The limits of environmental remediation protocols for environmental justice cases: lessons from Vieques,Puerto Rico

The United States Federal Government has repeatedly put the people of Vieques, Puerto Rico in harm’s way due to the injurious after-effects of air-to-ground weapons testing. Most of the harm happened during the Navy’s 70 years on the island. Yet, the harm continues today considering that aspects of the cleanup count as continued acts of environmental injustice, viewed within the context of the island’s colonial history. Usually, this harm deals with public health issues, but the remediation protocols do not account for considerations such as cultural identity and heritage. This paper shows how the procedures for environmental remediation in Vieques qualify as a case of environmental injustice according to Robert M. Figueroa’s ‘environmental justice paradigm.’ The aim of employing this kind of approach is to pinpoint the underlying reasons why this is a case of environmental injustice.     

RECONCILING PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND ABORIGINAL SELF-DETERMINATION/SELF-MANAGEMENT: IS ATSIC SUCCEEDING?

Abstract: Since the early 1970s commonwealth governments have been pursuing policies of self-determination/self-management in relation to Aborigines. In 1987, the Hawke government announced its intention to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) to further this policy goal. During the debates over ATSIC's formation, the issue of public accountability in the existing administration of Aboriginal affairs came to public prominence. The result was some extensive reworking of the ATSIC proposal, which in 1989 reemerged with a strengthened emphasis on public accountability. This article traces the events and arguments surrounding ATSIC's formation and then goes on to examine ATSIC in practice. It asks whether ATSIC is succeeding in reconciling the two imperatives of Aboriginal self-determination/self-management and public accountability.     

THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY'S TREATMENT OF ABORIGINAL POLYGYNY AND TRIBAL MARRIAGE: A SAGA OF ADMINISTRATIVE DEBATE

Abstract: Since the inclusion of Aborigines in the Australian social security system, the treatment of Aboriginal polygyny and tribal marriage by the Department of Social Security (DSS) has been a recurring minor issue of departmental, and at times extra-departmental, debate. This article traces the history of that debate from the early 1960s to the present day. Although the article is primarily historical, there is also some attempt made to analyse both the nature of the administrative processes involved and the types of administrative argument deployed in the debate.     

Distributive and Procedural Justice in Seven Nations

The paper examines the impact of distributive justice and procedural justice variables on judgments in seven countries (Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Spain, and the United States). Subjects were presented with each of two experimental vignettes: one in which the actor unsuccessfully appeals being fired from his job and one in which the actor unsuccessfully goes to an employment agency to seek a job; they were asked to rate the justness of the outcome and how fairly the actor had been treated. The vignettes manipulated deservingness and need of the actor (distributive justice factors) and impartiality and voice in the hearing (procedural justice factors). Four hypotheses were tested: first, a distributive justice hypothesis that deservingness would be more important than need in these settings; second, a procedural justice hypothesis that the importance of voice and impartiality vary depending on the nature of the encounter and the forum in which it is resolved; third, because of their recent socialist experience, Central and Eastern European respondents make greater use of need information and less use of deservingness information than Western respondents; and fourth, that distributive justice and procedural justice factors interact. The distributive justice hypothesis is supported in both vignettes. The procedural justice hypothesis receives some support. Impartiality is more important in the first vignette and voice is more important in the second vignette. The interaction hypothesis was not supported in the first vignette, but does receive some support in the second vignette. The cultural hypothesis is not supported in either vignette. The implications for distributive and procedural justice research are discussed.     

Lawyers' Questioning: The Effect of Confusing Questions on Witness Confidence and Accuracy

The present study investigated the effect on witness confidence and accuracy of confusing questions often used by attorneys in court. Participants viewed a videotaped film and were individually questioned about the incident 1 week later. Half the participants were asked questions using six categories of confusing questions (negatives, double negatives, leading, multiple questions, complex syntax, and complex vocabulary); the remaining half were asked for the same information using simply phrased equivalents. Confusing questions reduced participant-witnesses' accuracy and suppressed confidence–accuracy relationships compared with the condition where simplified alternatives were asked. Witness performance was impaired by the fact that mock-witnesses rarely asked for a confusing question to be explained or qualified their answers. This experiment demonstrates the importance of ensuring that lawyers ask witnesses simple, clear, questions.     

Uncertainty and Turnout

This article develops a model that simultaneously considersindividual turnout and vote choice while also accounting foruncertainty about candidates. The theoretical development ofthis model implies that the effects of uncertainty on turnoutvary with the strength of individual preferences. Applicationof the model to individual choice in the 1996 American presidentialelection confirms that decreasing uncertainty about the charactertraits of the candidates decreases the probability of abstentionfor individuals with strong preferences but increases the probabilityof abstention for individuals with weak preferences.