The Future Israeli-Palestinian Relationship

In this concept paper, the Joint Working Group on Israeli‐Palestinian Relations‐a group of influential Palestinians and Israelis that has been meeting periodically since 1994 to discuss final‐status issues in the Israeli‐Palestinian negotiations‐explores the future relationship between the two societies after the signing of a peace agreement. The paper considers a relationship based on total separation between the two societies and states as neither realistic nor desirable. Instead, it envisages a future relationship based on mutually beneficial cooperation in many spheres, conducive to stable peace, sustainable development, and ultimate reconciliation. The basis for such a relationship must be laid in the process and outcome of the final‐status negotiations and in the patterns of cooperation established on the ground. Efforts at cooperation and reconciliation cannot be pursued apart from their political context. The paper argues that the only feasible political arrangement on which a cooperative relationship can be built is a two‐state solution, establishing a genuinely independent Palestinian state alongside of Israel. The resolution of final‐status issues must be consistent with the sovereignty, viability, and security of both states. The paper then proceeds to describe several models for the relationship between the two states and societies. It advocates a model of close cooperation, but proposes that this relationship be built in stages. The scope and speed of expanding and institutionalizing cooperative activities must be determined by experience‐by the extent to which such activities meet the needs of both parties, enhance mutual trust, and reduce inequalities between the parties. Finally, the paper discusses three avenues for promoting a cooperative relationship based on equality, reciprocal benefit, and mutual trust and respect: the development of functional ties and civil‐society institutions across national borders; programs directed toward attitude change and stereotype reduction; and efforts to close the economic and political gap between the two societies.     

Cross-National Adolescent Multidimensional Life Satisfaction Reports: Analyses of Mean Scores and Response Style Differences

Although numerous cross-national studies have assessed life satisfaction among adults, similar studies using adolescent samples have been rare. To address this shortage of research, a total of 1338 youth adolescents from two individualistic nations (Ireland, USA) and two collectivistic nations (China, South Korea) were administered the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS: Huebner, 1994) to assesses general life satisfaction and satisfaction with family, friends, school, self, and living environment. Responses were analyzed to assess potential cross-national differences in (a) mean levels of life satisfaction, and (b) response styles, specifically acquiescence and extreme responding. Mean scores revealed positive ratings by adolescents from all four nations across all domains, with the exceptions of satisfaction with school experiences (Ireland, South Korean, USA), living environment (China, South Korea), self (South Korea), and general life satisfaction (South Korea). Results also revealed significant response style differences across all MSLSS domains. Significant gender and gender-by-nation effects were observed for both mean score and response style differences, although the effect sizes were small. The implications of these findings were discussed, particularly with respect to “individualistic” vs. “collectivistic” cultural differences. Rich Gilman is Associate Professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology at the University of Kentucky. His research interests include positive well-being among youth, perfectionism, and socially ostracized adolescents. Scott Huebner is Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of South Carolina. His research interests involve the conceptualization, measurement, and implications of positive psychological well-being constructs among youth. He is a fellow of Division 16 of the APA and the International Society for Quality of Life Studies. Lili Tian is Associate Professor at South China Normal University. She received her Ph.D. in psychology from Beijing Normal University. Her major research interests include adolescent's school well-being, acculturation of immigrant children and personality assessment. Nansook Park is Associate Professor at the University of Rhode Island. She received her Ph.D. from University of South Carolina. Her major research interests among youth include character strengths and virtues, positive experience and life satisfaction and how they are related to well-being, family functioning, health and education. Jenny O’Byrne received her BA in the Department of Counselling & Psychotherapy from the Dublin Business School. Recent research interests focus on child and adolescent development, and she recently completed her pre-clinical training in psychoanalytic psychotherapy with the Lincoln Centre in London. Dina Sverko is a research assistant at the University of Zagreb (Croatia). She received her Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Triest (Italy). Her major research interests include personality assessment and health psychology. Miriam Schiff is lecturer (equivalent to Assistant Professor) at the Hebrew University School of Social Work and Social Welfare in Jerusalem. Her major research interests include trauma and substance use, and general mental health among adolescents in clinic settings. Heather Langknecht received her Ed.S. from the University of Kentucky in 2004. She currently works as a school psychologist at Virginia Beach Public Schools (Virginia). Her primary research interests are cross-national quality of life issues among children and youth.     

Looking through a policy window with tinted glasses: Setting the agenda for U.S. AI policy

The policy agenda is currently being established for artificial intelligence (AI), a domain marked by complex and sweeping implications for economic transformation tempered by concerns about social and ethical risks. This article reviews the United States national AI policy strategy through extensive qualitative and quantitative content analysis of 63 strategic AI policy documents curated by the federal government between 2016 and 2020. Drawing on a prominent theory of agenda setting, the Multiple Streams Framework, and in light of competing paradigms of technology policy, this article reviews how the U.S. government understands the key policy problems, solutions, and issue frames associated with AI. Findings indicate minimal attention to focusing events or problem indicators emphasizing social and ethical concerns, as opposed to economic and geopolitical ones. Further, broad statements noting ethical dimensions of AI often fail to translate into specific policy solutions, which may be explained by a lack of technical feasibility or value acceptability of ethics-related policy solutions, along with institutional constraints for agencies in specific policy sectors. Finally, despite widespread calls for increased public participation, proposed solutions remain expert dominated. Overall, while the emerging U.S. AI policy agenda reflects a striking level of attention to ethics—a promising development for policy stakeholders invested in AI ethics and more socially oriented approaches to technology governance—this success is only partial and is ultimately layered into a traditional strategic approach to innovation policy.     

Luhmann: Law,Justice, and Time

Time is central to Luhmann’s writings on social systems. Social systems, as systems of meaning, operate within three dimensions: factual, social and temporal. Each of these dimensions entails selections of actualities from potentialities (or contingencies) within horizons. Whilst the factual dimension involves selections based on distinguishing ‘this’ from ‘something else’, and the social distinguishes between alter and ego (asking with respect to any meaning whether another experiences it as I do), the temporal dimension operates with the primary distinction of before and after. In the temporal dimension, everything is ‘ordered only according to the when and not to the who/what/where/how of experience and action’ (Luhmann in Social systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1995, p. 78). In this paper, we explore the connection between the temporal dimension of meaning within the legal system and its connection to justice. We begin by setting out succinctly the role played by justice within the legal system, as presented by Luhmann, particularly in his book Law as a social system (2004). From this beginning, we move on to consider the relationship between law, justice and time, taking two examples. The first is the temporality of judicial decisions. The second concerns the relationship between the temporal meaning of law’s own operations, and the presumption of innocence.