Sino-African Relations and the Problem of Human Rights

China's political and economic activities in Africa are increasingat an exponential rate. Equally, they are attracting criticism,chiefly over Beijing's no-strings-attached stance on human rightsand governance. It is clear that many African states that enjoyChinese support not only trample on civil and political rights(as per Western ideas of human rights), but also subvert theircitizens’ economic and social rights (as per China's discourseon human rights). If whilst adhering to the principle of non-interference,Chinese activities actually make things worse for some in Africa,then Beijing's argument that basic socio-economic rights aremore important for the poor than abstract politicalrights is potentially problematic. This is because there isa danger that Beijing's engagement in Africa might be exploitedby autocrats on the continent for their own, well-understood,reasons. Doing no harm, rather than a studied disinterest, needsto be part of China's overall African policy, something thatBeijing is bound to recognize. The author gratefully acknowledges the British Academy, CarnegieTrust for the Universities of Scotland, Chiang Ching-kuo Foundationfor International Scholarly Exchange, and the Russell Trustof Scotland for financial support for fieldwork on Sino-Africanrelations, carried out in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Namibia, SierraLeone, South Africa, and Uganda. The ideas for this articlewere initially tested at seminars at Wilton Park, the Universityof Plymouth, the State Department, SAIS-Johns Hopkins University,and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. I am gratefulto participants in these events, this journal's two anonymousreviewers, and Shaun Breslin for commenting and helping to crystallizemy thoughts. Any errors remain my own.     

Managing Tax Regimes: A Call for Research

Most academic research on taxation relates to higher-level issues of fiscal policy. Much public debate takes place about the calculation and incidence of different taxes, but little academic research addresses the management problems that are specific to national taxation regimes. This paper identifies emerging issues and calls for joint practitioner/academic attention on an international basis to address these issues.     

Metrics or Peer Review? Evaluating the 2001 UK Research Assessment Exercise in Political Science

Evaluations of research quality in universities are now widely used in the advanced economies. The UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is the most highly developed of these research evaluations. This article uses the results from the 2001 RAE in political science to assess the utility of citations as a measure of outcome, relative to other possible indicators. The data come from the 4,400 submissions to the RAE political science panel. The 28,128 citations analysed relate not only to journal articles, but to all submitted publications – including authored and edited books and book chapters. The results show that citations are the most important predictor of the RAE outcome, followed by whether or not a department had a representative on the RAE panel. The results highlight the need to develop robust quantitative indicators to evaluate research quality which would obviate the need for a peer evaluation based on a large committee. Bibliometrics should form the main component of such a portfolio of quantitative indicators.     

Judicial Review,Irrationality, and the Legitimacy of Merits-Review

The definition of the irrationality ground of judicial review recognises the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, in allowing for judicial control of the executive only very rarely. The author in a previous article in this study found that the courts, on occasions, had intervened in circumstances where administrative decisions arguably were not irrational. To this end, the purpose of this article is to assess the constitutionality of these seemingly low standards of irrationality. The author does so by reference either to the manner of review employed—the use of the proportionality principle, for example—or the context of the administrative decision under scrutiny, such as the infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights. The author finds that the cases from the previous article where low standards of irrationality were arguably adopted were, in fact, legitimate according to these chosen methods of evaluation. However, this is an interim conclusion because, for reasons of word length, the author is unable to complete a full assessment here. It is therefore proposed that a subsequent article will continue to examine the constitutionality of these cases. Furthermore, the author will also try and establish a zone of executive decision-making, for reasons of democracy, where the courts are excluded from irrationality review. If the author is unsuccessful in this regard, the final conclusion of this study will inevitably be that low standards of judicial intervention exist without limit—a clear assault on the constitutional principle stated above.

Health and human rights: challenges of implementation and cultural change

The author identifies the evolution of discourse about human rights to health in medical law, health law and public health law, as well as in major international instruments. He emphasises the importance of General Comment No 14 on Art 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. He argues that its breadth but also its specificity in terms of accountable benchmarks and measures of health service provision are likely to frame discourse on "rights to health" in the succeeding years. He identifies the need for translation of the rhetoric in such instruments into meaningful and patient-informed data so that it becomes possible to compare and contrast advances (or otherwise) in rights to health within and among different countries.     

The Lockhart Committee: developing policy through commitment to moral values, community and democratic processes

The Lockhart Committee was appointed by the federal government in 2005 to review the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 (Cth) and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (Cth). The issues in the review are ones on which community views differ widely and many people hold strong and diverging opinions. Yet all members of the committee were able to agree on their recommendations when the committee reported to Parliament in December 2005 and since that time, most of its recommendations have been implemented in amendments to federal and State legislation. This article describes the committee's process in considering the issues in the review, in consulting stakeholders and the broader community and in formulating its recommendations.     

That Was Then, This Is Now, What About Tomorrow? Future Directions in State Crime Studies

Research and theorizing on state crime has come to play an important role in the fields of criminology and criminal justice for understanding the worst of crimes: those of powerful state agencies and agents. Since William Chambliss’ (1989) ASC presidential address, scholars of state crime have made advances in theoretical modeling and analyzing core enactment and etiological factors of crimes of the state (e.g., Barak 1991; Friedrichs 1998; Grabosky 1989; Kauzlarich and Kramer 1998; Kramer and Michalowski 2005; Kramer et al. 2005; Michalowski and Kramer 2006; Mullins and Rothe 2008a, b; Pearce 1976; Ross 1995, 2000; Rothe 2009; Rothe and Mullins 2006, 2008). Nonetheless, the study of state crime still has a long way to go before it ever reaches the magnitude or legitimacy afforded to the study of traditional street crime. It is with this in mind that several leading scholars of state criminality have come together and reevaluated the state of state crime and the ways in which the field must move forward. This kind of inventory, where scholars examine the past, present and future of the field, is not without precedent. For example, almost a decade ago (Ross et al. 1999) explored the difficulty of conducting state crime research and made a series of recommendations on how it could be improved. Nearly 7 years later (Rothe and Friedrichs 2006) re-evaluated the state of state crime and called for more attention to those beyond US crimes of the state and include crimes of globalization and also international controls such as the International Criminal Court (Friedrichs and Friedrichs 2007; Rothe and Mullins 2006; Rothe et al. 2006, 2008). Since that time, there has been substantial movement by scholars of state crime in these other areas, yet, as we note, there still remains key issues that need to be addressed and overcome: it is with this that we again revisit the field of state crime. We wish to thank all of those that contributed to our discussions and thoughts during the American Society of Criminology Roundtable on State Crime I and II, November 2007.

---

Reading for Law and the State: Theaters of Problematization and Authority

Constructing a particular nation, that of early modern England, is seen here as a series of theatrical performances. Shakespeare’s work is taken as a series of thought experiments. Some, like The Merchant of Venice, are reassuring that threatening circumstances and innovatory social practices are capable of being overcome or assimilated from the unknown to the known. Some, like King Lear and Hamlet, ponder the consequences of a failure to discover a resolution. Some writers have argued that England was historically quite early in beginning to conceive of itself as a nation, rather than as a population of possibly heterogeneous regions subject to a dynasty, a state of affairs summarized in the by now clichéd remark attributed to the Sun King, “L’Etat, c’est moi”. For Shakespeare, if not for all of his contemporaries, the Englishman is a bit slow-witted, owing to his fondness for beef and red wine, but he is distinguishable from others and provides material for the second pieces of theater I look at. If there could be an Englishman, his experience with the absolutist pretensions of the Stuart monarchy allowed there to be a free-born Englishman (and, actually, Englishwoman). The two crucial battles of the English civil war, Marston Moor and Naseby, followed by the Army Debates of 1647–1649 form the stage for an at least aspiring egalitarianism we now know as the rights of man, or the rights of the civic person.