Air Campaign Duration and the Interaction of Air and Ground Forces

This article explores the role that ground troops play in aerial campaigns. Specifically, it intends to explain how ground troops affect the duration of aerial bombing campaigns. It distinguishes between the effect of ground troops on the duration of aerial campaigns that are selective and on those that are more general and less discriminate (using newly coded data on aerial strategies). The effect of ground troops may vary depending on how air power is being used. Ground troops may increase the duration of aerial campaigns in cases in which selective strategies are used during the aerial bombing campaign. In these cases, states lose the possibility of quick, “clean” victories once ground troops are introduced. In the cases of the less-discriminate bombing campaigns, the effect of ground troops is the opposite: They shorten the duration of the bombing campaign, possibly through the increased effectiveness of a combined arms approach.     

Typology of State Types: Persistence and Transition

Research on state fragility has seldom examined questions of persistence and transition of states. We develop a sixfold typology of states to examine how key structural features of states evolve and contribute to successful exits from fragility in some cases and persistence in others. Particularly worrisome is the lack of positive transition among the weakest states. Our findings are derived from a minimalist construct of a refined time series data set involving state indicators of authority, legitimacy, and capacity. Case studies of some of the more turbulent examples support our state trajectories. Additionally, changes in legitimacy most often led state transitions into or out of fragility. Implications of intervention policy for transitioning states out of fragility are addressed, and these are given particular focus since fragile states experience at least twice the intensity/incidence of internal armed conflict compared to other states.     

No News Is Good News: Mark and Recapture for Event Data When Reporting Probabilities Are Less Than One

We discuss a common, but often ignored, problem in event data: underreporting bias. When collecting data, it is often not the case that source materials capture all events of interest, leading to an undercount of the true number of events. To address this issue, we propose a common method first used to estimate the size of animal populations when a complete census is not feasible: mark and recapture. By taking multiple sources into consideration, one can estimate the rate of missing data across sources and come up with an estimate of the true number of events. To demonstrate the utility of the approach, we compare Associated Press and Agence France Press reports on conflict events, as contained in the Social Conflict in Africa Database. We show that these sources capture approximately 76% of all events in Africa but that the nondetection rate declines dramatically when considering more significant events. We also show through regression analysis that deadly events, events of a larger magnitude, and events with government repression, among others, are significant predictors of overlapping reporting. Ultimately, the approach can be used to correct for undercounting in event data and to assess the quality of sources used.     

Conclusion: agency,context and emergent post-uprising regimes

This conclusion summarizes the evidence explaining the divergent trajectories taken by post Arab uprising states in terms of multiple variables, each illustrated by an iconic case, namely: State Failure and Competitive governance (Syria), Regime Restoration and Hybrid Governance (Egypt) and Polyarchic Governance (Tunisia). Factors include the starting point: levels of opposition mobilization and regimes' resilience – a function of their patrimonial-bureaucratic balance; whether or not a transition coalition forms is crucial for democratization prospects. Context also matters for democratization, particularly political economic factors, such as a balance of class power and a productive economy; political culture (level of societal identity cleavages) and a minimum of international intervention. Finally, the balance of agency between democracy movements, Islamists, the military and workers shapes democratization prospects.     

跨境犯罪中死刑问题研究

由于中国内地与港澳死刑政策的冲突,及三法域间各自独立的刑事管辖权的并行存在,使得跨境犯罪的死刑案件的司法协助变得更为复杂。本文探讨两个问题:跨境犯罪死刑案件中死刑犯是否该移交及移交的标准。在对前一个问题作出肯定回答的同时,进一步论述在跨境犯罪死刑犯移交中应遵循坚持“属地管辖原则”为基础,加强三法域间平等的“协议管辖”协商。从立法和司法方面进行三法域间刑事方面的联系与协助,有效打击严重的跨境刑事犯罪。     

权利的社会本原——在社会冲突与社会合作的视野下

在权利产生、存在与发展的动态过程中,权利的实现能吸纳或者消解相当一部分社会冲突, 促成一系列社会合作,使社会秩序得以形成、维系并协调发展。社会冲突在伸张主体利益的同时,有利于提升权利意识;其在重划利益格局的同时,有利于创设新的权利规范。社会合作所具有的消除社会冲突、促进社会有序的功能为权利的实现提供了可能性,安全、和平、有序的社会状态有利于权利的实现。而且, 社会合作为权利的实现增加了有效性。在社会合作中,行为规则的确立和行为理性的运用使行为结果具有可预测性,从而降低了行为成本,增加了权利实现的顺畅性和有效性。     

STRUCTURAL INEQUALITY AND HOMICIDE: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE BLACK‐WHITE GAP IN KILLINGS*

This paper examines the relationship between race and violent crime by directly modeling the racial gap in homicide offending for large central cities for 1990. We evaluate the role of black‐white differences in aspects of both disadvantage and resources in explaining which places have wider racial disparities in lethal violence. The results show that where residential segregation is higher, and where whites' levels of homeownership, median income, college graduation, and professional workers exceed those for blacks to a greater degree, African Americans have much higher levels of homicide offending than whites. Based on these results, we conclude that the racial homicide gap is better explained by the greater resources that exist among whites than by the higher levels of disadvantage among blacks.     

权利冲突辨

权利冲突不是伪命题。结合权利冲突的原因,权利冲突可定义为,因为权利边界的模糊性、交叉性等而产生的,两个或两个以上的主体间的权利矛盾关系或者因行使权利而导致他人受到侵害的行为。     

专利技术的在先使用问题研究

在我国专利法中 ,仅对外观设计专利 ,第二十三条规定明确了授予专利权的外观设计不得与他人在先取得的合法权利相冲突 ,而对发明和实用新型专利没有做出明确规定。这是否意味着对于发明专利和实用新型专利不存在在先权原则制约 ?如果对此两类专利不存在在先权制约 ,如何理解适用专利法第六十三条第二款规定的 ,在专利申请日前已经制造相同产品、使用相同方法或者已经做好制造、使用的必要准备 ,并且仅在原有的范围内继续制造、使用的不视为侵犯专利权 ?不视为侵权的行为属于对专利权的合理使用还是专利权的取得不得损害他人在先权利 ?不解决上述问题 ,就无法分清实践中专利技术的在先使用和专利侵权的界限 ,由此可能导致截然不同的法律后果。本文作者以程序法的视角和保护知识产权国际公约协定确立的基本原则为背景 ,从明确保护专利技术的在先使用权、专利技术在先使用权抗辩专利权的法律适用、专利技术在先使用权的效力地位及保护途径三个方面来探讨解决上述问题。