The judicial role in life-sustaining medical treatment decisions.

Although there has been speculation regarding the pervasiveness and nature of judicial decisions regarding life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT), no attempt has been made to empirically assess their prevalence or the issues they address. An exploratory study utilizing a mail survey of a nationwide random sample (N = 905) of state trial court judges was conducted to provide initial information regarding this decision-making process. Twenty-two percent of the responding judges had heard at least one LSMT case, and judicial review did not appear endemic to particular states. The number of judges hearing LSMT cases dropped from 1975 to 1981 but has increased since then. Three major issues predominate: patient competency, appointment of a surrogate decisionmaker, and resolution of the ultimate issue of forgoing LSMT. Relatively few cases either contested a prior directive's validity or involved imposing sanctions for instituting or forgoing LSMT. Although subject to different interpretations, the results suggest the courts are having a significant impact on certain aspects of the LSMT decision-making process. However, the infrequency with which any one judge is called upon to make an LSMT decision causes concern about the judiciary's ability to respond in a timely and appropriate manner. With their potential for a profound effect on the actions of health care providers, greater attention to this decision-making process is warranted.     

A note on the status of discretion in police research

“Discretion” holds an unrivaled position at the core of the notional inventory employed in the study of criminal justice generally and policing particularly. Efforts to systematically define the term have been irregular and its status in the empirical literature is an ambiguous one. While spoken of as a quantitative aspect of the policing which influences behavior, measurement is rarely addressed. After sketching problems in present formulations, discretion is recast in terms of perceived job autonomy and an outline of two general constructs is contributed in hopes of renewing consideration of the potential relevance of the concept for police theory and research.     

Empire and Its Alternatives

The most ferocious debates are about whether the United States should be described as imperial, but in practice other countries also try to influence other countries’ domestic policies, to propagate their visions, to exert power and to stabilize areas beyond their borders that are perceived as a source of threats. While in the 1990s the winners of globalization were seen as small open states, since the turn of the millennium big powers appear to be gaining because of their ability to project political power: the United States, but also China, Russia, India, and Brazil. This makes for a greater instability and leads to the formulation of theories of realism or neo-realism. The essay concludes with an examination of alternatives to empire and the neo-imperial vision, in particular the importance of elaboration of common or shared values in helping to build a safer and more peaceful international order.     

"We Live in a Country of UNHCR"—Refugee Protests and Global Political Society

Between September and December 2005 over 3,000 Sudanese refugees held a sit-in demonstration at the Mustapha Mahmoud Square in Cairo, Egypt, which is located directly across from the offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). We analyze the events of the refugee sit-in as an act of global political society, one that saw people outside the realm of the political making demands for recognition and a say in the solutions being developed to relieve their plight. We argue that the sit-in at Cairo was fundamentally a disagreement between the refugees and the UNHCR over the politics of protection, care, and mobility. The article analyzes the strategies through which the refugees named their "population of care" in ways that countered the UNHCR's governmental strategies to classify the Sudanese refugee population in Cairo. We propose the concept of "global political society" as a way of thinking about global political life from the perspective of those who are usually denied the status of political beings. Global political society is a highly ambiguous site where power relations are enacted, taken and retaken by various actors, but in ways that do not foreclose opportunities for refugees to actively reformulate the governmentalities of care and protection.