The Common Law and the Forms of Reasoning

The purpose of this article is to examine how various forms of reasoning both can and should be used to decide cases in the common law tradition. I start by separating positive questions about what the law is from normative questions about what the law ought to be. Next, I present a Peircean account of three main forms of reasoning – deduction, induction and abduction – and examine how they can be used by judges to decide cases in the common law. Finally, I argue that the three forms of reasoning can be used to answer both kinds of questions, but in different ways. All three forms of reasoning can be used to answer questions of positive law, while questions of normative law present a special case that may require the use of aesthetic judgments of taste in the formation of a legal hypothesis.     

Choosing Sides in the Horn of Africa: Wikileaks,the Ethiopia Imperative,and American Responses to Post-9/11 Regional Conflicts

The United States has faced at times the policy dilemma of seeing conflict erupt between two countries with which it maintains friendly diplomatic relations. The bureaucratic biases of relevant agencies can play an important role in determining whether to choose sides or remain neutral in these conflicts. In the early 1960s the Africa Bureau adopted a pro-Ethiopia bias that shaped American policy in the Horn of Africa. With the insights provided by the 2010 Wikileaks cables, this analysis explores how the “Ethiopia imperative” affected three inter-related American policy decisions in the Horn of Africa in the early twenty-first century: the decision to support Ethiopia despite its refusal to abide by a legally binding decision that favoured Eritrea following the 1998–2000 Eritrea–Ethiopia border war; to give Ethiopia what amounted to a “blank cheque” to invade Somalia in December 2006 and overthrow the Council of Islamic Courts (CIC); and to confront and isolate Eritrea diplomatically for waging proxy war against Ethiopia in Somalia.     

Asserting EU cohesion: Common foreign and security policy and the relaunch of Europe

The end of the Cold War and its fall‐out throughout the 1990s have created an atmosphere of pessimism about the prospects for the continued development of the integrative structures and processes of the European Union. Exclusionary criteria for monetary union and insufficient democratic institutional structures coupled with a neo‐realist critique of the integrationist project seem to have taken their toll. However, in the historical context of European integration, trade‐offs between the imperatives of deepening cooperation among the member‐states, and widening the community by including new members is, in fact, the norm. Thus, the problems inherent in the drive towards monetary union contain the seeds of cooperation in other areas. Specifically, the European Union will come to emphasize second‐pillar issues of foreign and defense policy both as a method to extend the integrative process in a functional manner, but also to attend to the vital supernational interests of community members.     

What gets done and why: Implementing the recommendations of public inquiries

Abstract: Public inquiries are often the instrument of choice when governments decide to re‐think their approach to large issues, yet there has been little empirical research on how effective they are. This article is an evidence‐based look at what affects the implementation of recommendations made by public inquiries. It considers eleven inquiries, examining how they operated, their political and administrative setting, and what action was taken on the recommendations. The central hypothesis is that governments do implement the recommendations of public inquiries under certain conditions. Such implementation extends not only to technical, incremental recommendations but also to recommendations involving systemic changes. The findings point to the role of judges who head and preside over inquiries as policy influencers. Often buffered by inquiry counsel or policy staff, judges may test potential recommendations with governments and other interested parties. The impact of inquiry hearings suggests that public inquiries do not necessarily serve a government's wishes to delay action. If inquiry hearings are the top item in the news, it is hard to see how that furthers a government agenda to bury the issues. Sommaire: Les enquêtes publiques sont souvent l'instrument de choix auquel ont recours les gouvernements lorsqu'ils décident de repenser leur manière d'envisager les grandes questions, or peu de recherches empiriques ont été entreprises pour déterminer de leur efficacité. Le présent article est un examen fondé sur les données probantes de ce qui influe sur la mise en œuvre des recommandations résultant d'enquêtes publiques. Il passe en revue onze enquêtes publiques, examinant comment elles ont fonctionné, quel était leur cadre politique et administratif, et quelles mesures ont été prises à propos des recommandations. L'hypothèse principale est que les gouvernements mettent effectivement en œuvre les recommandations des enquêtes publiques dans certaines conditions. Une telle mise en œuvre couvre non seulement les recommandations techniques croissantes, mais aussi les recommandations concernant les changements systémiques. Les résultats attirent l'attention sur le rôle joué par les juges qui dirigent les enquêtes par l'influence qu'ils exercent sur les politiques. Les juges, souvent utilisés comme tampons par les avocats des enquête publiques ou le personnel chargé des politiques, peuvent tester les recommandations potentielles auprès des gouvernements et autres parties intéressées. L'impact des audiences des enquêtes publiques laisse entendre que les audiences publiques ne servent pas nécessairement à retarder les mesures à prendre comme pourrait le souhaiter le gouvernement. Si les audiences d'une enquête publique font la une des médias, il est difficile de voir comment un programme gouvernemental peut progresser en étouffant les questions.     

Innovation in the U.S. Service Sector

This paper contributes to ard a better understanding of innovation in the service sector by focusing on the disparate nature of R&D in the U.S. service sector as learned through case studies of the U.S. telecommunications, financial services, systems integration services, and research and development testing services industries. Based on this understanding of the nature and scope of R&D therein, a new policy-oriented model of innovation specific to the service sector is posited. Also, policy recommendations are offered with regard to the public sector’s collection and interpretation of R&D data related to the service sector.