Evidence for the role of the justice motive in status generalization processes

Status generalization refers to the capacity of status characteristics, such as race, gender, or occupation, to become the basis of social inequality even when such characteristics are not directly relevant to the immediate social interaction. For instance, individuals with positively valued status characteristics are more likely to assume positions of power and prestige than those of lower standing. To date, status generalization has been assumed to arise from stereotyped beliefs that associate positive standing on a status characteristic with positively valued personal attributes. Findings from two studies indicate that the capacity for status characteristics to produce power and prestige orders may also depend on people's need to believe in a just world. In the first study, participants were fortuitously granted a position of either superior or equal power and prestige to another person. Consistent with just world predictions, participants portrayed themselves more positively relative to the other on assessments of personal attributes when they occupied a superior position than when they occupied a position of equal power and prestige. Results from a second study showed that the tendency to link personal attributes with power and prestige standing was strongest for participants who scored high on the Just World Scale. Thus, just world beliefs appear to play a role in status generalization processes.     

The Canadian charter and the protection of international human rights

B.A., University of Alberta 1960; LL.B., University of Alberta 1961; LL.M., University of California at Berkeley 1963.     

Transnational Models for Regulation of Nanotechnology

Like all technologies, nanotechnology will inevitably present risks, whether they result from unintentional effects of otherwise beneficial applications, or from the malevolent misuse of technology. Increasingly, risks from new and emerging technologies are being regulated at the international level, although governments and private experts are only beginning to consider the appropriate international responses to nanotechnology. In this paper, we explore both the potential risks posed by nanotechnology and potential regulatory frameworks that law may impose. In so doing, we also explore the various rationales for international regulation including the potential for cross-boundary harms, sharing of regulatory expertise and resources, controlling protectionism and trade conflicts, avoiding a "race to the bottom" in which governments seek economic advantage through lax regulation, and limiting the "nano divide" between North and South. Finally, we examine some models for international regulation and offer tentative thoughts on the prospects for each.