On studying world order: A plea for systematic inquiry

Conclusion The creation of improved systems of world order requires great care. Alternative configurations may or may not prove more suitable, and each must be painstakingly examined on its own merits. For those of us who are actively concerned with studying about world order, this means the application of a far more rigorous conception of inquiry to our subject. So long as we cannot accept the Leibnizian claim that this is certainly the best of all possible worlds, our search for better ones must certainly be the best of all possible searches. This means that models of world order must be derived from appropriate hypotheses and subjected to the strictures of systematic analysis. World order studies must be treated in accordance with the strict canons of inquiry outlined in this essay. Only then can they begin to develop the highly generalized system of theory that characterizes any science.     

Correction to: The Public Power of Judgement: Reasonableness Versus Rationality—Setting the Ball Rolling

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique - In the original publication of the article, the paragraph beginning “We begin with two...     

Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of Private International Law

Netherlands International Law Review -     

Dangerousness of civil commitment candidates

This study followed a large, statewide sample of civil commitment candidates both in and out of the hospital for 6 months following their postcourt hearings to determine their postcourt dangerousness. It objectively measures dangerousness by dividing it into five legal components of behavior: (1) type, (2) object, (3) frequency, (4) weapon/means, and (5) severity of outcome. Using data from ward charts, readmission evaluations, recommitment affidavits, and arrest and community mental health center records, it describes candidates' dangerousness in terms of those, five components and compares that dangerousness with the alleged dangerous behavior that brought them into the civil commitment process. It finds that candidates do not tend to be dangerous in the 6 months following their court hearings.