Transnational Capital,the US State and Latin American Trade Agreements

This paper examines the role of US-based transnational corporations in advancing trade, investment, regulatory and intellectual property rights provisions within NAFTA and DR–CAFTA. I explore the linkages between US firms, the US state and investment patterns in Mexico, Central America and the Dominican Republic in order to develop a framework for understanding the political economy of these regional trade agreements. I locate the timing of each of these agreements within the context of the goals of a transnational interest bloc that includes US-based transnational firms, US state officials and regional business interests and state bureaucracies in Latin America, with each trying to utilise regional agreements as a substitute for failed multilateral initiatives as well as a springboard for advancing a more aggressive set of protections for investors within bilateral investment treaties. In order to determine the extent to which transnational firms based in the USA have influenced these trade agreements, I explore three interrelated aspects of business influence: the extent to which transnational firms with investment interests in Mexico and Central America were involved in organisations that had regular access to key US policy makers; the historical development of a transnational interest bloc that has linked US firms and the US state to transnational capital and state bureaucracies in Mexico, Central America and the Dominican Republic; and the extent to which the same group of transnational firms has been attempting without success to advance a policy agenda in the WTO that incorporates many of the provisions of NAFTA and DR–CAFTA. The failure of this transnational interest bloc to effect substantial changes in WTO policies has led the bloc to rely on regional trade agreements to pursue its interests.     

Alternative patterns of welfare state development: The case of public assistance in the Netherlands

Among the numerous studies of the development of welfare states, less attention has been paid to the smaller European democracies. In an attempt to address this problem, this article investigates the development of public assistance programmes in the Netherlands. The historical record shows that the development of the Dutch public assistance programme has been more contentious than the development of similar programmes in other countries. An explanation for political controversy surrounding Dutch public assistance focuses on the manifestation of corporatism in a policy area that involved private charity organisations, rather than labour and capital interests. The incorporation of private charities permitted them to slow state encroachment on their activities. Implications of the case for the study of corporatism in other countries are discussed.     

Defendant and Victim Sex,Sexism, and Decision Making in an Ambiguous Assault Case

The aim of the present study was to better understand how the sex of a defendant and of a victim in an ambiguous assault case impact juror verdicts and perceptions of the defendant. Juror sexist attitudes and the impact of these beliefs on decision making were also investigated. Mock jurors completed a measure of sexist attitudes and read a brief summary of an assault case in which the sexes of the defendant and victim were manipulated. Participants then rendered a verdict and provided sentencing recommendations. Mock jurors recommended the harshest sentence for the male defendant who assaulted a female victim. However, the female defendant, regardless of victim sex, was perceived as more psychopathic. Results are discussed in terms of the selective chivalry theory of sexism.     

Delfi AS v Estonia: The Liability of Secondary Internet Publishers for Violation of Reputational Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights

In October 2013, the European Court of Human Rights in Delfi AS v Estonia upheld a decision of the Estonian Supreme Court to impose liability on the owners of an internet news portal for defamatory comments which had been posted on their website by anonymous third parties. This note suggests that the decision is important in the context of publications with a ‘public interest’ element to them, because it appears to afford more protection to the right to reputation (deriving from the Article 8 right to privacy) and less to freedom of expression than was formerly the case. It is further argued that the Court's emphasis on the positive obligation of states to protect this right to reputation may mean that the existing English law in this area, including, potentially section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013, is inconsistent with the ECHR jurisprudence.