Reading for Law and the State: Theaters of Problematization and Authority

Constructing a particular nation, that of early modern England, is seen here as a series of theatrical performances. Shakespeare’s work is taken as a series of thought experiments. Some, like The Merchant of Venice, are reassuring that threatening circumstances and innovatory social practices are capable of being overcome or assimilated from the unknown to the known. Some, like King Lear and Hamlet, ponder the consequences of a failure to discover a resolution. Some writers have argued that England was historically quite early in beginning to conceive of itself as a nation, rather than as a population of possibly heterogeneous regions subject to a dynasty, a state of affairs summarized in the by now clichéd remark attributed to the Sun King, “L’Etat, c’est moi”. For Shakespeare, if not for all of his contemporaries, the Englishman is a bit slow-witted, owing to his fondness for beef and red wine, but he is distinguishable from others and provides material for the second pieces of theater I look at. If there could be an Englishman, his experience with the absolutist pretensions of the Stuart monarchy allowed there to be a free-born Englishman (and, actually, Englishwoman). The two crucial battles of the English civil war, Marston Moor and Naseby, followed by the Army Debates of 1647–1649 form the stage for an at least aspiring egalitarianism we now know as the rights of man, or the rights of the civic person.

That Was Then, This Is Now, What About Tomorrow? Future Directions in State Crime Studies

Research and theorizing on state crime has come to play an important role in the fields of criminology and criminal justice for understanding the worst of crimes: those of powerful state agencies and agents. Since William Chambliss’ (1989) ASC presidential address, scholars of state crime have made advances in theoretical modeling and analyzing core enactment and etiological factors of crimes of the state (e.g., Barak 1991; Friedrichs 1998; Grabosky 1989; Kauzlarich and Kramer 1998; Kramer and Michalowski 2005; Kramer et al. 2005; Michalowski and Kramer 2006; Mullins and Rothe 2008a, b; Pearce 1976; Ross 1995, 2000; Rothe 2009; Rothe and Mullins 2006, 2008). Nonetheless, the study of state crime still has a long way to go before it ever reaches the magnitude or legitimacy afforded to the study of traditional street crime. It is with this in mind that several leading scholars of state criminality have come together and reevaluated the state of state crime and the ways in which the field must move forward. This kind of inventory, where scholars examine the past, present and future of the field, is not without precedent. For example, almost a decade ago (Ross et al. 1999) explored the difficulty of conducting state crime research and made a series of recommendations on how it could be improved. Nearly 7 years later (Rothe and Friedrichs 2006) re-evaluated the state of state crime and called for more attention to those beyond US crimes of the state and include crimes of globalization and also international controls such as the International Criminal Court (Friedrichs and Friedrichs 2007; Rothe and Mullins 2006; Rothe et al. 2006, 2008). Since that time, there has been substantial movement by scholars of state crime in these other areas, yet, as we note, there still remains key issues that need to be addressed and overcome: it is with this that we again revisit the field of state crime. We wish to thank all of those that contributed to our discussions and thoughts during the American Society of Criminology Roundtable on State Crime I and II, November 2007.

---

Judicial Review,Irrationality, and the Legitimacy of Merits-Review

The definition of the irrationality ground of judicial review recognises the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, in allowing for judicial control of the executive only very rarely. The author in a previous article in this study found that the courts, on occasions, had intervened in circumstances where administrative decisions arguably were not irrational. To this end, the purpose of this article is to assess the constitutionality of these seemingly low standards of irrationality. The author does so by reference either to the manner of review employed—the use of the proportionality principle, for example—or the context of the administrative decision under scrutiny, such as the infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights. The author finds that the cases from the previous article where low standards of irrationality were arguably adopted were, in fact, legitimate according to these chosen methods of evaluation. However, this is an interim conclusion because, for reasons of word length, the author is unable to complete a full assessment here. It is therefore proposed that a subsequent article will continue to examine the constitutionality of these cases. Furthermore, the author will also try and establish a zone of executive decision-making, for reasons of democracy, where the courts are excluded from irrationality review. If the author is unsuccessful in this regard, the final conclusion of this study will inevitably be that low standards of judicial intervention exist without limit—a clear assault on the constitutional principle stated above.

Health and human rights: challenges of implementation and cultural change

The author identifies the evolution of discourse about human rights to health in medical law, health law and public health law, as well as in major international instruments. He emphasises the importance of General Comment No 14 on Art 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. He argues that its breadth but also its specificity in terms of accountable benchmarks and measures of health service provision are likely to frame discourse on "rights to health" in the succeeding years. He identifies the need for translation of the rhetoric in such instruments into meaningful and patient-informed data so that it becomes possible to compare and contrast advances (or otherwise) in rights to health within and among different countries.     

Context and innovation in traditional bureaucracies: A Hong Kong study

Traditional bureaucracies, defined in Weberian terms, are almost invariably seen as antithetical to innovation. Yet, although the academic literature presents an array of formidable structural barriers to the emergence and implementation of new ideas, innovation does occur in traditional bureaucracies. How can the structural impediments be overcome? What are the processes that enable innovation to take place? Based on a longitudinal study of the Hong Kong government's innovation policies and practices, it is argued that political context is a critical variable explaining how, even in rigid traditional bureaucracies, barriers may be avoided or temporarily suspended. Two contrasting case studies are used to illustrate, first, the importance of political commitment in gaining acceptance for new ideas and, second, the failure of agencies dedicated to innovation to achieve their objectives. It is postulated that circumventing structural barriers or working through political channels to reduce their impact may be a more constructive strategy than creating dedicated agencies to develop innovative measures. The study is grounded in a literature review, documentary evidence from the Hong Kong government's innovative agencies, and interviews with senior staff from those agencies.     

Can decision transparency increase citizen trust in regulatory agencies? Evidence from a representative survey experiment

Decision transparency is often proposed as a way to maintain or even increase citizen trust, yet this assumption is still untested in the context of regulatory agencies. We test the effect of transparency of a typical decision tradeoff in regulatory enforcement: granting forbearance or imposing a sanction. We employed a representative survey experiment (n = 1,546) in which we test the effect of transparency in general (providing information about a decision or not) and the effect of specific types of transparency (process or rationale transparency). We do this for agencies supervising financial markets, education, and health care. We find that overall decision transparency significantly increases citizen trust in only two of the three agencies. Rationale transparency has a more pronounced positive effect only for the Education Inspectorate. We conclude that the overall effect of decision transparency is positive but that the nature of the regulatory domain may weaken or strengthen this effect.