The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out?

Despite the need to assess the ecological validity of jury simulation research before generalizing from simulations to the behavior of real jurors, surprisingly little jury research has directly addressed issues of validity. The present paper reviews the extant research on two aspects of the validity question—specifically, research that has compared different samples of mock jurors, and research that has manipulated the medium of trial presentation. In addition, jury simulation research published in the first 20 years of Law and Human Behavior is analyzed with respect to these variables. The majority of simulations used student-jurors and presented the trial in written form. Additionally, the methodology of simulation research has actually become less realistic over time. However, this trend is not necessarily cause for concern, as a review of the literature reveals little research that has obtained differences between different mock juror samples or different trial media.     

Is Israel Still an Occupying Power in Gaza?

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip came under Israeli occupation in 1967. Both territories had been under constant Israeli control since then, until Israel decided to withdraw its land forces and settlements from the Strip in 2005. Whereas the occupied status of the West Bank still remains uncontested, the status of Gaza after the disengagement is less clear. This article addresses the question whether the Gaza Strip can still be considered to be occupied after the 2005 disengagement. In order to formulate an answer to this question, the article will first outline the different elements needed to trigger occupation. It will then show that, even though the majority argues that the Gaza Strip is still occupied, the effective control test at the core of the law of occupation is no longer met and hence Gaza is no longer occupied. Given that Israel nevertheless continues to exercise some degree of control over Gaza and its population, the absence of occupation does not mean the absence of accountability. This responsibility is however not founded on the law of occupation but on general international humanitarian law, potentially complemented by international human rights law.

     

Is the Magic Still There? The Use of the Heckman Two-Step Correction for Selection Bias in Criminology

Issues of selection bias pervade criminological research. Despite their ubiquity, considerable confusion surrounds various approaches for addressing sample selection. The most common approach for dealing with selection bias in criminology remains Heckman’s [(1976) Ann Econ Social Measure 5:475–492] two-step correction. This technique has often been misapplied in criminological research. This paper highlights some common problems with its application, including its use with dichotomous dependent variables, difficulties with calculating the hazard rate, misestimated standard error estimates, and collinearity between the correction term and other regressors in the substantive model of interest. We also discuss the fundamental importance of exclusion restrictions, or theoretically determined variables that affect selection but not the substantive problem of interest. Standard statistical software can readily address some of these common errors, but the real problem with selection bias is substantive, not technical. Any correction for selection bias requires that the researcher understand the source and magnitude of the bias. To illustrate this, we apply a diagnostic technique by Stolzenberg and Relles [(1997) Am Sociol Rev 62:494–507] to help develop intuition about selection bias in the context of criminal sentencing research. Our investigation suggests that while Heckman’s two-step correction can be an appropriate technique for addressing this bias, it is not a magic solution to the problem. Thoughtful consideration is therefore needed before employing this common but overused technique.

Is the medicine right?

Is asking the Better Regulation Agenda (BRA) to answer the same preconditions it requires for any regulatory action a proper treatment? Does any assessment of the agenda necessarily imply a thorough definition of the costs and the benefits deriving from its application or is it enough to provide a few key insights to perform it? Is the BRA really so ideological, deriving from “a liberal analytical framework that considers no regulation/state intervention” as the preferred option? Is regulatory quality an issue that “cannot realistically be solved”? Does the principle of subsidiarity as a policy objective need some revision? Several questions come to mind when reading a very thought‐provoking article that is very critical of the BRA but that in the end recognises some of its main qualities.     

Is the Torrens System German?

Recently support has grown for the view that the Torrens system of lands titles registration, which has now spread to numerous jurisdictions throughout the world, was actually not Torrens's work at all, but a copy of a German system passed off by him as his own production. This article reviews the evidence, much of which is here discussed for the first time, and concludes that that view is incorrect. Torrens is entitled to the credit for conceiving the principles of the system; for drafting the bill to give effect to them (with the help of a circle of critical reviewers); and for convincing the public and politicians to support it.     

Is the Japanese diet consensual?

The institutional design of the Japanese Diet is commonly believed to necessitate interparty accommodation and to make the legislative process more ‘viscous’ than it appears. This common belief about the Diet is challenged by examining the Constitution, the Diet Law, the House Rules, and parliamentary practices with special attention to agenda setting procedures. It is argued that the ‘unanimity norm’ is less binding than commonly recognised. By applying the criteria proposed by Döring, this paper compares the Diet with western European parliaments, and shows that it ranks relatively high in terms of the ruling majority's ability to control the legislative agenda. Although the post‐war Diet is modelled on the legislative process in the US Congress, it is critically important to keep in mind that the constitutional principle of the Diet follows the fusion of power in the British parliament. The picture that emerges from the analysis is in strong contrast to the traditional image of the Japanese Diet and sheds new light on the majoritarian foundation of the Diet.     

The ICC -- Quo Vadis?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has had to face manyobjective difficulties in its initial stage. The self-referralsby Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) pose problems.As for Uganda, the unsealing of the indictments is an achievementfor the Court; however, the rhetorical conflict between thereferring government and the ICC, the continued insecurity innorthern Uganda and the fact that the accused commanders arenot in the custody of the Ugandan authorities highlight thedependence of the ICC on the cooperation of national governments.As for the DRC, the transfer to The Hague of one of the indictees,Lubanga, is significant. Supporters of the ICC hope that thistrial will help to ease many doubts about the direction of theCourt, as the Tadi case was able to do for the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The SecurityCouncil referral of Darfur is a mixed blessing, on a numberof grounds. However, the posture of Sudanese authorities andthe worsening of the situation in Darfur and eastern Chad clearlyindicate that the ICC does not yet have a deterrence capability.     

Is the general data protection regulation the solution?

Never has a text been received with so many requests for amendments; never has the debate around it been so huge. Some see it as a simple duplicate of the Directive 95/46; others present the GDPR, as a monster. In the context of this birthday, it cannot be a question of analyzing this text or of launching new ideas, but simply of raising two questions. I state the first as follows: "In the end, what are the major features that cross and justify this regulation? In addition, the second: "Is the regulation adequate for today's digital challenges to our societies and freedoms? The answers given in the following lines express the opinion of their author. It is just an invitation for a dialogue to go forth in this journal where so many excellent reflections have been published on Digital Law, thanks to our common friend: Steve.     

Is the consumer directive advantageous for the consumers?

According to the EU Consumer Protection Directive a purchaser has the right to ask for either repair or replacement of a defect product, whereas before in some member countries only one of these remedies were available. It seems to be taken for granted in the Directive and in Green Papers that such a reform is an advantage to the consumers. An analysis of a case at the Supreme Court of Norway demonstrates that the opposite might be true. It will be argued that both purchasers and vendors will be better off if the Directive is interpreted in accordance with economic theory. Harmonization of consumer protection across EU countries might be counterproductive. The analysis is of general interest in the sense that it demonstrates that mandatory changes in rights and obligations among contracting parties may have distributive effects different from what is commonly assumed.     

When Is a Country Multinational? Problems with Statistical and Subjective Approaches*

Many authors have argued that we should make a clear conceptual distinction between mononational and multinational states. Yet the number of empirical examples they refer to is rather limited. France or Germany are usually seen as mononational, whereas Belgium, Canada, Spain and the UK are considered multinational. How should we classify other cases? Here we can distinguish between (at least) two approaches in the literature: statistical (i.e., whether significant national minorities live within a larger state and, especially, whether they claim self‐government) and subjective (i.e., when citizens feel allegiance to sub‐state national identities). Neither of them, however, helps us to resolve the problem. Is Italy multinational (because it contains a German‐speaking minority)? Is Germany really mononational (in spite of the official recognition of the Danes and the Sorbs in some Länder)? On the other hand, is Switzerland the “most multinational country” (Kymlicka)? Let us assume that there is no definite answer to this dilemma and that it is all a matter of degree. There are probably few (if any) clearly mononational states and few (if any) clearly multinational states. Should we abandon this distinction in favour of other concepts like “plurinationalism” (Keating), “nations‐within‐nations” (Miller), “postnational state” (Abizadeh, Habermas), or “post‐sovereign state” (MacCormick)? The article discusses these issues and, in conclusion, addresses the problem of stability and shared identity “plural” societies.