All the world is a stage: global governance,human resources,and the ‘problem’ of smallness

Abstract

The involvement of small island states (SISs) in a growing number of international organisations (IOs) has placed increased pressure on domestic bureaucracies and political systems. Rapid turnover among SIS leaders, combined with generational change and decreased local support, has amplified disadvantages. Growing complexity has therefore further exposed the long-standing vulnerabilities of SISs. They can play a creative role at the margins, and on certain issues in certain IOs, but in general asymmetries prevail. The lesson is that national sovereignty does not always equal control, and what might superficially appear to be equal access is constrained by the availability of technical expertise to the detriment of SISs.     

Who governs? Delegations and delegates in global trade lawmaking

Who governs in the international organizations (IOs) that promulgate global norms on trade and commercial law? Using a new analytic approach, this paper focuses on previously invisible attributes of a global legislature – the state and non‐state delegations and delegates that create universal norms for international trade and commercial law through the most prominent trade law legislature, the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Based on ten years of fieldwork, extensive interviews, and unique data on delegation and delegate attendance and participation in UNCITRAL's Working Group on Insolvency, we find that the inner core of global trade lawmakers at UNCITRAL represent a tiny and unrepresentative subset of state and non‐state actors. This disjunction between UNCITRAL's public face, which accords with a global norm of democratic governance, and its private face, where dominant states and private interests prevail, raises fundamental questions about legitimacy and efficacy of representation in global lawmaking.     

Incomplete Democratization and the Outbreak of Military Disputes

Whereas most research on the democratic peace has focused on relations within pairs of states, research on the relationship between democratization and armed conflict has centered primarily on the behavior of individual states. Moreover, the existing literature has placed primary emphasis on explaining the effects of democratization on war, rather than military disputes more generally. In this article, we find that certain types of democratic transitions markedly increase the risk of such disputes within dyads, even when economic and political relations between states are taken into account. Particularly prone to violence are dyads in which either state undergoes an incomplete democratic transition; that is, a shift from an autocratic to a partially democratic (or anocratic) regime that stalls prior to the establishment of consolidated democratic institutions.     

The Supreme Court and Police Practices: The Last Two Terms

The 2003–2004 term of the Supreme Court was noteworthy because it decided a relatively large number of cases dealing with police practices, many of which were of special significance. The next two terms (2004–2005 and 2005–2006 terms) were not quite as noteworthy, but still the Court decided eight police practices cases, dealing with such important issues as the detention of the residents of a home while executing a search warrant, the use of canine sniffs during a traffic stop, the validity of anticipatory search warrants, and the validity of third party consent to search when another person with authority to consent is present and objects to the search. These two terms do not provide enough cases to permit a confident prediction about the approach that the two new members of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, are likely to take in police practices cases. However, their positions in the cases discussed in this article suggest that both will take positions in support of the police in these cases.     

The Nature and Prevalence of Familicide in the United States, 2000–2009

Familicide refers to the killing of multiple family members, most commonly the homicide of an intimate partner and at least one child. This study examines the prevalence of familicide in the United States. Second, it explores the relationship between the prevalence of familicide and the prevalence of financial problems in the United States by making use of Supplementary Homicide Reports data and newspaper reports. In the period of 2000–2009, familicide involving an intimate partner and child(ren) occurred approximately 23 times per year. The majority of the perpetrators were male, who committed the offense with a firearm. Familicides involving an intimate partner and child(ren) with financial motives alone occurred 4 to 5 times per year. The results showed that the association between familicide and financial problems is not a straightforward one. Even though correlational analyses suggest a relationship between the two, the prevalence of familicide motivated by financial problems was unrelated to periods of financial downfall. Directions for future research are discussed.