RIP RIPA? Snowden,Surveillance, and the Inadequacies of our Existing Legal Framework

This collection of pieces addresses questions raised by the Snowden revelations and their aftermath. All the authors were participants at a round‐table discussion at King's College London on Thursday 20 March 2014. The round table was chaired jointly by Sir Lawrence Freedman and Lord [Peter] Hennessy. Those participating were: Baroness [Onora] O'Neill, Lord [Ken] Macdonald, Nigel Inkster, Professor Thomas Rid (King's College), Ewen MacAskill (The Guardian), Gordon Corera (BBC), Jemima Stratford QC, Peter Horrocks (BBC), Charlie Edwards (RUSI), Professor Jean Seaton (Westminster University), Bill Peace (King's, ex‐SOCA), Air Vice‐Marshal Andrew Vallance (DA‐Notice), Carl Miller (DEMOS/King's), Lord (Alex) Carlile and Richard Sambrook (Cardiff University). The round table was organised by Martin Moore, director of the Media Standards Trust, and Benedict Wilson, lecturer in Defence Studies at King's and Research Associate at KPI. It was a joint Media Standards Trust–King's Policy Institute Event. For more information please contact martin.moore@mediastandardstrust.org or benedict.wilson@kcl.ac.uk .     

Transitional Regimes and the Rule of Law

Abstract. This paper seeks to establish a connection between the existence of a legal system and the ideal of the rule of law. Its point of departure is the phenomenon of a transitional regime that is attempting to restore or institute the rule of law. Lon Fuller's formulation of the canons of the rule of law as an internal morality of law is expounded as well as his notion of legal pathology as symptomatic of departure from the canons' requirements. The existence of a legal system, it is argued, is a matter of degree, covariant with the degree to which the rule of law is realized. Problems inherent to the implementation of the rule of law are examined, such as the effect of the passage of time on reasonable expectations. While legal pathology is always a matter of degree, police states are shown to suffer seriously from it. Among the examples discussed are Nazi Germany and Communist East Germany, though it is granted that there are moral differences between them. Finally, a response is made to some contemporary critiques of the rule of law.     

SCRUTINIZING PERFORMANCE: HOW ASSESSORS REACH JUDGEMENTS ABOUT PUBLIC SERVICES

Strengthening the accountability and improving the performance of public services is an important issue in many countries. A common response is to impose elaborate oversight or scrutiny arrangements. While we know a good deal about the formal operation of these arrangements, we know much less about the informal practices of scrutiny bodies and how they make judgements. This paper investigates scrutiny processes in three national audit bodies, three service inspectorates, and two inquiry committees in the UK. Judgement processes were analyzed along five dimensions: intuitive to analytical thinking; implicit to explicit assessment criteria; inductive and deductive methods; internal and external validity; and the principles used to make and evaluate judgements. These processes varied considerably, suggesting the need for a broader conception of the nature of and influences on scrutiny processes, which recognizes the inherent tensions in these processes and the skills required by those who engage in them.     

The American Right and Israel

In recent years there has been considerable controversy over the relationship between the United States and Israel. Neoconservatives and Christian Zionists have been vociferous in support of the relationship, while John Mearsheimer and other critics have questioned what America gains from such an alliance. While the G. W. Bush administration has often been portrayed as uncritically favouring Israel, it was the subject of criticism on the issue from within the American Right. Now it is the Obama administration which is drawing fire for its stance on Israel.