A Court Quietly Rewrote the Federal Pesticide Statute: How Prevalent is Judicial Statutory Revision?

Author's Note: My thanks to Lloyd Musolf, Paul Sabatier, Martin Shapiro, John M. Thomas and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft. I also acknowledge the generous support of the Energy and Environmental Policy Research Program at the Institute of Ecology, University of California at Davis.
The resurgence in policymaking by American courts has revitalized the longstanding debate over judicial activism. Yet much of that debate addresses judicial interpretations of the Constitution, as distinct from statutory law. When interpreting vague statutes, judges can make inconspicuous but fundamental policy reforms. This paper discusses the political circumstances encouraging this form of judicial intervention. The enormous subtlety in judicial capabilities is illustrated. The paper concludes that by focusing primarily on obvious features of court activism, the contemporary debate may be seriously under representing the extent of judicial contributions to our fragmented form of governance.     

The Sudan: Past, Present and Future

Sir Angus Gillan Served in the Sudan Administration between1909-1939. He is now Director of the Empire Section of the BritishCouncil. This article is an abridgment of a lecture he gave,under the chairmanship of Mr. A.R.I. Mellor, at a combined meetingof the Royal African Society and the Royal Empire Society onthe 26th April. Sir Angus first gave reasons for the world'scomparative ignorance of the Sudan, broken only by events leadingup to the three dates: Khartoum 1885, Omdurman 1898, and Abyssinia1940.     

A Qualitative Study of Judgments in Race Discrimination Employment Cases

Qualitative methods were used with the aim of identifying any persistent patterns in the written judgments of British employment tribunal cases involving claims of race discrimination that might explain why these claims are relatively unlikely to succeed. The main factors at work appeared to be credibility of the parties and whether the claimant had enough evidence to pass the burden of proof to the respondent. A relatively recent legislative amendment relating to burden of proof appears to be very significant, while other factors highlighted in the literature appear to be less so.