DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND THE POSTDIVORCE FAMILY: IMPLICATIONS OF A PARADIGM SHIFT1

Over the past two decades, there has been a paradigm shift in the way the legal system handles most family disputes—particularly disputes involving children. This paradigm shift has replaced the conventional model of adjudication with a more collaborative, interdisciplinary, and forward‐looking family dispute resolution regime. It has also transformed the practice of family law and fundamentally altered the way in which disputing families interact with the legal system. This essay examines the elements of this paradigm shift in family dispute resolution and explores the opportunities and challenges it offers for families, children, and the legal system.     

Seen but Not Heard? Parallels and Dissonances in the Treatment of Rape Narratives across the Asylum and Criminal Justice Contexts

A significant proportion of women seeking refugee status in the United Kingdom will claim to have been raped in their country of origin. Even where this is not the sole basis of an asylum claim, it may be relevant to its determination. While criminal justice responses to rape have been the subject of extensive academic criticism and legislative reform, the processes of disclosure and credibility assessment in the asylum context have received little attention. This article explores possible parallels and dissonances in the treatment of rape across the asylum and criminal justice contexts, drawing in particular on the findings of a 2007 pilot study. It considers how problems such as the underreporting of rape, the inability of the victim to 'tell the story' in her own words, a hostile adjudicative environment, and the tendency to regard factors such as late disclosure, narrative inconsistency, and calm demeanour with suspicion – may be replicated and compounded in asylum cases. It also acknowledges the complex intersection of race, gender, culture, and nationality in this context.     

How do interests,ideas, and institutions affect multisectoral governance? The case of tobacco governance in two Pacific small island developing states

Multisectoral governance has been recognized to be vital to regulate harmful commodity industries, yet countries struggle with reaching policy coherence due to government agencies' conflicting mandates and industry interference. Limited empirical evidence is available on how interests, ideas, and institutions intersect and influence multisectoral governance in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in Pacific small island developing states (PSIDS), often exploited by vested industry interests and whose non-communicable disease crisis commands urgent action to regulate harmful commodities. This study assessed the ways interests, ideas, and institutions intersect and shape multisectoral tobacco governance in PSIDS. Interviewee data collected in Fiji and Vanuatu show that the idea of individual responsibility, the limited recognition of commercial determinants of health, the centralization of authority, and the vulnerabilities of small island developing states, (including small population, land, economy, geographic isolation, and status as a developing economy), prevent these states from achieving policy coherence in multisectoral tobacco governance.     

Pursuing performance and maintaining compliance: Balancing performance improvement and accountability in Ontario's public health system

This article examines the compatibility between performance improvement and compliance‐based accountability in the implementation of a new system of public health performance management in Ontario. Findings from this mixed‐method study show that only minor elements of performance improvement get incorporated into pre‐existing compliance‐based accountability structures, that reinforcement of accountability structures works to the detriment of performance improvement intentions, and that limiting managerial influence in developing performance measures and targets diminish the utility of information for improvement. The study concludes that achieving a better balance requires an alternative to top‐down decision making that goes beyond consultation to include partnership.     

A comparison of weighted and unweighted analyses in the national Crime Victimization Survey

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data tapes include several variables of weights that reflect how many households or persons are represented by a given data record. While these sampling weights are crucial for estimating overall victimization rates, they do not have as much of an effect on methodological models, because weights in the NCVS are used primarily in ratio estimation adjustments and to compensate for a relatively low nonresponse rate. The general use of weights is discussed, and several examples are given that indicate that although there may be some differences in the coefficients, the basic conclusions drawn from the models are the same with or without weights. It is recommended that weighted analyses in the NCVS be used primarily as a tool in model development.     

Institut Pasteur v. United States: the AIDS patent dispute, the Contract Disputes Act and the international exchange of scientific data

In the case of Institut Pasteur v. United States, the Institut Pasteur (Pasteur) claimed that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) had breached express and implied contracts to share research on AIDS virus samples provided to NCI by Pasteur. NCI scientists allegedly used the samples to acquire information which allowed NCI to file patent applications for an AIDS blood test kit. The United States Claims Court dismissed the complaint by holding that the Institut Pasteur had not complied with certain administrative procedures required by the Contract Disputes Act before bringing its suit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the Claims Court by holding that the disputed contracts did not fit within the scope of the Contract Disputes Act. Soon after the Court of Appeals decision, President Reagan and Prime Minister Chirac announced a settlement agreement whereby the lawsuit was to be dropped, American and French scientists were to share credit for having discovered the AIDS virus, and both parties to the suit were to share the patent rights for the AIDS blood test kit. This settlement suggest that international legal disputes involving urgent scientific and medical matters may require dispute resolution techniques that serve as alternatives to national courts.