Maynard Keynes and the ‘Bamboozlement’ of Woodrow Wilson: What Really Happened at Paris? (Wilson,Lloyd George,pensions and pre-armistice agreement)

Woodrow Wilson’s acceptance of Lloyd George’s demand for the inclusion of military pensions among the reparations payable to the Allies under the Treaty of Versailles was stigmatized by J.M. Keynes in The Economic Consequences of the Peace as the most notorious of the President’s alleged breaches of faith with Germany. Keynes’s damning verdict remains virtually unquestioned. This paper reconsiders the case for pensions, suggests that the question was less clear-cut than Keynes insisted, and queries his influential account of Wilson’s supposed gullibility and culpability. The paper then considers Lloyd George’s intentions in the Pre-armistice agreement, from which the Allied right to reparations and pensions were derived.     

Really Responsive Risk‐Based Regulation

Regulators in a number of countries are increasingly developing “risk‐based” strategies to manage their resources, and their reputations as “risk‐based regulators” have become much lauded by regulatory reformers. This widespread endorsement of risk‐based regulation, together with the experience of regulatory failure, prompts us to consider how risk‐based regulators can attune the logics of risk analyses to the complex problems and the dynamics of regulation in practice. We argue, first, that regulators have to regulate in a way that is responsive to five elements: (1) regulated firms' behavior, attitude, and culture; (2) regulation's institutional environments; (3) interactions of regulatory controls; (4) regulatory performance; and (5) change. Secondly, we argue that the challenges of regulation to which regulators have to respond vary across the different regulatory tasks of detection, response development, enforcement, assessment, and modification. Using the “really responsive” framework, we highlight some of the strengths and limitations of using risk‐based regulation to manage risk and uncertainty within the constraints that flow from practical circumstances and, indeed, from the framework of risk‐based regulation itself. The need for a revised, more nuanced conception of risk‐based regulation is stressed.     

Motivation,Reconsideration and Exclusionary Reasons*

What do exclusionary reasons exclude? This is the main issue I address in this article. Raz appears to endorse what I label the “motivational” model of exclusionary reasons. He stresses that within the context of his theory of practical reasoning, exclusionary reasons are reasons not to be motivated by certain first‐order reasons (namely, the first‐order reasons which conflict with the first‐order reasons that the exclusionary reasons protect). Some of his critics take him to be committed to another model of exclusionary reasons which I label the “consideration” model. According to this model exclusionary reasons are reasons not to consider or think of the conflicting first‐order reasons. I argue that Raz's account of the exclusionary function of decisions suggests a third model of exclusionary reasons which I label the “reconsideration” model. In the reconsideration model, exclusionary reasons are reasons not to reconsider the balance of first‐order reasons. In this article I show how the reconsideration model differs from both the motivational and the consideration model and how it can account for the exclusionary function not only of decisions but also of personal rules and authoritative directives.     

The Pursuit of Grounded Theory in Agricultural and Environmental Regulation: A Suggested Approach to Empirical Legal Study in Biosecurity

In the light of the current, increased interest in empirical legal studies, including the associated capacity limitations identified in the Nuffield Foundation's Inquiry on Empirical Research in Law , and in other arenas, this article seeks to contribute to the development of empirical legal studies by presenting in detail one approach to empirical research in the field of biosecurity (border controls and associated measures to protect human, animal, and plant life and the environment). The article focuses on the particular approach of grounded theory to legal inquiry in law, on the novel aspects of this research methodology, and on the potential, as identified by the present authors, for its application to biosecurity. The article examines some of the specific processes applied in the analysis of qualitative data, collected through the application of this methodology, focusing on the insights facilitated by the mixed-method approach to analysis developed by the authors. Finally, examples of the insights gained through both the application of grounded theory and the particular approach to data analysis are presented and evaluated.