Agenda-Setting in Greenpeace and Amnesty: The Limits of Centralisation in International NGOs

While international nongovernmental organisations (INGOs) have been heavily studied for their role in transnational advocacy, most research has ignored their internal organisation and the relationships between international and grassroots offices. Intuition suggests that INGOs should face structural imperatives to balance maintaining global brands while simultaneously mobilising disparate publics in local contexts. However, this intuition has not yet been systematically studied. We address this with a paired comparison of Amnesty International and Greenpeace. Using case studies and an original dataset of website attributes, we show that campaigns promoted by international offices and their national counterparts reflect a balance between local diversity and global unity, revealing organisational structures that combine centralised agenda-setting with decentralised agenda implementation. Our research identifies a “measurement gap” with implications for understanding INGO accountability and effectiveness, and indicates that a more complete research programme on INGOs must include attention to internal organisation and structural diversity.     

False Starts,Wrong Turns and Dead Ends: Reflections on Recent Developments in Criminology

The nature and direction of criminology has changed significantly over the past two decades. The subject area has also grown exponentially and become more diverse. New fields of inquiry are opening up as new issues are added to the criminological agenda. However, at the same time there are some unwelcome developments in the discipline that impact on the orientation of the subject and which detract from its overall viability and standing. The aim of this paper is to identify these unwelcome trends in order to contribute to the development of a more critical and coherent criminology.     

A primer on US antitrust claims against patentees under Walker Process

Legal context: In the wake of two recent cases from the Federal Circuit onthe subject, this article provides an introduction to the WalkerProcess doctrine under US law. Under the doctrine, a patenteewho knowingly enforces a patent procured by intentional fraudon the patent office may lose its immunity to antitrust claims,should it act to enforce its patent. Key points: Walker Process fraud refers to a knowing and deliberate fraudperpetrated on the patent office as opposed to mere acts ofinequitable conduct. Proving that a patent applicant engagedin Walker Process fraud does not by itself prove liability foran antitrust violation. The accused infringer must still provethe individual elements of an antitrust claim. Antitrust claimsbased on Walker Process fraud require significant time and resourcesto litigate. Practical significance: With the allure of mandatory treble damages and attorney's fees,antitrust claims based on Walker Process fraud can serve asa potent counterclaim for an accused infringer's arsenal. Butthe legal requirements and resources needed to successfullylitigate these claims to a conclusion may temper their effectivenessfor the typical patent-infringement suit.