Policing terrorism in India

Policing terrorism in India is fraught with difficulty. India is a large, heterogeneous democracy that is surrounded by countries experiencing their own intense problems with terrorism. The legal structure, inherited from the colonial past, is struggling to cope with the demands placed upon it by a country of 1.1 billion. India is a federation and this also complicates the structures needed for counter-terrorism. Despite the democratic framework, policing in India is largely an inheritance from the non-democratic colonial past—a past that paid scant regard to the doctrine of separation of powers. Given these problems, India’s performance in policing terrorism has been mixed. We should not look for any early resolution of the problem of terrorism, either through preventive investigation or political amelioration of the issues that contribute to terrorism. But for all of that, India has done well to adhere to its basic democratic norms in the face of what is, by Western standards, a major terrorism problem.     

Justice, at last, in the archetypical patent entitlement dispute

The Court of Appeal has held that Cinpres was not estopped fromsucceeding in its entitlement claim, despite having failed inan earlier claim concerning the related application, and isthe rightful owner of a disputed European patent.     

ADHD among incarcerated youth: An investigation on the congruency with ADHD prevalence and correlates among the general population

The limited literature on the topic speculates that the rate of ADHD would be higher among incarcerated youth than found in the general population. However, to our knowledge no such published figures exist for juveniles in the United States. This study investigates the likelihood of ADHD diagnosis among 453 incarcerated youth and compares and contrasts a variety of demographic, social, educational, psychological, and criminal characteristics to the general literature on ADHD. Both similarities and differences are reported. This project was supported by Grant #99-RT-VX-K020 awarded by the National Institute of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. An early version of the paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Science in Chicago, Illinois.     

Guarding against Nanotort Liabilities

Recent headlines comparing the health risks of nanotechnology to those of asbestos have appeared in newspapers throughout the country and on the Internet. Governmental agencies and standard-setting organizations have begun considering and actually adopting requirements to protect against such purported risks. The plaintiffs’ bar and potential plaintiffs have surely taken note. There is every reason to believe that the era of mass tort and class actions related to nanotechnology—“nanotorts” for short—is rapidly approaching. This article examines what nanotort claims might look like, the role that regulations and industry practices may play in such lawsuits, potential defenses to those claims, and what nanotech companies can do now to guard against future nanotort liabilities.     

Connecting models of the individual and policy change processes: a research agenda

Policy Sciences - This article proposes that closer attention to models of the individual provides substantial theoretical and empirical leverage to policy studies scholars. Capturing the nuances...     

Accountability Standards for Nonprofit Organizations: Do Organizations Benefit from Certification Programs?

Stakeholders are demanding nonprofit organizations (NPOs) continually improve and work effectively in an ever-changing environment. While there are many ways to approach this operational challenge, this paper examines the impact of acquiring an accountability certification, specifically the Standards for Excellence® Certification. Using a sample of 102 NPOs that have received the Standards for Excellence certification, we find that the certification is associated with increases in public support relative to a control group that did not receive the certification. These results suggest that some stakeholders favorably respond to the certification process, and NPOs can realize tangible benefits from becoming certified.     

Keeping discourses separate: explaining the non-alignment of climate politics and human rights norms by small island states in United Nations climate negotiations

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) encompasses more than 40 low-lying and island developing states that are among the most vulnerable but also most vocal parties in international climate negotiations. Over the years AOSIS's strategies comprised of the building of scientific expertise, and leadership by example, but also a particular framing that puts emphasis on multilateral processes to deal with issues of common concern and established principles of the international community. The initial assumption of the paper is that a frame alignment of climate change and human rights concerns would strengthen the coalition's moral and legal arguments. However, as a frame analysis of close to 50 coalition submissions and statements reveals, such a linkage is not established. The paper concludes by outlining three possible explanatory factors for this observation: the nature of the issue area, the character of the coalition and the professional background of AOSIS negotiators.