A COMMENT ON WILLIAM J. HOWE AND HUGH MCISAAC'S ARTICLE “FINDING THE BALANCE” PUBLISHED IN THE JANUARY 2008 ISSUE OF FAMILY COURT REVIEW

This article is a response to an article written by William Howe and Hugh McIsaac that questions their recommendations that court‐based mediation not be used when certain types of persons appear in court. We assert that it will be very difficult for the court to identify these people. Further, we argue that mediation practice has advanced so far that even these persons (those with serious issues of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health) should be given an opportunity to participate in mediation before being referred to the adversarial court process.     

The new outlawry and Foucault’s Panoptic nightmare

Michel Foucault seized upon Bentham’s “Panopticon” prison design as a metaphor to illustrate the mechanisms of social control in post-industrial society. In our recent rush to invent alternatives to incarceration, we have created a new and burgeoning class of outlaws, persons for whom privacy is not a legally cognizable right. Combined with Supreme Court decisions finding surveillance of even innocent citizens to be constitutionally benign, our well-intentioned efforts to reduce prison populations are close to bringing Foucault’s metaphor to literal reality.     

Foreign Policy Analysis: British and American Orientations and Methodologies

This paper is concerned with examining the extent to which there is a geographical divide in the academic study of foreign policy analysis. Accepting that there are diverse approaches to that study in the academic communities of the United States and the United Kingdom, this paper argues that it is possible to distinguish between two ideal-types, each exemplified in one of the two communities. This paper outlines these–an American approach based on a desire to construct general theories of foreign policy behaviour, and a British approach which stresses the need for casestudies and eschews the possibility of general theory. The reasons for the development of these two approaches are then discussed, linking the study of foreign policy to the wider political arena, and the general academic orientation of the two countries. Finally, it assesses the possibility of arriving at a synthesis of the two approaches.