Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy

This essay by Joshua Cohen and Charles Sabel promotes visions of democracy, constitutionalism and institutional innovations which may help to open up new dimensions in the search for legitimate European governance structures and their constitutionalisation. Faced with Europe's legitimacy problems, proponents of the European project often react by pointing to the many institutional failings in the (national) constitutional state. These reactions, however, seem simplistic, offering no normatively convincing alternatives to the once undisputed legitimacy of a now eroding nation state. The essay by Cohen and Sabel forecloses such strategies. Summarising and endorsing critiques of both the unfettered market system and the manner of its regulatory and political correction, it concludes that the many efforts to establish new equilibria between well-functioning markets and well-ordered political institutions are doomed to fail, and opts instead for fundamental change: conservative in their strict defence of fundamental democratic ideals, such ideas are radical in their search for new institutional arrangements which bring democratic values directly to bear. How is the concept of directly-deliberative polyarchy complementary to and reconcilable with our notions of democratic constiutionalism? To this question the readers of the essay will find many fascinating answers. Equally, however, how might the debate on the normative and practical dilemmas of the European system of governance profit from these deliberations? Which European problem might be resolved with the aid of the emerging and new direct forms of democracy identified in this essay? How might direct democracy interact with the intergovernmentalist and the functionalist elements of the EU system? Although this essay contains no certain answers to these European questions, its challenging messages will be understood in European debates.     

Liesbet Hooghe,Tobias Lenz,and Gary Marks. 2019. A Theory of International Organization. (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

The Review of International Organizations -     

The Bureaucrat Who Fell Under a Bus: Ministerial Responsibility, Executive Agencies and The Derek Lewis Affair in Britain

Various concerns have been raised about the practicability of Next Steps and the adequacy of accountability mechanisms in Britain, particularly after the dismissal of Derek Lewis as chief executive of the Prison Service. This article critically reviews these concerns. It argues that the agency model is viable notwithstanding doubts about the practicability of the policy–operations distinction; that Next Steps is not the cause of defective accountability or the scapegoating of bureaucrats by ministers; and that a commonly proposed solution—making agency heads accountable to parliamentary select committees—has fundamental drawbacks of its own. The "conventional wisdom" that Next Steps cannot work ignores important evidence and badly needs reassessment.     

Personal Jurisdiction in Online Expression Cases: Rejecting Minimum Contacts in Favor of Affirmative Acts

When a speaker injures a party through online communication, the initial inquiry becomes how and where the injured party may recover damages from the internet speaker within the constitutional limits established by the 'Due Process Clause' of the constitution on the places where a plaintiff may choose to sue a defendant. The due process limits were created to prevent a plaintiff from suing a non-resident defendant in a resident's court system unless the defendant had enough contact with the state to reasonably anticipate being sued there. As cyberspace renders moot much of the geographical principles upon which jurisdictions rely, the issue of personal jurisdiction-the involuntary imposition of a forum state's legal power-emerges as a threshold issue in the law of online expression. The following paper addresses the jurisprudence of American courts in the area of personal jurisdiction, illustrating the need for clarity in this critical area of the law.     

School shootings, the media, and public fear: Ingredientsfor a moral panic

Recent shootings at schools around the country have resulted in widespread fear and panic among both students and parents, prompting a myriad of responses to make schools safer. Yet, empirical data suggest that despite the recent shootings, schools remain extremely safe places for children, and school violence is lower today than it was several years ago. The present research focuses on the construction of school shootings as a moral panic, with examinations of the roles played by the media, the public, and politicians in using isolated incidents (albeit heinous offenses) to support their interests. The interactions between these groups and the resultant punitive actions directed toward juveniles are discussed. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.