Perceived Injustice Predicts Intention to Litigate: Findings from a Spinal Cord Injury Sample

The current study examined the association between perceived injustice (assessed by the Injustice Experiences Questionnaire) and intent to litigate in a sample of individuals who had recently suffered a spinal cord injury and were currently on an inpatient rehabilitation unit. Higher perception of injustice was associated with reported interest in litigation. In logistic regression analyses, perceived injustice uniquely differentiated between individuals who foresaw involvement in litigation versus those who did not, with the blame/unfairness factor of the Injustice Experiences Questionnaire emerging as more significant than the severity/irreparability of loss factor. Both anticipated litigation and higher perception of injustice were associated with greater attribution of responsibility for injury to other person(s) and reduced forgiveness across a number of domains. Finally, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted to identify IEQ score most associated with anticipated litigation. This study is the first to examine perception of injustice in a spinal cord injury sample or the association between perceived injustice and litigation intent. Results support the possibility that psychological appraisals of injury may have significant legal ramifications.     

Regulating E-commerce: Formal Transactions in the Digital Age

As digital transactions become more common the need to regulate the commercial frontier of cyberspace becomes increasingly urgent. This has been recognised by national governments, supranational bodies and international organisations. The regulations proposed have though been offered in a piecemeal fashion. National governments attempt to fit cyberspace within the four corners of their (familiar) domestic jurisprudence, and even supranational and international bodies have been guilty of simply extending previous rules to the realm of cyberspace. This paper suggests that a coherent approach to the regulation of electronic commerce may start with an identification and application of principles rather than with the transference of rules. It uses as a reference, proposals for the modernisation of land transfer systems introduced in Canada and Australasia, currently being evaluated by the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland and the Law Commission/HM Registry. Underlying these proposals is a central issue: how are traditional formal requirements for property transactions accommodated in cyberspace? More fundamentally, if that most formal of transactions, the transfer of real property, can be modernised to meet the challenge of a new digital age, can not all modes of commerce be similarly modernised for the digital era? This paper evaluates whether a principled approach to answering these questions can, more generally, provide a workable framework for approaching e-commerce regulation.     

Health insurance coverage of the unemployed: COBRA and the potential effects of Kassebaum-Kennedy.

We use the April 1993 Current Population Survey to examine the health insurance coverage decisions of the unemployed and to simulate the potential effects of the new Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation. After controlling for demographic characteristics, COBRA eligibility raises the probability of health insurance coverage by 0.095, while eligibility for spouse employer insurance increases the likelihood of coverage by 0.318, and eligibility for both increases the likelihood of coverage by 0.341. In our simulations, we find that had Kassebaum-Kennedy been in effect in April 1993, 9.0 percent of the unemployed would be eligible to take up coverage, and the coverage rate of the unemployed would have been increased by 0.85 percent to 1.5 percent from 41.6 percent. Our estimates of the effect of Kassebaum-Kennedy on health insurance coverage are much lower than those reported by the Government Accounting Office prior to the passage of the legislation.     

Accountability in the Regulatory State

Accountability has long been both a key theme and a key problem in constitutional scholarship. The centrality of the accountability debates in contemporary political and legal discourse is a product of the difficulty of balancing the autonomy given to those exercising public power with appropriate control. The traditional mechanisms of accountability to Parliament and to the courts are problematic because in a complex administrative state, characterized by widespread delegation of discretion to actors located far from the centre of government, the conception of centralized responsibility upon which traditional accountability mechanisms are based is often fictional. The problems of accountability have been made manifest by the transformations wrought on public administration by the new public management (NPM) revolution which have further fragmented the public sector. In this article it is argued that if public lawyers are to be reconciled to these changes then it will be through recognizing the potential for additional or extended mechanisms of accountability in supplementing or displacing traditional accountability functions. The article identifies and develops two such extended accountability models: interdependence and redundancy