Case Report of a Migrating Bullet: An Unusual Cause of Postmortem Confusion

Migrating bullets are rare sequelae of penetrating gunshot wounds. Such cases have been described in the neurosurgical literature because they can produce complications in the management of patients such as decline in neurologic status, delays in rehabilitation, and difficulties in bullet removal. In contrast, few postmortem reports have described this phenomenon. We report a case of a gunshot wound in which the projectile entered the left side of the head and traversed to the right frontal area as documented by CT scan on hospital admission. At autopsy, the bullet was noted to have migrated back to the left side of the head from where it was recovered. Medical examiners need to be aware of this unusual phenomenon of retained intracranial projectiles.     

Democracies only: When do IMF agreements serve as a seal of approval?

Conditional lending by the IMF is predicated, in part, on the belief that IMF programs are associated with increased capital inflows to participating countries. This belief is generally consistent with theoretical arguments in the academic literature (e.g., Bird and Rowlands 1997; Bordo et al. 2004) but the empirical literature often finds otherwise (e.g., Jensen 2004). This paper argues that the effect of IMF agreements on a country’s access to foreign direct investment (FDI) depends on its domestic institutions. Access to FDI depends on a country’s ability to credibly commit to implementation, and this ability varies systematically across regime type. The theory is empirically tested using a treatment effects model with a Markov transition in the treatment equation in a dataset covering 142 countries from 1976 to 2006. We find that in democracies IMF program participation has a strong positive effect on FDI inflows and in autocracies participation has a weak negative effect.     

Breaking the Principle of Secrecy: An Examination of Judicial Dissent in the European Constitutional Courts

As “oracles of the law,” judges are trained to provide certainty and guidance within an often‐uncertain legal landscape. Nowhere is this statement truer than in the civil law tradition, where the idea of legal certainty has been prized as a “supreme value.” Despite this tradition, dissenting opinions are now quite common within most European constitutional courts. Using new data from five countries and interviews with constitutional court judges and clerks, I investigate factors that contribute to dissent on constitutional courts. Results indicate that legal and policy characteristics matter, but so do judicial backgrounds and the issues reviewed.