require that they he modified. Total expropriation of all powers did not take place. Instead a fusion of state and society ensued. The monopoly of violence has not proved usable and legitimation no longer matters so much in ensuring obedience. Furthermore, politics has moved to a new global international system featuring a number of different types of state: autonomous, community. Client, satellite and independent states. The combination of these five types with the previously defined three factors of expropriation, militarization and legitimacy, constitutes a theoretical approach that can relate internal structural disposition to external global position of the state.     

Beyond Enforcement: Welcomeness,Local Law Enforcement,and Immigrants

Studies of local law enforcement actions toward immigrants show that while some cities engage in enforcement, many others do not. The extent and determinants of enforcement have been assessed, but these studies have not evaluated the full range of practices, including welcoming practices, toward immigrants. This article introduces the concept of “welcomeness,” develops a framework for measuring it, and, using a nationwide survey of local police departments, examines how widely departments are welcoming (or unwelcoming) to immigrants. The data show that many police departments have consciously and deliberately developed practices intended to foster positive relationships between the police and immigrants and to encourage immigrants to call the police for assistance.

Practitioner Points

• Welcomeness encompasses a range of practices toward immigrants that are often intentionally created, thoughtfully implemented, and found in a variety of communities.
• The dimensions of welcomeness provide a framework for police departments to assess their practices and provide a model for police departments that want to engage positively with immigrants.
• Welcoming practices may improve interactions between police officers and immigrants and may improve immigrants’ perceptions of local law enforcement.
• Welcoming police departments often have a deeper commitment to community policing.

     

"非直接利益冲突"的规律及制度性应对思考——对重庆万州事件、四川大竹事件、贵州瓮安事件的反思

非直接利益冲突已经成为当前执政与治理的极大难题。它表现出冲突双方强弱差距越大,参与可能性越大;强势方态度行为越强横,参与的速度越快;政府部门的处置不及时,参与的程度越深等规律。预防非直接利益冲突的发生发展,需要加快建设促进社会良性运行的基础法律制度,加速完善提高执政权威与效能的行政法律制度,健全社会力量整合与引导的社会法律制度。     

'Talking to Fishers': A Response to Kesteven

Geoffrey Kesteven's 'Talking to Fishers' appeared in the March 1996 issue of AJPA 55(1). Here, Nick Rayns takes issue with Dr Kesteven's observations on the South East Fishery Workshop, held at Bateman's Bay in September 1994. Dr Kesteven's rejoinder follows this response.     

论《行政许可法》对WTO规则的回应

WTO规则要求其成员方政府在货物贸易和服务贸易等领域实施行政许可时遵循公开、公平、公正、透明、效率等原则,而我国目前制定和实施的《中华人民共和国行政许可法》的基本原则和一系列便民措施及有关制度正回应了这些要求。     

A Systemic Approach to Security: Beyond the Tradeoff between Security and Liberty

The concept of security has shifted from territorial integrity to human security and, after 9/11, to pre-emptive security. Based on the massive implementation of surveillance-oriented security technologies (SOSTs), pre-emptive security emphasizes anticipation of threats and risk management. While liberty and security get framed as standing in a trade-off, SOSTs are massively deployed to increase security. Due to the mutually constitutive relationship between SOSTs and pre-emptive security, security gets framed as a function of surveillance, forcing increasingly monitored citizens to exchange liberty for security. In contrast, a systemic approach to security may enable security policies pursuing liberty and security.     

Defending the Articles of Conferation: A Response to Sobel

A fundamental mystery of the Articles of Confederation is why the statescontributed sizeable resources to the confederation government when theywere allegedly caught in a collective action problem. In a recent article,Russel Sobel denies the collective action problem and suggests that ourresearch on the incentive structure of the confederation contradicts theevidence. This note clarifies both of our arguments, introduces the typeof evidence that would determine whether national public goods weresub-optimally supplied, and explains why states contributed in a mannerthat is consistent with the evidence and with a deficient institutionaldesign.     

William Hurst,Ruling Before the Law: The Politics of Legal Regimes in China and Indonesia

Journal of Chinese Political Science -     

Cultural Pluralism: A Response to Seglow's Critique

I examine Seglow's critique (Politics 17(3) 1997) of my assessment of Parekh's theory of operative public values (Politics 16(3) 1996). This examination has four main stages: (a) the rejection of crucial aspects of Seglow's interpretation of my argument, (b) the rejection of his claim that my argument is logically committed to certain other specific positions which I do not support, (c) the rejection of his claim that I my argumentative strategies are misleading, (d) the consideration of possible similarities and disagreements between our respective positive positions on cultural pluralism.     

William Friedman's Bletchley park diary: A different view

‘William Friedman's Bletchley Park Diary’ (INS 20/4 (2005) pp. 654–69) stated that Friedman, with Col. Alfred McCormack and Lt.-Col. Telford Taylor (US Army Special Branch), visited Bletchley Park in mid-1943 to negotiate with the British Government Code and Cypher School on how the Travis–Strong Agreement of May 1943 on Sigint cooperation should be implemented. This article shows that they had no substantive negotiating powers, and that they were essentially on a fact-finding mission.