Multiculturalism and the Willingness of Citizens to Defer to Law and to Legal Authorities

A key problem in trying to manage diverse societies is finding social policies that will be acceptable to all individuals and groups. Studies suggest that this problem may not be as intractable as is often believed, since people's acceptance of policies is shaped to an important degree by the fairness of the procedures used by authorities to make policy. When policies are fairly made, they gain widespread support, even among those who may feel that the consequences of the policy for them or their group are undesirable or even unfair. These findings support an optimistic view of the ability of authorities to manage diverse societies. On the other hand, research suggests that the ability of procedural justice to bridge differences among individuals and groups may not be equally strong under all conditions. People's willingness to accept policies is more influenced by procedural justice judgments when they identify with the society that the authorities represent and view them as representing a group of which they are members. They are less influenced by procedural justice judgments when they identify more strongly with subgroups than with society and/or view the authorities as representatives of a group to which they do not belong.     

Procedural fairness and work group responses to performance evaluation systems

In a variety of settings, procedures that permit predecision input by those affected by the decision in question have been found to have positive effects on fairness judgments, independent of the favorability of the decision. Two major models of the psychology of procedural justice make contrary predictions about whether repeated negative outcomes attenuate such input effects. If such attenuation occurs, it would lessen the applicability of procedural justice findings to some real-world settings, such as organizations, where procedures often provide repeated negative outcomes. The present laboratory investigation examined the procedural and distributive fairness justments produced by high- and low-input performance evaluation procedures under conditions of repeated negative outcomes. Thirty-five three-person groups of male undergraduates participated in a three-round competition. Groups either were or were not allowed to specify the relative weights to be given to two criteria used in evaluating their performance. All groups received negative outcomes on each of the three rounds. A second experimental factor varied whether or not the group learned after losing the second round that it could not possibly win the third and final round of the competition. Measures of procedural and distributive fairness showed that the high-input procedure led to judgments of greater procedural and distributive fairness across all three rounds. The input-based enhancement of fairness occurred regardless of whether reward was possible. The implications of these findings for theories of procedural justice and for applications of procedural justice to organizational settings are discussed.     

Advisory committees at FDA: the Hinchey Amendment and "conflict of interest" waivers

In approving the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Fiscal Year 2007 budget, the House approved an amendment that would prevent the agency from using appropriated funds to waive certain conflicts of interest identified by members of its advisory committees. The amendment, introduced by Representative Hinchey and known as the Hinchey Amendment, provides that no funds may be used to: waive a conflict of interest under Section 505(n)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) for any voting member of an FDA advisory committee or panel; or make a certification under Section 208(b)(3) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code for any such voting member. This creates a problem, as ties to industry create the very expertise that FDA values in its outside advisors-under the Hinchey Amendment, these very ties would prevent them from serving as advisors to FDA during the drug approval process. The author opposes this change in the law and argues that the Hinchey Amendment would undermine congressional efforts in 1962 and 1989 to carefully balance the goals of attracting qualified experts and protecting agency decisionmaking. Further, the author argues, this change is unnecessary at FDA, because experts on FDA advisory committees divulge their connections to the industry, because the committees offer only advice and do not make agency decisions, and because the agency is under the watchful eye of Congress, the public, and public interest groups. The Article concludes that although FDA's advisory committee conflict-of-interest process can be improved, congressional action is unnecessary, and a change in the law through amendment to an appropriations bill that does not go through the ordinary legislative process (as an amendment to the FDCA or Title 18 would) is inappropriate. Instead, recommendations from organizations studying FDA practice, such as the OIG, GAO, and IOM, should be used to carefully and reflectively amend the process at the agency level, within the existing statutory framework.     

Administrative Review in a System of Conflicting Values

An issue of continuing debate in the legal and social science literature is how best to control and validate the exercise of essentially legislative powers by administrative agencies. This study examines one mechanism of control, administrative de novo review of agency decisionmaking. It explores how this device functions in immigration bail administration, a system where there is a broad and vague delegation of detention and bail powers to government oficials in an area of law where there is no set of preferences as to how conflicting policy claims are to be weighed in decisionmaking. The study shows a system in turmoil. The de novo review body–the immigration court-frequently and substantially modifies the Immigration Service's initial bail decisions. Because there is no agreement on the norms to guide decisionmaking, these changes have little effect on ongoing agency activity and policies. Pronounced interagency conflict and extreme decisional disparity persist given limited institutional and political arrangements for dealing with this dissensus. The study explores in detail the institutional cultures and conflicting legal and social values that shape the practice and patterns of de novo review in this field of law and discusses the implications of such conflict for the full functioning of this external review device.     

Is outcome fairness used to make procedural fairness judgments when procedural information is inaccessible?

In a study of relocation decisions at seven different sites, procedural fairness was shown to be more sensitive to outcome fairness when respondents had less time to gather information about decision procedures. We interpret this finding to show that inaccessibility of information about decision procedures moderates the influence of outcome fairness judgments on procedural fairness judgments, such that outcome recipients rely more heavily on outcome fairness as a basis for forming procedural fairness judgments when information about decision procedures is not available. A second, laboratory study is reported that confirms the information inaccessibility explanation in the first study. When procedural information is available, procedural characteristics may be the primary bases for procedural fairness judgments, but when such information is unavailable, procedural fairness will likely be more sensitive to self-interest concerns. Future research should therefore take contextual factors such as accessibility to procedural information into account, given that there are likely to be differences on that dimension between organizational settings on the one hand and legal, political, and dispute resolution settings on the other. Information about decision procedures, generally accessible in legal, political, and dispute resolution settings, is often much less accessible in organizations.     

Adjudicating Executive Privilege: Federal Administrative Agencies and Deliberative Process Privilege Claims in U.S. District Courts

Government transparency is a key component of democratic accountability. The U.S. Congress and the president have created multiple legislative avenues to facilitate executive branch transparency with the public. However, when the executive branch withholds requested information from the public, the federal judiciary has the power to determine whether agencies must release documents and information to requestors. When enforcing standards of executive branch transparency, judges must balance concerns of executive autonomy and judicial intrusion into administrative decisionmaking. While much judicial scholarship focuses on the decisionmaking on high courts, in the U.S. context, federal district courts play a key role in adjudicating transparency disputes. In this article, I examine case outcomes in disputes involving agency claims of deliberative process privilege over internal agency documents litigated between 1994 and 2004. I find that U.S. federal district courts largely defer to administrative agencies in transparency disputes. However, factors such as agency structure and the congruence between judicial and administrative agency policy preferences influence whether federal judges require executive branch officials to release requested information.     

Of Crude Tools,Paddle Brooms and Tempting Mules with Stones: Blumm's Sacrificing the Salmon

On the Columbia, help for the salmon in the courts is … thrice stunted. Litigators try to push balky agencies into marginal change by asking rigid formalists to pull procedural strings. All works by indirection. The fish can be helped only through the crude tool of an agency. It is like trying to paddle with a broom. The agency can be moved only with the fine threads of procedure. It is like trying to pull a barge with a rope. The procedures will issue only if the judge is so disposed. It is like trying to tempt a mule with a stone.     

Procedural Rationality and Regulatory Decision-Making: A Decision Framework Approach

This paper presents the methodology and some preliminary findings from an ongoing study of the procedural rationality of regulatory decisionmaking in the occupational health arena. The author employs the concept of procedural rationality in the sense used by Herbert Simon to refer to the logic of decision-making as it is shaped by institutional constraints. Of particular interest here is the impact of provisions for the involvement of affected interests in and public scrutiny of the regulatory process. The methodology presented involves a charting of the "decision frameworks" adopted by participants in the process at various stages. The methodology is illustrated through its application to the particular case of the development of a regulation governing occupational exposure to inorganic lead in the Canadian province of Ontario.     

Ethnic identity and attitudes toward the police among African American juvenile offenders

Although there is a knowledge base regarding theoretical and empirical research on attitudes toward the police, this line of research has not fully examined the sources of such attitudes, and in particular the extent to which attitudes toward the police are influenced by ethnic identity. The present study examined the role of ethnic identity in African American adolescent offenders' perceptions of general police discrimination, direct police contact, procedural justice, and police legitimacy. Analyses showed that youth with a stronger sense of ethnic identity perceived more police discrimination but reported more positive beliefs about police legitimacy. The findings underscore the importance of considering processes that may make legal socialization experiences more salient for adolescents, and demonstrate the complex role that ethnic identity plays in relation to discrimination.     

Medical devices; reports of corrections and removals--FDA. Direct final rule

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations that govern reports of corrections and removals of medical devices to eliminate the requirement for distributors to make such reports. The amendments are being made to implement provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA). FDA is publishing these amendments in accordance with its direct final rule procedures. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing a companion proposed rule under FDA's usual procedures for notice and comment to provide a procedural framework to finalize the rule in the event the agency receives any significant adverse comment and withdraws the direct final rule.     

Procedural Fairness,Blame Attributions,and Presidential Leadership

The removal of the President of the United States from office is a rare and significant event. This study investigated the influence of procedural fairness and blame attributions on punishment and support attitudes during the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton. This study assessed the influence of the procedural fairness of Clinton's behavior, procedural fairness of the Kenneth Starr/Congress investigation, satisfaction with Clinton policies, and blame attributions on punishment attitudes (i.e., whether Clinton should be removed from office) and support attitudes (i.e., whether individuals would vote for Clinton if an election were held today). Both the procedural fairness of Starr/Congress and procedural fairness of Clinton' behavior significantly influenced punishment and support attitudes. Procedural fairness of Clinton had indirect effects on punishment attitudes (through perceived blame of Clinton) and direct effects on support attitudes. Procedural fairness of Starr/Congress had direct effects on both punishment and support attitudes.     

受欺诈行政行为的违法性和法律责任——以行政机关为视角

本文在简要梳理了法院对受欺诈行政行为的审查后,以行政机关为视角,认为基于相对人欺诈而实施的行政行为具有违法性,但判断导致这种违法性的过错标准应当是法律上对义务的配置,因而行政行为的违法与行政机关的过错并不完全一致;受欺诈行政行为引发的法律责任的确定必须以主观过错和客观违法为要件而不能仅仅以客观违法为要件。本文以此为基础,主张在我国进行四个方面的法制改革,即确立无效行政行为制度,改革仅以违法为构成要件的行政赔偿制度和不以主观过错为要件的行政执法责任制,完善实施授益行政行为的事前和事后程序制度。     

Attitudes towards police use of consumer/private DNA databases in investigations

Consumer DNA products, such as databases that allow the public to explore familial relationships, have recently been used by police to assist in investigations. This has moved the collection of DNA used in criminal investigations away from the limitations of criminal databases and has opened up ethical concerns regarding privacy and consent. This study explored public attitudes and support towards police use of consumer DNA databases in investigations to assess whether different crime types or moral and attitude alignments influenced the level of public support of police using these consumer products. An international survey of 438 adults, using theory and scales pertaining specifically to retributive punishment and attitudes towards law, courts and police, found that moral alignment and attitudes did influence the level of public acceptability towards police usage of these techniques and that support did vary based on crime type. This research found that higher levels of public support was given for the most serious case types explored (sexual assault and homicide). Participant support for police access to private DNA databases by case type was as follows; 83.5% for sexual assault, 83.2% for homicide, 85.2% for identifying unidentified human remains, 62.8% for robbery and 58.9% for illicit drug related cases. Small to medium effects sizes were observed for these results. Although these findings provided context towards public attitudes, further research specific to international attitude differences and variance between serious crime types and public acceptability could further develop these findings.     

The Role of Societal Benefits and Fairness Concerns Among Decision Makers and Decision Recipients

Four experiments examined the role of costs and benefits versus procedural and distributive justice for procedural fairness and procedural evaluations among decision makers and decision recipients. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the responses of actual judges in a 2 (high versus low benefit) x 2 (search procedure conducted respectfully versus disrespectfully) randomized factorial. In both studies judges evaluated procedures differently than is typical among samples of decision recipients: outcome concerns strongly influenced both procedural evaluations and procedural fairness while procedural concerns such as voice and respect were minimally influential. Whereas fairness concerns continued to be important among these decision makers, outcome fairness was more influential than procedural fairness. Studies 3 and 4 varied role (authority versus subordinate), procedural respect, and societal benefits. Both experiments supported our predictions that procedural criteria would dominate the procedural evaluations of subordinates whereas outcome concerns such as societal benefits would dominate the procedural evaluations of authorities.     

Quality mammography standards. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service (PHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Direct final rule

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations governing mammography. The amendments are intended to incorporate changes required by the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act (MQSRA). Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing a companion proposed rule under FDA's usual procedures for notice and comment to provide a procedural framework to finalize the rule in the event that the agency withdraws the direct final rule.     

Medical devices; medical device reporting; baseline reports. Direct final rule

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its medical device reporting regulations to remove a requirement for baseline reports that the agency deems no longer necessary. Currently, manufacturers provide baseline reports to FDA that include the FDA product code and the premarket approval or premarket notification number. Because most of the information in these baseline reports is also submitted to FDA in individual adverse event reports, FDA is removing the requirement for baseline reports. The removal of this requirement will eliminate unnecessary duplication and reduce the manufacturer's reporting burden. FDA is amending the regulation in accordance with its direct final rule procedures. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we are publishing a companion proposed rule under FDA's usual procedures for notice and comment to provide a procedural framework to finalize the rule in the event we receive a significant adverse comment and withdraw this direct final rule.     

当代伊斯兰国家诉讼法律制度的特征

伊斯兰诉讼法律制度是伊斯兰法系的重要组成部分 ,由于受特殊历史条件的影响 ,众多伊斯兰国家既保留了长期以来形成的以《古兰经》、《圣训》等宗教法为根本的诉讼模式 ,又借鉴和移植了原宗主国的诉讼法模式 ,不仅包括大陆法系诉讼模式和普通法系诉讼模式 ,同时还吸收了一些社会主义国家的诉讼法的原则和制度 ,如调解制度 ,于是当代伊斯兰国家诉讼模式呈现多元化特色。尽管伊斯兰各国民族独立以后 ,相继制定了各自的诉讼法典 ,组建了各自的司法机构 ,但无论格式体例还是具体内容或司法实践大多与原宗主国的诉讼法制关系密切 ,诉讼立法西方化明显。诚然 ,民族的自尊心 ,源远流长的伊斯兰教法律文化传统以及相对落后的社会生产力 ,决定了其诉讼制度的运作大多带有浓厚的本土化风格。这样 ,随着 2 1世纪世界变革的冲击波 ,已使堡垒最为坚固的伊斯兰法迈向自我改革的里程 ,多元化、西方化、本土化与复兴伊斯兰诉讼法的趋向构成当代伊斯兰诉讼法律制度发展的主流。在改革中 ,大多数伊斯兰国家选择的是折衷主义 :使现实的伊斯兰法既不与西方世俗法体系完全挂钩 ,也不与传统的宗教制度彻底决裂 ,而是跟随物质文明发展与维护信仰不变方面达成了妥协和统一     

Lawyers,Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the U.S. Supreme Court?

A good deal of scholarly evidence suggests that the decisionmaking of the U.S. Supreme Court is affected by legal argument. At the same time, it seems clear that in a great many cases the justices have enduring, strongly held views. In such cases, they should be impervious to the effects of advocacy. When are the justices apt to be influenced by the Court's legal community, and when will lawyers be less relevant? The answer, we think, has to do with the salience of the issue before the Court. We suspect that in nonsalient cases the justices have less‐intense preferences and therefore are open to the persuasion of lawyers. In salient cases, by contrast, the content of legal policy matters much more to the justices. As a result, they are less amenable to legal argument and adhere more strictly to their personal policy preferences. Our empirical tests support this orientation.     

Youth participation and agency in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

This article examines the participation and agency of young non-state actors (NSAs) in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It utilizes the constituency of Youth NGOs: YOUNGO, as a case study to examine the relationship between selection of participatory strategies, power sources (following Nasiritousi et al. in Int Environ Agreem Politics Law Econ 16(1):109–126, 2016), recognition and agency using ego and alter perceptions. It finds that young people’s selection of participatory strategies and power sources is shaped by the level of agency which they perceive to be available to them. When self-perception of agency is high, young participants offer constructive policy amendments which can lead to recognition and agency, though only within certain policy areas and the silos in which they are negotiated. When self-perception of agency is low, youth interpret this as lack of recognition, leading to efforts to assert their relevance and/or to challenge procedural legitimacy: neither of which are well received by decision-makers. In reality, several of the challenges faced by young participants are not structurally unique to their constituency; however, their lack of financial resources does hinder their ability to fully utilize modes of participation which previous studies have found to be beneficial to other NSAs, such as side-events. Financial constraints also restrict the ability of youth participants, many of whom are volunteers, to develop professional relationships with key actors over time, meaning that the level of agency developed by more established, better-resourced NSAs remains largely out of reach. These findings have implications for the understanding of NSA agency, which has previously been treated as homogeneous and raises further questions regarding procedural legitimacy of the UNFCCC and its role in mobilizing and empowering the next generation.