Responding to Terrorism: How Must a Democracy Do It? A Comparison of Israeli and American Law

This Comment compares the Israeli and American laws that sanction controversial responses to terrorism. It discusses criticisms of these laws with respect to human rights violations and how, if at all, the two governments strive to preserve their law\u27s effectiveness without violating international standards. Part I of this comment briefly discusses the origins of terrorism and establishes a universal definition for the word. Part II reviews the history of three Israeli responses to terrorism, including 1) administrative detention, 2) torture, and 3) the demolition of houses; and describes how these tactics are criticized domestically as well as internationally. Part II further illustrates the present status of relevant Israeli statutory and case law. Finally, Part III discusses comparable measures recently taken by the United States and how these responses are criticized. The importance of a democracy\u27s need to respond appropriately to terrorism and the difficulty that flows with it will be stressed throughout this comment

Women in Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Dilemmas and Directions

A critical issue for post conflict reconstruction is moving beyond criminal prosecutions that ensure accountability of perpetrators toward a system that also serves the needs of victims. When reconstruction includes disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) and development services, these programs cannot be separated from perpetrator responsibility. The traditional criminal justice is perpetrator-centric. Alternative forms of justice have broadened this focus, recognizing that the legal system must respond to both victims and perpetrators. Transitional justice, which focuses on responding to past human rights violations, is critical to holding violators accountable for their acts. In addition to criminal and civil accountability (rights-based justice), perhaps the most significant form of justice for women is assistance traditionally associated with development, as it provides critical social services and facilitates all aspects of post conflict reconstruction. This article seeks to expand conceptions of international justice in the post conflict setting to include social, economic, and development-based rights. It examines two aspects of gender that are integral to post conflict reconstruction and involve women\u27s differing roles during conflict: the significance of integrating gender into DDR and the necessity of domestic responses to the crimes of sexual violence

Women in Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Dilemmas and Directions

A critical issue for post conflict reconstruction is moving beyond criminal prosecutions that ensure accountability of perpetrators toward a system that also serves the needs of victims. When reconstruction includes disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) and development services, these programs cannot be separated from perpetrator responsibility. The traditional criminal justice is perpetrator-centric. Alternative forms of justice have broadened this focus, recognizing that the legal system must respond to both victims and perpetrators. Transitional justice, which focuses on responding to past human rights violations, is critical to holding violators accountable for their acts. In addition to criminal and civil accountability (rights-based justice), perhaps the most significant form of justice for women is assistance traditionally associated with development, as it provides critical social services and facilitates all aspects of post conflict reconstruction. This article seeks to expand conceptions of international justice in the post conflict setting to include social, economic, and development-based rights. It examines two aspects of gender that are integral to post conflict reconstruction and involve women\u27s differing roles during conflict: the significance of integrating gender into DDR and the necessity of domestic responses to the crimes of sexual violence

Unilateral and Multilateral Deep-Sea Mineral Mining Regulations: Why an Effective Enforcement Mechanism is Needed in Order to Promote Responsible Mining Practices in the Future

This paper focuses on enforcement issues with regard to deep-sea mineral mining in terms of unilateral and multilateral structures. It begins by exploring early forays into mineral mining, namely in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the necessity of the extractives industries generally. Next, this comment analyzes unilateral policy regimes, specifically through the lens of United States courts and through differing mining regulatory regimes between countries, and how unilateral regulatory change is likely an ineffective mechanism for enforcing standards for the industry. Finally, this comment looks at international structures that currently govern deep-sea mineral mining and how multilateral regulatory regimes may provide an effective enforcement mechanism in the future. This comment addresses, among other things, (1) the origins of deep-sea mineral mining regulation under the International Seabed Authority; (2) domestic regulation of deep-sea mineral mining; (3) the environmental concerns associated with deep-sea mining; (4) how unilateral changes to regulatory regimes may create externalities that undermine enforcement efforts; and (5) dynamics of international norms and its effects on deep-sea mineral mining. It also explores potential solutions for industry regulations and how to systematize such regulations. It concludes that while the impacts of deep-sea mining are not thoroughly understood, there exist both domestic and international solutions to account for future unknown risk and possible incentive structures that can effectively direct countries toward compliance with international norms. Though this comment takes the position that unilateral policy efforts with regard to deep-sea mineral mining seem unlikely to be effective, it nonetheless recommends that the United States pass new legislation raising liability limits for deep-sea mining organizations similar in manner to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This comment further recommends that any international law-based changes include creating new international agreements, or amendments to existing agreements, to emplace incentive structures necessary for compelling compliance with international norms, which would grant the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) adjudicative authority and the World Trade Organization (WTO) the authority to provide specific, enforceable trade-based remedies for deep-sea mineral mining infractions

Legitimacy and activities of civil society organizations

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) play an active and noteworthy role in governance, both at the national and international level. Three questions arise: First, how do CSOs exercise their advocacy, what repertoires, strategies and resources do they use? Second, to what degree are they legitimized to do so? Third, are there systematic differences between member and non-member CSOs, respectively between policy fields? Based on a survey of 60 exemplary CSOs covering four distinct international-level policy making fora, we will inquire into these questions. The central finding is that membership CSOs neither differ substantially from non-member CSOs in their roles and strategies of dealing with International Organizations, nor do they differ in other aspects of legitimacy, such as transparency or inclusion of beneficiaries. There are no systematic patterns in CSOs properties or behavior which correspond to policy fields. -- Zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen (ZGO) spielen im modernen Regieren eine wichtige Rolle, sowohl im Staat als auch auf internationaler Ebene. Drei Forschungsfragen stehen im Mittelpunkt dieses Papiers: Erstens, wie genau nehmen ZGO am Regierungsprozess teil und welche Einflussstrategien, Ressourcen und Handlungsrepertoire nutzen sie dabei? Zweitens, wie steht es um die Legitimation dieser Organisationen und ihrer Aktivitäten? Drittens, verhalten sich ZGO mit zahlreichen Mitgliedern systematisch anders als ZGO ohne Mitgliedschaft? Gestützt auf Daten von 60 transnationalen ZGO aus vier verschiedenen Politikfeldern gehen wir diesen Fragen nach. Zentrales Ergebnis ist, dass ZGO mit breiter Mitgliedschaft sich in ihren Rollenverständnis und ihren Einflussstrategien nicht grundlegend von anderen unterscheiden. Auch im Hinblick auf wichtige Aspekte ihrer Legitimität, wie etwa Transparenz oder Einbindung von Regelungsadressaten, gibt es keine auffälligen Unterschiede. Die Politikfelder, in denen ZGO aktiv sind, haben ebenfalls keinen messbaren Einfluss auf ihr Handlungsrepertoire und ihre politischen Strategien.

Unbiased Language Assessment: Contributions of Linguistic Theory

This review addresses several situations of language learning to make concrete the issue of fairness—and justice—that arises in designing assessments. First, I discuss the implications of dialect variation in American English, asking how assessment has taken dialect into consideration. Second, I address the question of how to assess the distributed knowledge of bilingual or dual-language learners. The evaluation of the language skills of children growing up in poverty asks whether the current focus on the quantity of caregiver input is misplaced. Third, I address a special case in which the young speakers of a minority language, Romani, are judged to be unfit for schooling because they fail tests in the state language. Finally, I examine the difficult issue of language assessments in countries with multiple official languages and few resources. In each of these areas, the involvement and expertise of linguists are essential for knowing how the grammar works and what might be important to assess

Finding Effective Constraints on Executive Power:Interrogation, Detention, and Torture

U.S. practices of coercive interrogation and torture since 2002 have called into question the efficacy of traditional structural constraints on executive power. Few dispute that the most egregious abuse of detainees in U.S. custody was unlawful, yet neither congressional oversight nor law-making functioned to check such treatment. This Article first considers why and how torture and abuse became such a pervasive problem post-9/11 despite affirmative laws prohibiting them. It then argues that the tools that were at all effective in checking executive power emerged from less classically democratic sources: a highly professionalized military and intelligence community; the media and organizations of non-governmental civil society; and actively engaged courts. While it is true that core democratic structures (particularly congressional oversight) failed to constrain executive operations in prisoner detention and treatment, these other levers of power saw at least modest success in changing the course of executive policy