Goal Directed Conflict Resolution and Policy Refinement

Peer reviewedPostprin

Normative Practical Reasoning via Argumentation and Dialogue

Postprin

Expertise and public policy: a conceptual guide

This paper seeks to provide a guide to better understand: what is expertise, how to determine who are the relevant experts where it comes to the technical aspects of public policy debates, and how to go about choosing between competing expert claims. Executive summary: In developing policy and assessing program effectiveness, policy makers are required to make decisions on complex issues in areas that involve significant public risks. In this context, policy makers are becoming more reliant on the advice of experts and the institution of expertise. Expert knowledge and advice in fields as diverse as science, engineering, the law and economics is required to assist policy makers in their deliberations on complex matters of public policy and to provide them with an authoritative basis for legitimate decision making. However, at the same time that reliance on expertise and the demands made of it are increasing, expert claims have never been subject to greater levels of questioning and criticism. This problem is compounded by the growing public demand that non-experts should be able to participate in debates over issues that impact on their lives. However their capacity to understand and contribute to the technical aspects of these debates may be either limited or non-existent. This paper provides a guide to assessing who is and who is not an expert in the technical aspects of public policy debates, by providing a framework of levels of expertise. It also notes the importance of identifying the specific fields of expertise relevant to the issue in question. The main focus is on scientific and technical areas, but the issues raised also apply in other domains. It then examines the problem of how non-experts can evaluate expert claims in complex, technical domains. The paper argues that, in the absence of the necessary technical expertise, the only way that non-experts are able to appraise expertise and expert claims is through the use of social expertise. This is expertise using everyday social judgements that enables them to determine who to believe when they are not in a position to judge what to believe. In this context, the paper suggests policy makers ask a series of questions: –      can I make sense of the arguments? –      which experts seems the more credible? –      who has the numbers on their side? –      are there any relevant interests or biases? And –      what are the experts’ track records? By identifying the strengths and limitations of each of these strategies, the paper provides guidance on how each might best be used. It also argues that using them in combination improves their strength and reliability. The role of those who can act as intermediaries between technical experts and non-experts is also examined. The paper makes clear that none of these strategies are without problems, but it postulates that a more systematic approach to how non-experts use social expertise might enhance their ability to become active rather than passive consumers of technical expertise

Framing descriptive norms as self-benefit versus environmental benefit : self-construal’s moderating impact in promoting smart energy devices

Recently, awareness has been raised concerning the importance of sustainable energy use. Nevertheless, many obstacles must be overcome to change individuals’ energy consumption habits. This study examines how a message should be framed to convince individuals to purchase a smart energy device that provides feedback on household energy use. As such, this device can assist households in adjusting their energy-wasting habits. Through two experimental studies, this paper examines how a descriptive normative message, indicating that the majority of US households have already purchased a smart energy device, can increase individuals’ intention to purchase the device. Both studies consider the moderating influence of the self-construal, which refers to individuals’ consideration of themselves as either part of a group (interdependent self-construal) or independent from others (independent self-construal). The first study (n = 231) reveals that a descriptive norm (versus no norm) leads to a higher purchase intention through an enhanced normative influence regardless of participants’ self-construal. The second study (n = 128) adds to the finding that combining a descriptive norm with a self-benefit (versus environmental) frame more strongly impacts the purchase intent of individuals with a dominant independence. No significant differences are identified between the two benefit frames’ effectiveness among individuals with a dominant interdependence

Constitutional Analogies in the International Legal System

This Article explores issues at the frontier of international law and constitutional law. It considers five key structural and systemic challenges that the international legal system now faces: (1) decentralization and disaggregation; (2) normative and institutional hierarchies; (3) compliance and enforcement; (4) exit and escape; and (5) democracy and legitimacy. Each of these issues raises questions of governance, institutional design, and allocation of authority paralleling the questions that domestic legal systems have answered in constitutional terms. For each of these issues, I survey the international legal landscape and consider the salience of potential analogies to domestic constitutions, drawing upon and extending the writings of international legal scholars and international relations theorists. I also offer some preliminary thoughts about why some treaties and institutions, but not others, more readily lend themselves to analysis in constitutional terms. And I distinguish those legal and political issues that may generate useful insights for scholars studying the growing intersections of international and constitutional law from other areas that may be more resistant to constitutional analogies

Societal constitutionalism : alternatives to state-centred constitutional theory

Englische Fassung: Societal Constitutionalism: Alternatives to State-centred Constitutional theory? ("Storrs Lectures 2003/04" Yale Law School) In: Christian Joerges, Inge-Johanne Sand und Gunther Teubner (Hg.) Constitutionalism and Transnational Governance. Hart, Oxford 2004, 3-28. Und in: Ius et Lex 2004, S.31-50. Französische Fassung: Constitutionalisme sociétal et globalisation: Alternatives à la théorie constitutionelle centrée sur l'État. Themis 2005 (im Erscheinen) Italienische Fassung: Costituzionalismo societario: alternative alla teoria costituzionale stato-centrica. In: Gunther Teubner, Costituzionalismo societario. Armando, Roma 2005 (im Erscheinen). Spanische Fassung: Globalización y constitucionalismo social: alternativas a la teoría constitucionalista centrada en el Estado". In: Carlos Gómez-Jara Díez (Hg.), Teoría de sistemas y Derecho penal: Fundamentos y posibilidades de aplicación. Granada: Comares, 2005 (im Erscheinen) und in: Cancio Meliá und Bacigalupo Saggese (Hg.) Derecho penal y política transnacional. Barcelona: Atelier, 2005 (in Erscheinen)und in: Gunther Teubner, El Derecho como sistema autopoiético de la sociedad global, herausgegeben von Carlos Gómez-Jara Diez. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia, 2005 (im Erscheinen) und Lima: ARA Editores, 2005 (im Erscheinen) Polnische Fassung: Konstytucjonalizm spoleczny: Alternatywy dla teorii konstitucyjnej nakierowanej na panstwo. Ius et Lex 3, 2004, S.5-27

Institutional Choice and Targeted Killing: A Comparative Perspective

For over a decade, the use of targeted killing has been one of the most controversial issues in counterterrorism policy and law. One longstanding debate over this tactic concerns the allocation of decision-making and oversight authority among the branches of government. As attempts to settle this debate through textual and historical sources yield indeterminant answers, scholars tend to examine them through a functionalist prism, asking what institutional structures best serve the interests of national security while ensuring adequate accountability and preventing unnecessary force. This article, retaining that functionalist framing of that issue, will approach the question through a comparative law analysis. Three of the countries most heavily engaged in global counterterrorism—the U.S., the U.K., and Israel—have adopted substantially different approaches for regulating counterterrorism targeting, each according a primary supervisory role to a different governmental actor: the Executive in the U.S., Parliament in the U.K., and the Judiciary in Israel. This article describes, compares, and critically analyzes these approaches. Drawing on comparative institutional analysis theory, it then examines the findings and reaches three main conclusions. First, that in light of the judiciary’s unique structural perspective and expertise, some judicial involvement in developing the legal standard that guides and constrains government action is desirable. Second, that suboptimal decision-making and illegality due to executive bias are more likely to occur where the executive is accountable only to its own internal oversight mechanisms. And third, that in both presidential and parliamentarian systems, legislators do not have and are unlikely to have any sort of meaningful influence on executive behavior in this domain. The article concludes by suggesting a few possible institutional reforms

Systems thinking and Equity-focused evaluations

Questions about access to resources - who gets what? - ought not to be seen in isolation from related questions of power - who owns what? They also ought not to be seen in isolation from questions of knowledge and expertise - who does what? Moreover these questions relate to important questions regarding legitimacy - who gets affected by what some people get? Such questions are often more easily avoided in a normal evaluation for fear of the ethics and politics involved in addressing them. But such questions as formulated above also may not be easy to grasp or work with in terms of an approach to evaluating an intervention. To the systems thinker C. West Churchman (1913-2004), such ethical and political questions were profoundly important. It was Churchman's life-long task to surface the need to address such questions. One of the most significant insights offered by Churchman in order to address ethical issues was the need to engage meaningfully with different perspectives

The false promise of the better argument

Effective argumentation in international politics is widely conceived as a matter of persuasion. In particular, the ‘logic of arguing’ ascribes explanatory power to the ‘better argument’ and promises to illuminate the conditions of legitimate normative change. This article exposes the self-defeating implications of the Habermasian symbiosis between the normative and the empirical force of arguments. Since genuine persuasion is neither observable nor knowable, its analysis critically depends on what scholars consider to be the better argument. Seemingly, objective criteria such as universality only camouflage such moral reification. The paradoxical consequence of an explanatory concept of arguing is that moral discourse is no longer conceptualized as an open-ended process of contestation and normative change, but has recently been recast as a governance mechanism ensuring the compliance of international actors with pre-defined norms. This dilemma can be avoided through a positivist reification of valid norms, as in socialization research, or by adopting a critical and emancipatory focus on the obstacles to true persuasion. Still, both solutions remain dependent on the ‘persuasion vs. coercion’ problem that forestalls an insight into successful justificatory practices other than rational communication. The conclusion therefore pleas for a pragmatic abstention from better arguments and points to the insights to be gained from pragmatist norms research in sociology