Designing China's civil service system: general principles and realities

In examining how Chinese policy makers and law drafters defined problems and formulated solutions, this article seeks to address two questions. First, the authors consider the extent to which China's civil service system has embraced principles and features of Western civil service systems. Second, the authors illustrate the political nature of the attempt to establish a civil service system, which severely limits a rational policy design in China. As a result of the political regression since June 1989, the present civil service system has experienced little change.     

SURREPLY

This is a follow‐up to our previous “Comment” responding to an article by William How and Hugh McIsaac.     

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST AWARD FOR JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE ADDRESS

The William H. Rehnquist Award is one of the most celebrated judicial honors in the country. It is given each year to a state court judge who demonstrates the “highest level of judicial excellence, integrity, fairness, and professional ethics.” The 2008 recipient, Jonathan Lippman, was recently appointed and confirmed as Chief Judge of the State of New York. Chief Judge Lippman was previously the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division of the First Judicial Department of the New York State Supreme Court. He was appointed New York's Chief Administrative Judge by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and served from January 1996 to May 2007 and was responsible for the operation of a court system with a $2.4 billion budget, 1300 state‐paid judges, 2300 town and village judges, and 16,000 nonjudicial personnel. Among his numerous professional activities, Chief Judge Lippman served as president of the Conference of State Court Administrators from 2005 to 2006 and was the vice‐chair of the National Center for State Courts from 2005 to 2006, where he was a member of the Board of Directors from 2003 to 2007. During his tenure, Chief Judge Lippman has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions, including the 2006 Fund For Modern Courts Cyrus R. Vance Tribute for Vision, Integrity and Dedication to the Fair Administration of Justice Personified by Cyrus R. Vance (November 27, 2006); the New York County Lawyers’ Association Conspicuous Service Award in Recognition of Many Years of Outstanding Public Service (September 28, 2006); and the Award for Excellence in Public Service of the New York State Bar Association's Committee on Attorneys in Public Service (January 24, 2006). Chief Judge Lippman received a Bachelor of Arts in Government and International Relations from New York University, Washington Square College, where he graduated cum laude in 1965. He also received his J.D. from New York University in 1968. Below is the speech he delivered after accepting the William H. Rehnquist Award from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts.     

The Interdisciplinary Settlement Conference: A Grassroots Alternative for Resolving High‐Conflict Parenting Disputes in Lean Times

This article describes a court‐connected alternative dispute resolution program, the Interdisciplinary Settlement Conference. The key feature of this program is the participation of two volunteer panelists, one a family law attorney and the other a mental health professional experienced in parenting disputes, who assist the judicial officer in working with the parties and their attorneys (if any) to reach a resolution of their parenting dispute. Significantly, in addition to addressing the parties’ legal issues, the panelists also address the parties’ psychological and emotional issues relevant to the dispute on an as‐needed basis. Findings from six years of experience with the program are discussed, including evidence of high satisfaction with the program, a high rate of settlement, a decrease in relitigation, and a concomitant savings of scarce judicial resources.     

EVIDENCE OF A DIFFERENT NATURE: THE CHILD‐ RESPONSIVE AND LESS ADVERSARIAL INITIATIVES OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

This article charts the constellation of vision and research that underpin a new era in the Family Court of Australia, focusing on the development and outcomes of two programs that have attempted to meaningfully reinforce the centrality of children's rights and needs in family court proceedings. The Less Adversarial Trial and its front‐end Child Responsive Program (CRP) both aim to minimise the potentially negative effects on parents of a litigation process by application of a more intensive case management model adopted with the intention of altering the parents’ experience of the journey. Key features of this approach include the adoption of inquisitorial techniques, which include direct consultation with children through the CRP, modified application of the rules of evidence, and strong judicial management rather than being party driven. Findings from two studies into the pilot Children's Cases Program (now the Less Adversarial Trial) and the CRP are discussed. Significantly, evidence is outlined around the capacity of the new processes to impact on both the co‐parenting and parent–child relationships and to influence short‐term adjustment of complex families in high‐conflict dispute. In encouraging a more active focus on children's needs and views and by facilitating a stronger voice for children in proceedings that affect them, both initiatives advance Australia's commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.     

CHOOSE TO HUG,NOT HIT*

This article discusses reasonable chastisement of children as a defense by parents to assault charges. It suggests that its continued retention contravenes the rights of children and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It compares developments in various countries, such as the Scandinavian countries and New Zealand, where the defense has been abolished, as compared with the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, where it has been retained. It suggests that its continued retention encourages bullying and violence in schools and in later adult life.     

Iraq Casualties and the 2006 Senate Elections

Prior scholarship on the effects of war casualties on U.S. elections has focused on large‐scale conflicts. For this article, we examined whether or not the much‐smaller casualty totals incurred in Iraq had a similar influence on the 2006 Senate contests. We found that the change in vote share from 2000 to 2006 for Republican Senate candidates at both the state and county level was significantly and negatively related to local casualty tallies and rates. These results provide compelling evidence for the existence of a democratic brake on military adventurism, even in small‐scale wars, but one that is strongest in communities that have disproportionately shouldered a war's costs.     

INVISIBLE PARTIES: LISTENING TO CHILDREN

This article discusses how children are involved in family court proceedings in New Zealand. On July 1, 2005, the Care of Children Act 2004 came into force. One of the changes brought about by this Act is an increased expectation that children will participate in proceedings involving them, by the court giving the child a reasonable opportunity to express his or her view. Children may participate in three ways, the primary mechanism being through the lawyer for the child. Children's views can also be elucidated through a specialist report, and direct participation can be achieved through judicial interviews. As each child is different, it is important that the unique circumstances of the case are accounted for. This article will discuss how each of the three methods can be combined to tailor an approach that gives every individual child a reasonable opportunity to express his or her view. There are a number of examples given of this approach in practice, showing how the court has adapted the process to accommodate the child's situation and personality.