Soldiers as Public Officials: A Moral Justification for Combatant Immunity

How can we make moral sense of the international humanitarian law doctrine of combatant immunity? The doctrine is morally shocking to many: It holds soldiers on both sides of a war immune from criminal prosecution for their otherwise criminal acts of killing, maiming, destroying property, etc., carried out as part of their country's war effort. That is, soldiers who kill as part of an attack benefit from the immunity just as much as those defending their country. Traditionally, just war theorists have tried to provide situation‐specific arguments to show that soldiers on both sides had a good moral justification for their actions. Recently, self‐styled “revisionist just war theorists” have suggested that the doctrine of combatant immunity is just a convention designed to minimize harm. In this article, I suggest that the moral foundation of the doctrine lies in the status of soldiers as public officials in the service of their country. The reason why we hold them immune from prosecution for their war‐making acts is that such acts are properly thought of as acts of a state, rather than as acts of a particular individual. And the reason why states are immune from prosecution for their acts is one of moral standing: No other state has the moral standing to tell another how to carry out the matters that define its jurisdiction. So as long as a country deems (however implausibly) that it must use force to defend itself from aggression, then it may do what is required to defend itself. No other state has the standing to prohibit such acts or to punish those who carry them out. This argument is rooted in an understanding of how individuals may interact as free and equal under law. It does not aim at the perfection of human action, but it does serve to eliminate the worst forms of tyranny.     

Comparison of UK and China's nuclear force developments

Introduction In many ways, the UK and China could not be more different.Not only are they geographically on opposite sides of the world.They also have profoundly different recent histories. The central roles played by collective security and liberalised trade in the post-1945 order have made relative power less important than it was in previous eras.And the UK has taken full advantage of these opportunities, building new partnerships to ensure its security and prosperity despite the decline in its relative status.     

A Social Democratic Future? Political and Institutional Hurdles in Scotland

The Nordic model has long been admired in Scotland, and has featured prominently in aspects of the Scottish independence referendum debate. This article explores the difficulties in instituting a similar system here, identifying two significant barriers: the institutional setting (the powers available to Scottish politicians) and the partisan nature of competition between the two parties that might be able to deliver upon such a commitment. It concludes that the prospects of moving towards a Nordic‐style social investment model are slight, given the political, institutional and attitudinal barriers in place.     

Thoughts on Juvenile Justice Systems and Research

This article updates comments published in this journal in 1994 about the nature of the American juvenile justice system, which laid out reasons that it might not serve as a useful model for other nations. Since that time, the US system has moved further right towards the justice model and away from the welfare model. Individualistic philosophies and political conservatism have combined to produce a more adult-like and punitive juvenile system, applied to increasing numbers of minors and to increasingly younger minors. Successful demonstrations of community absorption or treatment have been too few to balance the rightward direction. European scholars are urged to undertake increased studies in two critical areas: (1) the nature, functions, and comparative differences in their juvenile justice systems, and (2) the nature of local communities and their contributions to patterns of delinquency.     

A Comparison of Logistic Regression,Classification and Regression Tree,and Neural Networks Models in Predicting Violent Re-Offending

Previous studies that have compared logistic regression (LR), classification and regression tree (CART), and neural networks (NNs) models for their predictive validity have shown inconsistent results in demonstrating superiority of any one model. The three models were tested in a prospective sample of 1225 UK male prisoners followed up for a mean of 3.31 years after release. Items in a widely-used risk assessment instrument (the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20, or HCR-20) were used as predictors and violent reconvictions as outcome. Multi-validation procedure was used to reduce sampling error in reporting the predictive accuracy. The low base rate was controlled by using different measures in the three models to minimize prediction error and achieve a more balanced classification. Overall accuracy of the three models varied between 0.59 and 0.67, with an overall AUC range of 0.65–0.72. Although the performance of NNs was slightly better than that of LR and CART models, it did not demonstrate a significant improvement.     

HUMAN TISSUE LEGISLATION AND MEDICAL PRACTICE: A BENEFIT OR A BURDEN?

The scandals surrounding organ removal and retention throughout the United Kingdom provoked several Inquiries and ultimately led to law reform. Although the medical professions were well represented at the Inquiries, little was heard of the voices of those at the 'coal face'. In this scoping study, funded by the Wellcome Trust, we interviewed a number of doctors and others engaged in the uses of human tissue and organs to explore their hopes, concerns and fears about the role of the law in their practices. We found that those involved in transplantation were more aware of, and more actively involve with, the law, whereas others, such as pathologists, had less direct engagement with the law. Most of those we interviewed expressed the hope that law reform would provide much-needed clarity. Although some expressed concern that the law might be over-intrusive, most felt that the placing of authority firmly in the hands of the person him or her self to decide what should happen to their bodies was to be welcomed.     

Alberta's and Ontario's liquor boards: Why such divergent outcomes?

Abstract: The provinces of Alberta and Ontario have chosen very different methods to distribute alcoholic beverages: Alberta privatized the Alberta Liquor Control Board (ALCB) in 1993 and established a private market to sell beverage alcohol, while Ontario, in stark contrast, opted to retain and expand the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO). This article examines the reasons for the divergent policy choices made by Ralph Klein and Mike Harris' Conservative governments in each province. The article draws on John Kingdon's “multiple streams decision-making model,” to examine the mindsets of the key decision-makers, as well as “historical institutionalism,” to organize the pertinent structural, historical and institutional variables that shaped the milieu in which decision-makers acted. Unique, province-specific political cultures, histories, institutional configurations (including the relative influence of a number of powerful actors), as well as the fact that the two liquor control boards were on opposing trajectories towards their ultimate fates, help to explain the different decisions made by each government. Endogenous preference construction in this sector, furthermore, implies that each system is able to satisfy all relevant stakeholders, including consumers.