Rumble in Paradise: The Caribbean Court of Justice Creating Waves in International Law after British Caribbean Bank v Belize

On 25 June 2013, the Caribbean Court of Justice denied a motion to halt the proceedings of an international arbitration between British Caribbean Bank (BCB) and the Government of Belize, and instead granted BCB the right to continue with the arbitration proceedings. The ruling is particularly important as it sheds light on the anti-arbitration principle – a feature known mostly to Common law – and the still troubled area of expropriation in relation to bilateral investment treaties. In this case comment, I will provide an overview of those main points and assess what implications there are under international law. Specifically, this comment also develops a notion of financial property, and asses under what circumstances financial property can be expropriated in light of bilateral investment treaties. The focus on financial property is to both generate a discussion and also raise more questions on problematic clauses in investment treaties.     

The Strategic Timing behind Position-taking in the US Congress: A Study of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act

Roll call voting by members of the US Congress has been frequently studied. In contrast, the various decisions leading up to roll call voting are relatively unexplored. This article analyses one of those decisions: when senators announce their final passage vote intention. The authors use the same set of variables to analyse both the timing of the announcement and the final passage vote. They find that different independent variables predict these two different decisions, though the constituency and the senator's institutional setting matter in both. Furthermore, this study corroborates an assumption in the rational choice literature that those members with the most information are the first movers.     

Las Cortes de Castilla y León bajo los Austrias: Una interpretación

Trowbridge H. Ford, Albert Venn Dicey, The Man and His Times (Barry Rose Publishers Ltd., Chichester, 1985; pp.354; £19.50/$30.00)     

The Social Basis of Voting Correctly

A large literature has established that people learn from political discussion, and some scholars suggest that people will make better choices if they engage in political discussion with opinion leaders. To establish that discussion promotes better vote choices, however, we have to create a measure of rational choice to test the impact of discussion. Recently, scholars have used Lau and Redlawsk's voting correctly measure to test the impact of various influences on the rationality of vote choice. Using this new measure of rationality—voting correctly—I determine whether political discussion has the predicted positive impact. To test this theory, I use 2000 American National Election Study survey data, and show that greater political discussion with knowledgeable discussants leads to more correct voting.     

Effectiveness of contamination prevention procedures in a trace explosives laboratory.

The effectiveness of a number of the explosives contamination prevention controls that are adopted within the Forensic Explosives Laboratory (FEL) principal trace laboratory has been scrutinised. Within the trace laboratory, rigorous procedures for processing forensic swab samples for traces of organic explosives are routinely adopted by forensic scientists. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of these procedures, and the principle of separating the sample from the laboratory and the forensic scientist, explosives-free swab samples and appropriate controls have been processed, in accordance with trace laboratory procedures, in several explosives contaminated environments. In all cases, no explosives were detected in the post-processing samples, demonstrating that the contamination prevention procedures are effective, robust and fit-for-purpose.     

The Possibility of Deontic Logic

A recent series of papers, sparked off by a note by Robert Walter (1996), has rekindled the debate over the possibility of creating a logic of normative concepts. The debate correctly centres on ways in which Jørgensen’s dilemma might be resolved (Jørgensen 1937–8), since a means of resolving that dilemma is the only apparently available way in which to establish that a logic of norms is possible. Two separate questions require answers: (i) what is the correct way in which to regard Jørgensen’s dilemma; and (ii) how should one face that dilemma? I shall argue that traditional responses to the first question are inadequate, and I shall then try to expose as flawed two recent attempts to resolve the dilemma. Finally, I shall relate my conclusions in the earlier part of the paper to the wider question of whether a logic of normative concepts is, after all, a possibility.