Unveiling a role for the EU? The ‘headscarf controversy’ in European schools

Many European countries have introduced laws and policies which proscribe religious clothing in public educational institutions. The European Convention on Human Rights has been deployed to uphold such actions, the European Court of Human Rights recognising that States should be able to limit the manifestation of religious beliefs. National courts considering the matter in terms of religious freedom (as opposed to discrimination) have reached similar conclusions. Most affected States are members of the European Union as well as the Council of Europe. This article will argue that it is more likely that European Union law could be engaged by an aggrieved teacher to challenge national law.     

Governing Greater China: dynamic perspectives and transforming interactions

The composition of Greater China among the PRC, Hong Kong and Taiwan entails an emerging form of micro governance where an ecological evolution of sub-group interaction and crossover of economic and social activities has been generating a dynamic of change within the East Asian region. The constitution of Greater China by social, economic, political, business and even daily commuting creates some soul searching questions about the possible outcomes of their intense interaction. To what extent has integration been made within Greater China through these interactions? Is China the economic linchpin or does China need to cooperate in one way or another to facilitate the modes of economic development? What are the attitudes and strategies used by Hong Kong or Taiwan when confronted with such an economic cum social entity? More importantly, where, and, under what conditions, will the interactions among the PRC, Taiwan and Hong Kong lead to? In this paper, I am going to use a conceptual model which includes four interactions: integration, interdependence, identity and independence (Four Is) to capture the catalyst of change that collectively entails these intermingled economic, social and cultural elements. People who live in the vast context of this geographical region experience the change. Through daily interaction, they help write the context of change through business activities, investment, migration, trade, culture, academic exchange, political and social development along the Four Is.     

TESTING ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS OF CAPITAL CONTROL LIBERALIZATION*

The literature on why restrictions over capital flows have been liberalized is filled with alternative causal stories (the pluralist, statist and systemic model, and economic explanations). In this article, we provide a test of these models of capital control liberalization within the context of 18 OECD countries from 1967 to 1995. We have avoided the usual practice of aggregating multiple governments in one country within one year into one country‐year observation, and use the country‐year‐government as the unit of analysis instead to correctly test the relationship between government characteristics and liberalization policy. We find that when the government considers lifting or imposing restrictions over capital flows, it responds to both systemic pressures and the key supporters of free capital flows. Governments also consider the current account balance and are heavily influenced by the prior policy choice regarding restrictions on capital transactions. We fail to find support for such explanations as the impact of government ideology, government strength, and central bank independence.     

Let Specificity, Clarity, and Parsimony of Purpose Be Our Guide

The decisional rules embedded in presumptive guideline grids have achieved some of their drafters' objectives, but fall short of a ``rule of law' for sentencing – a paramount goal of the sentencing reforms Marvin Frankel set in motion twenty-five years ago. The rule of law requires a reasoning process that moves from penal purpose to penal measure, by fair inference from relevant facts. Two-dimensional grid guideline schemes gain simplicity by reducing relevant facts to two – current offense and prior record. Even when judges are permitted to consider other facts, the presumptive guideline methodology obscures differences in the penal purposes sentencers ought to have in mind for cases falling into the same cell of a grid. In contrast, the rule of law requires fact-finding in the individual case, to reveal such differences and to test the plausibility of available penal measures. This elevates the relevance of offender characteristics and circumstances, including some that are held ordinarily irrelevant in the federal scheme and are of uncertain relevance in many state schemes. While this is most obvious when use of noncustodial penal measures is subjected to the rule of law, it is no less important when imprisonment is used. Disparate impacts should be avoided by more sophisticated deployment of correctional authority and resources, not by constriction of the rule of law governing the sentencing decision itself.