Comparing Juvenile Justice Systems: Towards a Qualitative Research Project in East Asia

This paper contrasts the assumptions and methods used by quantitative criminologists with the approach to comparison pursued by the interpretive tradition in sociology. Whereas quantitative studies tend to conceal distinctive legislative or institutional responses in particular countries, interpretive studies make it possible to address internal debates about policy issues, as well as how practitioners exercise professional judgement. The paper considers a variety of ways in which the interpretive traditions of symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology have approached comparison. It also considers the conceptual and practical issues that might arise in conducting a qualitative comparative study about juvenile justice within East Asia focusing on Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Whereas quantitative studies tend to ask questions that interest Western researchers, interpretivism makes possible a dialogue between countries that have different institutions, philosophies and cultures.     

Antigovernment Networks in Civil Conflicts: How Network Structures Affect Conflictual Behavior

In this article, we combine a game‐theoretic treatment of public goods provision in networks with a statistical network analysis to show that fragmented opposition network structures lead to an increase in conflictual actions. Current literature concentrates on the dyadic relationship between the government and potential challengers. We shift the focus toward exploring how network structures affect the strategic behavior of political actors. We derive and examine testable hypotheses and use latent space analysis to infer actors’ positions vis‐à‐vis each other in the network. Network structure is examined and used to test our hypotheses with data on conflicts in Thailand from 2001 to 2010. We show the influential role of network structure in generating conflictual behavior.     

Two Cheers for Richards and Smith: Beyond Anti‐Politics?

In a recent issue of The Political Quarterly, Richards and Smith critiqued Flinders’ work on anti‐politics, suggesting that there needs to be much more focus on supply‐side explanations and recognising that much of the problem lies with politicians, contra Flinders. Here, we argue instead that it is crucial to recognise how supply‐side and demand side explanations interact. For us, politicians need to be more responsive to citizens, but, at the same time, citizens need to recognise problems of contemporary governing. Overall, much is changing in the way in which citizens engage and it is crucial that these changes are understood.     

Transparenzgebot,Privatautonomie und Auslegung

Nach der in dieser Zeitschrift jüngst vorgetragenen These P. Bydlinskis ist eine AGB-Klausel, der mit Hilfe der Auslegung gem § 914 ABGB ein eindeutiger Inhalt beigelegt werden kann, zumindest tendenziell nicht "unklar oder unverst?ndlich" iSd § 6 Abs 3 KSchG. Dem sei im Folgenden widersprochen. Dabei soll die Gelegenheit genützt werden, gegen eine verbreitete – oft auch nur latent vorhandene – Auffassung aufzutreten, die im Transparenzgebot einen unangemessenen Eingriff in die Grunds?tze privatautonomer Rechtsgestaltung zu sehen glaubt. Im Weiteren wird dargelegt, dass das wohlverstandene Transparenzgebot mit dem klassischen Verst?ndnis von Privatautonomie und subjektiver Richtigkeitsgew?hr nicht in Widerspruch steht, sondern sich vielmehr friktionsfrei in dessen Konzept einfügt.