A Desultory Defense of Democracy: OAS Resolution 1080 and the Inter-American Democratic Charter

This article evaluates the effectiveness of OAS mechanisms for safeguarding democracy through multilateral diplomacy, what some scholars have dubbed the interamerican defense of democracy regime. Drawing on a range of international relations theories, this study derives competing hypotheses about member states' responses to democratic crises in the Americas. It then analyzes all instances in which a collective response—that is, an application of Resolution 1080 or the Inter-American Democratic Charter—was debated in the OAS between 1991 and 2002. Patterns of state behavior suggest that domestic politics, rather than the structural or systemic traits of the interamerican system, best explain foreign policy responses to crises of democracy in the region. The OAS record in confronting such crises is uneven.     

Using the state to change society: The example of ‘domestic violence’

North American research on the policing of ‘domestic violence’ has been very influential among policy makers in Great Britain. In particular, research which purports to verify the deterrence value of arrest has prompted the establishment of over thirty domestic violence units in London and similar initiatives elsewhere in Britain. The paper will outline the nature of the traditional police response to ‘family violence’ in London and the nature of the experimental innovations. Changes in police practice with regard to this type of violence will be put in the context of the organizational constraints and possibilities of policing. Finally, changing police responses to domestic violence will be evaluated in terms of the debate over the possibility of using the state or its organs to achieve social change.     

GRANDPARENT VISITATION RIGHTS

In recent years, legislators in all fifty states have given grandparents rights to petition for visitation privileges with grandchildren that can be enforced over parental objections. Grandparent visitation rights reflect an effort to protect meaningful relationships children enjoy with nonparental caregivers, enlist the assistance of extended family when the child's nuclear family is disrupted, and defend the interests of grandparents themselves. This psycholegal analysis explores the direct and indirect consequences of grandparent visitation statutes for family functioning. Statutory provisions are summarized, and the effects of these statutes are evaluated in light of what is known about the role of grandparents in child development, how courts evaluate children's "best interests" in grandparent visitation disputes, and how these statutes can alter family functioning in informal ways. The authors conclude that there are risks as well as benefits to children and families in grandparent visitation statutes, and suggest directions for procedural and statutory reform.     

The judicial role in life-sustaining medical treatment decisions.

Although there has been speculation regarding the pervasiveness and nature of judicial decisions regarding life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT), no attempt has been made to empirically assess their prevalence or the issues they address. An exploratory study utilizing a mail survey of a nationwide random sample (N = 905) of state trial court judges was conducted to provide initial information regarding this decision-making process. Twenty-two percent of the responding judges had heard at least one LSMT case, and judicial review did not appear endemic to particular states. The number of judges hearing LSMT cases dropped from 1975 to 1981 but has increased since then. Three major issues predominate: patient competency, appointment of a surrogate decisionmaker, and resolution of the ultimate issue of forgoing LSMT. Relatively few cases either contested a prior directive's validity or involved imposing sanctions for instituting or forgoing LSMT. Although subject to different interpretations, the results suggest the courts are having a significant impact on certain aspects of the LSMT decision-making process. However, the infrequency with which any one judge is called upon to make an LSMT decision causes concern about the judiciary's ability to respond in a timely and appropriate manner. With their potential for a profound effect on the actions of health care providers, greater attention to this decision-making process is warranted.