Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Law

The article outlines a simple thesis: that international investmentarbitration – pursuant to regional and bilateral investmenttreaties – offers the clearest example of global administrativelaw, strictly construed, yet to have emerged. We present thisthesis by explicating four key features of investment treaties:they permit investor claims against the state without exhaustinglocal remedies; they allow claims for damages; they allow investorsto directly seek enforcement of awards before domestic courts;and they facilitate forum-shopping. Our argument is that, owingto this unique conjunction of features, the regulatory conductof states is, to an unusual extent, subject to control throughcompulsory international adjudication. Having highlighted thesefeatures, we then claim that investment arbitration is bestanalogized to domestic administrative law rather than to internationalcommercial arbitration, especially since investment arbitrationengages disputes arising from the exercise of public authorityby the state as opposed to private acts of the state. Further,we claim that the linkages between investment arbitration anddomestic legal systems are more direct and more closely integratedthan other forms of international adjudication in the publicsphere. For these reasons, we argue that the emerging regimeof investment arbitration is to be understood as constitutingan important and powerful manifestation of global administrativelaw.     

On Extremism in our Time

Extremism—in attitudes and actions—appears to be expanding. What makes one prone to extremism? Umberto Eco’s The Prague Cemetery, a narrative built on diary entries of the man who forged the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, exposes the two-self nature of extremists. It also exposes the two-self nature of the Narrator, who imposes coherence on the diary entries. This essay peels off the layers of images that allow extremists of all kind to appear other than they truly are.     

Two conceptual approaches to Latin American social movements from the perspective of activists and scholars: A review essay

Steve Ellner is the director of the Center for Administrative and Economic Research of the Universidad de Oriente, Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela. He is the author ofOrganized Labor in Venezuela, 1958–1991: Behavior and Concerns in a Democratic Setting (Scholarly Resources) and coeditor ofThe Latin American Left: From the Fall of Allende to Perestroika (Westview Press), both published in 1993.     

Effects of notetaking on verdicts and evidence processing in a civil trial

Examined the effect of notetaking on juror decision making and cognitive processing of evidence in a complex tort trial. Jury eligible participants either took notes during the trial and had access to those notes during decision making, took notes without access, or did not take notes. Those who took notes during the trial performed more competently than did nonnotetakers. Notetakers made correct distinctions in assigning liability and compensatory awards among four differentially worthy plaintiffs and recalled significantly more probative evidence than nonnotetakers. The almost identical performance of the notes-access group and the notes without access group suggests that notetaking had its impact at the encoding stage rather than at retrieval. We discuss possible motivational differences that may account for the results and constraints on generalizing the findings.This research was supported by National Science Foundation under grant No. SBR 9311922 awarded to Irwin A. Horowitz.     

Bread and roses: Justice and the distribution of financial and socioemotional rewards in organizations

Two studies tested the hypothesis that organizational decision makers attempt to counterbalance contribution-based distributions of financial/material rewards (a “merit” system that creates monetary inequality) with need- and equality-based allocations of socioemotional rewards, in effect allocating “roses” in lieu of more “bread”. Experiment 1 had a two-factor design (Reward Type × Magnitude of Income Inequality); 67 subjects were given a managerial in-basket exercise in which they expressed their preferences for a variety of distributive justice rules for seven different types of rewards. Experiment 2 (N=39) had the same design, with a stronger manipulation of magnitude of inequality. Results of the two experiments were consistent with the counterbalancing hypothesis, irrespective of magnitude of income inequality; financially related rewards (e.g., profit sharing, office space, company cars) were distributed with more emphasis on contribution rules (i.e., performance, status), while more socioemotional rewards (e.g., help for an employee's spouse, friendliness) were allocated with more emphasis on equality among individuals, equality across groups, and personal need.     

Execution publicity and homicide in Georgia

A requisite of both general deterrence and brutalization theories of capital punishment is citizen awareness of executions. Yet this dimension is frequently left unmeasured in the literature on executions and homicide. Further, the current literature utilizes nationwide data, which introduces aggregation bias. The present study deals with these issues, testing the brutalization theory with data on publicized executions in the state of Georgia. Monthly data are used in order to capture any short-term brutalization effect. The results of a multivariate time-series model find that a publicized execution is associated with an increase of 2.6 homicides, or 6.8%, in the month of the publicized execution. Publicized executions were associated with an increase of 55 homicides during the time period analyzed. The results provide no support for the deterrence, victim mobilization, and normative validation perspectives on homicide. The findings can be interpreted, however, from several different varieties of brutalization theory.