Corporate Social Responsibility: A Step Towards Stronger Involvement of Business in MEA Implementation?

This article explores the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and corporate social responsibility (CSR). It offers an overview of the linkages, a survey of relevant provisions of key MEAs, and a review of the relationship between global trade rules and MEAs. Finally, the article highlights three ongoing discussions with relevance to linkages between CSR and MEAs: (1) whether, and if so how, to identify minimum global business standards in the environmental sphere; (2) the rapidly evolving 'sub-theme' within the CSR agenda which addresses the business/development interface, and the contribution of business to poverty reduction, sustainable livelihoods and achieving the Millennium Development Goals; and (3) the development by the International Organization for Standardization of an international guidance standard on 'organizational social responsibility', which, if adopted, will become ISO 26000. The risk of seeing CSR as a new pathway to MEA implementation is that the role of MEAs in informing the development of minimum acceptable environmental norms of business behaviour will be 'watered down'. If MEAs are to learn from CSR, their competitors and often stronger counterparts in the international architecture – intergovernmental trade and investment arrangements – also need to be equipped not only to be sensitive to CSR, but actively to support it. ¹     

The judicial role in life-sustaining medical treatment decisions.

Although there has been speculation regarding the pervasiveness and nature of judicial decisions regarding life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT), no attempt has been made to empirically assess their prevalence or the issues they address. An exploratory study utilizing a mail survey of a nationwide random sample (N = 905) of state trial court judges was conducted to provide initial information regarding this decision-making process. Twenty-two percent of the responding judges had heard at least one LSMT case, and judicial review did not appear endemic to particular states. The number of judges hearing LSMT cases dropped from 1975 to 1981 but has increased since then. Three major issues predominate: patient competency, appointment of a surrogate decisionmaker, and resolution of the ultimate issue of forgoing LSMT. Relatively few cases either contested a prior directive's validity or involved imposing sanctions for instituting or forgoing LSMT. Although subject to different interpretations, the results suggest the courts are having a significant impact on certain aspects of the LSMT decision-making process. However, the infrequency with which any one judge is called upon to make an LSMT decision causes concern about the judiciary's ability to respond in a timely and appropriate manner. With their potential for a profound effect on the actions of health care providers, greater attention to this decision-making process is warranted.     

A note on the status of discretion in police research

“Discretion” holds an unrivaled position at the core of the notional inventory employed in the study of criminal justice generally and policing particularly. Efforts to systematically define the term have been irregular and its status in the empirical literature is an ambiguous one. While spoken of as a quantitative aspect of the policing which influences behavior, measurement is rarely addressed. After sketching problems in present formulations, discretion is recast in terms of perceived job autonomy and an outline of two general constructs is contributed in hopes of renewing consideration of the potential relevance of the concept for police theory and research.