When US scholars speak of sovereignty, what do they mean?

This article examines American conceptions of sovereignty — as they appear in the writings of US scholars of international law, and those US international relations scholars who deal with international law. At first glance, the US literature is dominated by two distinct conceptions of sovereignty: 1. A statist conception that privileges the territorial integrity and political independence of governments regardless of their democratic or undemocratic character; 2. A popular conception that privileges the rights of peoples rather than governments, especially when widespread human rights violations are committed by a totalitarian regime. However, on closer examination, the two conceptions are in fact different manifestations of a single, uniquely American conception of sovereignty - one which elevates the United States above other countries and seeks to protect it against outside influences while, concurrently, maximizing its ability to intervene overseas. The single conception of sovereignty is able to encompass both statist and popular sub-conceptions because the latter have different - though not mutually exclusive - agendas. The statist conception is concerned with protecting the United States against outside influences and has little to say about the sovereignty of other countries. The popular conception is concerned with limiting the sovereignty of other countries and has little to say about the sovereignty of the United States. This article exposes the single US conception of sovereignty - as it exists in the academic literature of international law and international relations — and arrives at some tentative conclusions derived from the unique position and history of the world’s most powerful state. --

Proposed Rules to Determine the Legal Use of Autonomous and Semi-Autonomous Platforms in Domestic U.S. Law Enforcement

We need some rules. “Or there will be . . . trouble.

Judicial Review of the Exercise of Public Power

Judicial Review of the Exercise of Public Powe

Seasonal facilitative and competitive trade‐offs between shrub seedlings and coastal grasses

Shrub expansion is occurring in grasslands globally and may be impacted by the balance of competition and facilitation with existing grasses. Along the mid‐Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the native shrub Morella cerifera (wax myrtle) is rapidly expanding and displacing other native coastal species. Recent research suggests that much of this expansion is due to warming winter temperatures, as temperatures below −15°C kill M. cerifera. The objective of this project was to understand the importance of species interactions with grasses on the growth and physiology of M. cerifera at the seedling life stage through both field and laboratory experiments. In the field, grasses were removed around seedlings and microclimate and shrub physiology and growth were measured. Seeds and seedlings were experimentally frozen to measure the freeze tolerance at both life stages. We found that grasses provided ~1.3°C insulation to shrubs during winter. A freezing threshold for M. cerifera seedlings was experimentally found between −6°C and −11°C, but seeds remained viable after being frozen to the coldest ecologically relevant temperatures. Seedlings competed for light with grasses during warm months and grew more where grasses were clipped, revealing a trade‐off between winter insulation and summer light competition. Morella cerifera exhibits ecosystem engineering at the seedling stage by significantly reducing summer maximum temperatures. When seedlings are very young (less than one year), grasses appear to improve germination and seedling survival. These phenomena enable rapid expansion of M. cerifera across the landscape and likely inform shrub expansion mechanisms in other systems. Although seedlings are small and relatively vulnerable, this life stage appears to have significant implications for ecosystem trajectory in grasslands undergoing shrub encroachment

Honeybees Learn Odour Mixtures via a Selection of Key Odorants

BACKGROUND The honeybee has to detect, process and learn numerous complex odours from her natural environment on a daily basis. Most of these odours are floral scents, which are mixtures of dozens of different odorants. To date, it is still unclear how the bee brain unravels the complex information contained in scent mixtures. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS This study investigates learning of complex odour mixtures in honeybees using a simple olfactory conditioning procedure, the Proboscis-Extension-Reflex (PER) paradigm. Restrained honeybees were trained to three scent mixtures composed of 14 floral odorants each, and then tested with the individual odorants of each mixture. Bees did not respond to all odorants of a mixture equally: They responded well to a selection of key odorants, which were unique for each of the three scent mixtures. Bees showed less or very little response to the other odorants of the mixtures. The bees' response to mixtures composed of only the key odorants was as good as to the original mixtures of 14 odorants. A mixture composed of the other, non-key-odorants elicited a significantly lower response. Neither an odorant's volatility or molecular structure, nor learning efficiencies for individual odorants affected whether an odorant became a key odorant for a particular mixture. Odorant concentration had a positive effect, with odorants at high concentration likely to become key odorants. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE Our study suggests that the brain processes complex scent mixtures by predominantly learning information from selected key odorants. Our observations on key odorant learning lend significant support to previous work on olfactory learning and mixture processing in honeybees.This work was supported by a grant from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Food Futures Flagship Collaborative Research Fund (CBR3_45865_9 W2003, http://www.csiro.au/org/FoodFuturesFlagship.html). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Whose absentee votes are returned and counted: The variety and use of absentee ballots in California

Absentee voting is becoming more prevalent throughout the United States. Although there has been some research focused on who votes by absentee ballot, little research has considered another important question about absentee voting: which absentee ballots are counted and which are not? Research in the wake of the 2000 presidential election has studied the problem of uncounted ballots for precinct voters but not for absentee voters. Using data from Los Angeles County – nation's largest and most diverse voting jurisdiction – for the November 2002 general election, we test a series of hypotheses that certain types of voters have a higher likelihood that their ballots will be counted. We find that uniform service personnel, overseas civilians, voters who request non-English ballots and permanent absentee voters have a much lower likelihood of returning their ballot, and once returned, a lower likelihood that their ballots will be counted compared with the general absentee voting population. We also find that there is little partisan effect as to which voters are more likely to return their ballots or have their ballots counted. We conclude our paper with a discussion of the implications of our research for the current debates about absentee voting

Searching for better prospects: endogenizing falling job tenure and private pension coverage

Recent declines in job tenure have coincided with a shift away from traditional defined benefit (DB) pensions, which reward long tenure. New evidence also points to an increase in job-to-job movements by workers, and we document gains in relative wages of job-to-job movers over a similar period. We develop a search model in which firms may offer tenure-based contracts like DB pensions to reduce the incidence of costly on-the-job search by workers. Either reduced search costs or an increase in the probability of job matches can, under fairly general conditions, lower the value of deterring search and the use of DB pensions.Pensions ; Unemployment

Social impact bonds: a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

This article provides a rounded critique of social impact bonds (SIBs): a newly developed and innovative financial investment model, developed in the UK and starting to spread internationally that could transform the provision of social services. Although SIBs have the potential to influence delivery by all providers, this article raises three concerns about their possible effects – in relation to their potential outcomes, unintended consequences for the UK third sector, and governance – and then reflects on SIBs as the latest manifestation of the ideological shift which the UK third sector is undergoing.</jats:p