Transforming Environmental Governance in Northern Ireland. Part One: The Process of Policy Renewal

As Northern Ireland emerges from decades of conflict, the pressuresfor economic regeneration mean that without fundamental reformsto the region’s system of environmental governance, itslong-awaited sustainable development strategy will be littlemore than a chimera. There is some cause for optimism that theneed for major administrative reform is now understood. Thescale and background of the underlying environmental policymalaise are examined. Only in the last four years, spurred bya combination of the threat of fines before the European Courtof Justice and of the restoration of devolution, has there beena significant effort of environmental law reform, which hasled to a clearing Northern Ireland’s notorious EU legislativebacklog. Real reform in governance, however, will be impossiblewithout a credible champion, and a particular responsibilityfor leadership in policy on the environment and sustainabledevelopment will rest on Northern Ireland’s Departmentof the Environment. Five critical challenges are identifiedif the Department is to be effective in this respect.     

Patterns of influence and response in abusing and nonabusing families

Behaviors of influence and response during a conflict negotiation task were examined in eight physically child abusing, substance abusing families in which the father was the primary abuser and eight demographically matched nonabusing families. Abusing fathers displayed more coercive patterns of influencing behavior and more negative patterns of response to other family members, including both mothers and children. Fewer differences were observed between mothers in the abusing and nonabusing families or in the children's behavior; however, mothers in the abusing families criticized their husbands more and abused children exhibited less agreement and more criticism toward their fathers. In support of Patterson's theory, abusing families exhibited relatively more reciprocated sequences of criticism and relatively fewer reciprocated sequences of agreement as compared to nonabusing families. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for understanding interaction in child abusing families.     

How jurors construe “insanity”

Historically and currently, jurors who have rendered verdicts in insanity cases have themselves been criticized and maligned-accused of being simplistic and biased, of lacking understanding, and of disregarding or nullifying the judge's instructions. Are the critics right? In this study, 263 mock jurors (141 adults and 122 students) were asked to decide four insanity cases without instructions, using their own best judgment, and to identify the determinative facts for them, and the meaning of those facts. Those determinative factors were then categorized, using a seven construct schema for NGRI and guilty verdicts. The results show that jurors do make discriminations among cases in terms of constructs, and that these constructs are relevant, complex, and flexible; furthermore, the jurors' lay constructs of insanity are more complex than the legal constructs of insanity. The “simplism,” it seems, lies not with the jurors but with the insanity tests.     

Fat and the law: who should take the blame?

The incidence of obesity in both adults and children is rising at a rapid rate in most developed countries, including in Australia. Some obese people are seeking to place the blame for their condition on the fast-food industry, as demonstrated by the recent litigation in the United States brought by two obese plaintiffs against McDonald's. This litigation was unsuccessful, and on existing Australian negligence principles any similar litigation commenced here is likely to suffer the same fate. Principles of personal responsibility, autonomy and free will should prevail to deny a negligence claim. The risk of obesity and concomitant health problems from eating fast food to excess is an obvious risk which the plaintiff should not have ignored and which he or she has voluntarily assumed. It is for the Australian Government, not the courts, to regulate the behaviour of the fast-food industry. The government should take action by requiring all major fast-food chains to label their products with nutritional information, and by imposing restrictions on the advertising of food to children.     

Fatal Families: Why Children are Killed in Familicide Occurrences

This literature review attempts to identify the underlying factors and commonalities regarding the killing of children in occurrences of familicide (wherein the entire family is slain by a family member). Numerous journal and newspaper articles were reviewed to glean information regarding similarities in victim families, the breakdown of the family prior to the incident of familicide, and the degree of pre-meditation by the perpetrator. This information is then used to discuss and inform possible implications in counselling such as assessment, prevention, and grief and loss therapy as well as directions for future research.     

Beyond Endogeneity: How Firms and Regulators Co‐Construct the Meaning of Regulation

What role do regulators and firms play in the construction of open‐ended regulatory terms? The new institutional legal endogeneity model posits that organizations respond to legal uncertainty by adopting formal structures to symbolically signal their compliance. These structures, however, tend to embody businesses' managerial and commercial values, as opposed to regulatory goals. Law becomes endogenous insofar as legal actors then defer to businesses' institutionalized ideas about regulation and compliance. Professionals, such as lawyers and human‐resource managers, and their strategic deployment of framing, are portrayed as the engines of the above process of legal endogeneity. By comparison, administrative agencies' strategies in shaping the meaning that corporations attach to the law are practically ignored. Building on a detailed case study of British financial firms' responses to the Financial Services Authority's Treating Customers Fairly initiative, this article problematizes the supposition of regulatory deference to business constructions of law. Instead, it develops a more balanced model that recognizes business professionals' and regulators' co‐construction of regulation and compliance. The process of regulatory meaning co‐construction, as depicted by this model, involves alignment and disputes between regulators' and professionals' strategic framing of regulatory concerns with tangible consequences for the enactment of regulation.