Forum for discussion and debate

The application of statistical methods to meteorological data for which there are long, compatible series, and where known trend changes took place were suggested. The effects of optical wedge deterioration, atmospheric aerosol variation, solar irradiance variations, etc., are evaluated. It is recommended that coupled satellite ground based observational system is required to determine global long term trends

The Legislative Resolution of the Rulemaking Versus Adjudication Problem in Agency Lawmaking

Over the past several years there has been considerable debate as to whether federal agencies should develop law and policy by adjudication, a traditional lawmaking forum, or by rulemaking, a forum unique to agencies. The consensus is that, in both theory and practice, rulemaking is the superior forum. It permits broad-based participation that benefits the affected public and educates the agency, its procedures expedite policy development, and its requirement that standards be codified and published promotes clarity and uniform application of law. Thus, the rulemaking process has been acclaimed as one of the greatest inventions of modem government, and the agencies\u27 failure to utilize it has been deplored. But these laments may be, in the words of Judge Friendly, no more than crocodile tears. \u2

Supporting Sustainable e-learning: A UK National Forum

This article outlines the progress of a national Supporting Sustainable eLearning Forum, funded by the UK Learning and Teaching Support Network Generic Centre. The aim of the forum was to move e-learning on from project innovation to embedded practice, and address questions around the scaleable nature of e-learning. Assimilated views of a wide range of support staff are presented. These include ideas on how to devise strategies for supporting Higher Education lecturers in the design, development and implementation of online courses; disseminate good practice in supporting sustainable approaches to eLearning; and contribute to the ongoing debate in the sharing and reuse of e-learning resources

Managing the recovery in uncertain times: a summary of the 2003 Philadelphia Fed Policy Forum.

Managing the recovery in uncertain times was the topic of our third annual Philadelphia Fed Policy Forum held on November 14, 2003. This event, sponsored by the Bank’s Research Department, brought together a group of highly respected academics, policymakers, and market economists, for discussion and debate about the effect of uncertainty on economic decision-making. Our hope is that the 2003 Policy Forum serves as a catalyst for both greater understanding and more research on policymaking in the face of uncertainty.Uncertainty ; Economic policy ; Monetary policy

Human Rights Revisionism and the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism

This article focuses on the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA): a self-appointed group of parliamentarians dedicated to extinguishing what it calls “the new antisemitism.” Working from a Gramscian perspective, we identify key discursive strategies in coalition publications and testimony and argue that despite the CPCCA’s pretence to being a forum for liberal-pluralist debate, in fact it is engaged in an ideological reframing of human rights designed to restrict political debate. It does so, paradoxically, by drawing on the language of left-liberalism, which contrasts with recent ideological interventions aiming to secure the priorities of the neo-liberal state

The International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 1994. Is its Plan of Action important, desirable and feasible?

A Postscript to Our Forum of Volume 6(1):71-122. We received two further contributions to the debate featured in the Forum in our last issue. The papers speak for themselves and I will not attempt any further synthesis, except to note that each brings up important issues not fully covered in the previous Forum. John C. Caldwel

China’s rise in a liberal world order in transition – introduction to the FORUM

In a time of great uncertainty about the future and resilience of the liberal world order this Forum focuses on China’s rise and interplay with the foundations of that liberal order. The key question is the extent to and variegated ways in which China - with its (re)ascendance to power and potential global leadership – is adapting to and perhaps even strengthening liberal institutions and rules of the game, confronting them, or developing alternative paths. In this introduction to the Forum we advance three key points based on the contributions. First, contrasting the orthodox binary scenarios of either inevitable conflict or co-optation offered in the mainstream IR debate, the Forum highlights the possibility of a third scenario of China’s interplay with the liberal world and its key actors, institutions, and rules. A hybrid and variegated scenario that entails both conflict and adaptation, differently entangled in different issue areas. Second, it stresses the need to conceptualize and empirically comprise the essentially interlinked nature of domestic state-society models and the global political economy. Third, we argue for a perspective that incorporates underlying economic and social structures and the power relations embedded therein

Exploring a Second Level of Parity: Suggestions for Developing an Analytical Framework for Forum Selection in Employment Discrimination Litigation

In April 1990 in Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly, the United States Supreme Court resolved a split among the circuit courts and held that state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Title VII claims. This decision strengthens a presumption that state courts, as a whole, can be equal to their federal counterparts in adjudicating federal employment discrimination claims. It also further complicates the process of forum selection for employment discrimination litigants. Because plaintiffs now may present Title VII claims in state court, the doctrine of res judicata will bar any subsequent presentation of Title VII claims in federal court that the plaintiff could have raised in a prior state court action. Plaintiffs who wish to pursue related state claims in state court without risking removal may have to abandon their Title VII claims to protect their choice of forum.\u27 Consequently, the informed use of the forum selection process in making that choice is increasingly important. Now more than ever, litigants need an analytical framework to guide them in the forum selection process. Scholars and commentators consistently have debated the proper role of the state and federal courts in the adjudication of federal claims. One can trace the origins of this debate to the Framers of the Constitution In recent years this debate often has focused on the issue of parity: whether or not the state courts, as a whole, provide adequate and trustworthy forums for litigants seeking protection of federal rights.\u27 The parity debate raises issues significant to the determination of the proper roles of the federal and state courts in enforcing federal rights. Although no consensus has emerged, the continuing debate is likely to influence the allocation of judicial resources by judges and legislators alike. The Yellow Freight decision forces employment discrimination litigants and their attorneys engaging in the process of forum selection to confront many of the same issues raised by the parity debate. These issues, however, have a different significance for individual litigants confronted with a choice between state and federal forums. For litigants, the important inquiry is not whether state courts as a whole are as capable as their federal counterparts in protecting federal rights, but whether, in a given case, a particular state court or a particular federal court is more amenable to the claims or defenses litigants may raise. Thus, to be of value to individuals in developing a framework for forum selection, the parity debate must move to another level. Although the central question remains whether one forum is better than another, a pragmatic approach to forum selection requires an individualization of the parity debate