Civil liability of private security: Enforcer of moral obligations to right legal wrongs

The private security industry in the United States now has approximately twice as many personnel as does the public police. Private Security personnel have authority over the liberty, and sometimes the lives, of customers and employees. Often they exercise this awesome responsibility with little if any background and training. In most instances private security personnel are not considered law officers or peace officers and are, therefore, not bound by the same rules and regulations that apply to public police. More and more frequently, untrained or minimally trained, and basically unqualified security officers are taking actions against customers and employees which are excessive and unreasonable. Without the Constitutional protections which would be available if the act were committed by a public police officer, the only recourse for a private individual against reckless and wanton conduct on the part of private security personnel is a civil action, seeking compensation for the inconvenience caused or injuries received. The courts have found that companies and their security personnel have an obligation to be reasonable in their investigations of suspected criminal violations by employees and customers. Failure to conduct a proper and reasonable investigation will open the individual directing the investigation, and the company authorizing it, to liabililty for the injury their improper actions have caused. Civil liability suits have become the moral enforcer for improper and excessive conduct by private security personnel.     

A ‘Greater Chinese Union’

Lasting peace across the Taiwan Strait cannot be reached before the leaders in Beijing and Taipei agree on the framework within which a political settlement can be discussed. This article examines one possible end goal for lasting peace in the Strait, a ‘Greater Chinese Union’. This model is founded on principles guiding the unique relationship between Finland and the Åland Islands as well as centuries old Chinese practices of governance. The article intentionally distances itself from the present, day-to-day antagonistic politics of the Taiwan Strait and instead describes the framework within which a peaceful settlement could be negotiated.

     

美国海事法规则B保全措施述评

概述美国海事补充规则之规则B的适用条件,并对电子转账的保全、辅助国外仲裁/诉讼的保全、执行国外裁决或判决的保全及对保全的抗辩进行介绍,并分析规则B的最新发展。     

Guarding against Nanotort Liabilities

Recent headlines comparing the health risks of nanotechnology to those of asbestos have appeared in newspapers throughout the country and on the Internet. Governmental agencies and standard-setting organizations have begun considering and actually adopting requirements to protect against such purported risks. The plaintiffs’ bar and potential plaintiffs have surely taken note. There is every reason to believe that the era of mass tort and class actions related to nanotechnology—“nanotorts” for short—is rapidly approaching. This article examines what nanotort claims might look like, the role that regulations and industry practices may play in such lawsuits, potential defenses to those claims, and what nanotech companies can do now to guard against future nanotort liabilities.     

Connecting models of the individual and policy change processes: a research agenda

Policy Sciences - This article proposes that closer attention to models of the individual provides substantial theoretical and empirical leverage to policy studies scholars. Capturing the nuances...     

Keeping discourses separate: explaining the non-alignment of climate politics and human rights norms by small island states in United Nations climate negotiations

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) encompasses more than 40 low-lying and island developing states that are among the most vulnerable but also most vocal parties in international climate negotiations. Over the years AOSIS's strategies comprised of the building of scientific expertise, and leadership by example, but also a particular framing that puts emphasis on multilateral processes to deal with issues of common concern and established principles of the international community. The initial assumption of the paper is that a frame alignment of climate change and human rights concerns would strengthen the coalition's moral and legal arguments. However, as a frame analysis of close to 50 coalition submissions and statements reveals, such a linkage is not established. The paper concludes by outlining three possible explanatory factors for this observation: the nature of the issue area, the character of the coalition and the professional background of AOSIS negotiators.     

Britannia waived the rules: The Major government and the 1994 Rwandan genocide

Ten years after the 1994 Rwandan genocide occurred, seriousquestions remain about the circumstances of the British government'sresponse. This article critically evaluates the response ofJohn Major's government to the genocide. It does so in fourstages. The first section provides a brief overview of the Majorgovernment's international agenda in 1994, focusing on Britishpolicy towards the war in Bosnia and the African continent ingeneral. The second section deals with the substance of Britain'sRwanda policy, while the third discusses the ways in which thispolicy has been almost totally omitted from mainstream accountsof this period. The final section provides a critical evaluationof some of the tactics that British officials employed to avertcriticism of their government's policies. Based on the evidencepresented we conclude that the British government displayeda deeply troubling indifference towards the victims of Rwanda'sgenocide.     

The United States Supreme Court and the death penalty: The struggle for fairness

In the ten years sinceFurman v. Georgia, the United States has recognized the right of states to adopt and follow different capital sentencing schemes so long as they protect the defendant from arbitrary and capricious imposing of the death sentence. The sentence may not be disproportionate to the crime. Sentencing may be done by a judge or jury. Prospective jurors may not be challenged for cause merely because their deliberations would be affected because a death penalty was possible, but only if they could not fulfill their oath. Habeas corpus petitions in capital cases are not open invitations to avoid finality of judgment and execution of the sentence, but are to find constitutional errors.