Foreign Occupation and International Territorial Administration: The Challenges of Convergence

International organizations have increasingly joined statesas occupiers of territory. Yet international law doctrine andpolicymakers have regarded occupation by states and administrationby international organizations as distinct legal and politicalphenomena. The stigma associated with state occupation has translatedinto an assumption that the two operations are governed by differentnorms and their tactics for asserting control subject to differentstandards of legitimacy. This article rejects that dichotomyand the doctrinal parsing that comes with it. It emphasizesthe common traits and challenges of these occupations and arguesfor a joint legal and political appraisal. From the legal perspective,the two sorts of missions operate under common legal frameworks;those managing both need to find the proper balance among internationalhumanitarian law, international human rights law, local law,and any mandate from an international organization. As a politicalmatter, each encounters resistance from those in the territoryopposed to its presence, leading to coercive responses whoselegitimacy will be questioned from within and outside the territory.The article concludes with some modest thoughts on how eachsort of occupier might learn something from the other.     

The impact of a change in commitment procedures on the character of involuntary psychiatric patients

The statutory requirements for involuntary civil psychiatric confinement have become increasingly restrictive. In the jurisdiction under investigation, patients were originally admitted under an Order to Apprehend (OTA) procedure simply on the petition of two affiants who indicated the patient was in need of care. A newly elected judge instituted changes requiring affiants to claim the subject was "dangerous" to self or others and asking for a clinical assessment and recommendation before signing the petitioned request for involuntary confinement. It might be expected that the more restrictive procedures would have produced a population of more assaultive patients. A study of petitions signed under in the earlier (N = 133) and later, more restrictive (N = 218) procedures indicated that the proportion of assaultive or dangerous patients was virtually identical. Further investigation, using hospital data an OTA patients from this area in both time periods, suggested that while patients were not more assaultive, they appeared to be more seriously ill or psychiatrically impaired. Apparently, movement to a dangerousness standard that allows clinical discretion in interpreting its presence may result in involuntary commitments for more seriously ill, although not necessarily more assaultive, patients.     

IN THE AFTERMATH OF TROXEL V. GRANVILLE

While the Court in Troxel v. Granville opines about the problems litigation creates, that of both expense and intrusion into the lives of families in the midst of grandparent visitation disputes, the Court decision falls short of posing a solution. The focus of this note is to propose a standard for mediation as a viable alternative to traditional litigation in such cases. The hope is that mediation will serve the best interests of the child.     

Politicized prisoners: From class warriors to faded rhetoric

This article examines the under-researched phenomenon of prisoner politicization in the United States and Canada, surveying a period between the prison turbulence of the 1960s to the current era of administrative control. The theoretical grounds for the concept of prisoner politicization are delineated, and a measure of politicization is constructed based on research undertaken at three British Columbia penitentiaries, involving direct interviews with prisoners. The decline of prisoner politicization over the past decade is related to innovative penal strategies that re-individualize prisoner orientations and discourage potential alliances between prisoners and non-prisoner activist groups.