Lukashenka's Constitutional Plebiscite and the Polarization of Belarusian Society

Aliaksandr Lukashenka pushed through an overhaul of Belarus’s constitution as a response to the protests against the official results of the 2020 presidential election. The goal was to address the desire for change among the population without reacting to the demand for snap elections. With the February 2022 constitutional plebiscite on the most far-ranging changes to Belarus’s constitution since 1994, Lukashenka further entrenched himself in power. The results of our online survey suggest that the constitutional changes do not meet the broad societal demand for political change and, in particular, for constraints on presidential power. Despite the persistence of the political conflict, we also show that Lukashenka’s supporters and opponents are not irreconcilably polarized in every policy domain. Finally, our results suggest that regime supporters have stronger anti-democratic preferences than opposition supporters when it comes to future political participation of the two camps, making the effects of affective polarization highly asymmetrical

Appropriate dispute resolution for women married under customary law in Malawi, with special reference to marital violence

As a dispute resolution service provider, the justice system ought to provide effective legal remedies to address the justice needs of people. Apart from having the capacity to provide the legal remedies, the system has to be accessible as well. In marital violence disputes, one of the general interests of both the State and the affected individual spouses is to prevent further abuse. Courts offer this remedy, among others, by imposing restraining orders, which are backed up by punitive threats. On the other hand, facilitative mechanisms of dispute resolution such as mediation do not have the power to impose punishment on contemptuous parties. However, facilitative dispute resolution processes encourage joint problem solving, which is desirable in maintaining a workable relationship between spouses. This research argues that in order to ensure optimum access to justice in marital violence disputes there is a need for a dispute resolution system that offers facilitative and advisory mechanisms of dispute resolution alongside court processes. However, in Malawi, rural citizens face the barriers of language and use of English law-orientated procedures when accessing courts. Furthermore, some customary law practices and statutory law provisions encourage the view that mediation in marital violence disputes precludes concurrent access to court remedies. This research explores the challenges which this current approach to marriage dispute resolution poses to women married under customary law. It answers the question whether the justice system, with its English law-orientated procedures and the tenet of mandatory mediation or reconciliation, offers appropriate and effective mechanisms of resolving marital violence disputes to women married under customary law

Supervised Visitation and Monitored Exchange: Review of the Literature and Annotated Bibliography

Though courts increasingly rely on supervised visitation services in custody disputes and child welfare cases (Salem, Kulak, & Deutsch, 2007), a search of the literature produces few studies reporting empirically validated aspects of supervised visitation programs. The current literature about supervised visitation extensively documents the rationale for providing the service and contains numerous descriptions of provider programs (Birnbaum & Alaggia, 2006). The next generation of research must focus on long-term outcomes that demonstrate effectiveness of supervised visitation programs (Birnbaum & Alaggia, 2006). This project involves a review of the literature concerning supervised visitation and child access services. The intent of the research is to summarize best practices supported by empirical evidence. It identifies emerging trends, issues, and gaps in the relevant literature. It also integrates the best practices analysis with recommendations for further consideration by the leadership of the Maryland Judiciary