Deliberative Democracy in Action: The Case of the Citizens Assembly

Streaming video requires RealPlayer to view.The University Archives has determined that this item is of continuing value to OSU's history.Thompson is the author with Amy Gutmann of Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton, 2004), which explores the most widely debated conception of democracy in recent years -- the idea that citizens or their representatives owe each other mutually acceptable reasons for the laws they enact. By explaining what deliberative democracy is and why it is more defensible than its rivals, Thompson and Gutmann illuminate the theory and practice of justifying public policies in contemporary democracies. They also apply deliberative democracy to new practical problems such as bioethics, health care, truth commissions, educational policy, and decisions to declare war.Ohio State University. Mershon Center for International Security StudiesOhio State University. Dept. of Political Scienceweb page announcement, streaming video, photo

Symposium on the European Economic Community -- An Introduction

The editors of the Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business are to be congratulated for commemorating the 25th anniversary of the founding of the European Economic Community with this issue. This issue brings together many distinguished experts to deal with the very diverse legal consequences of the Rome Treaty. From these contributions it will be seen that the new legal order in Europe has taken firm root

Symposium on the European Economic Community -- An Introduction

The editors of the Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business are to be congratulated for commemorating the 25th anniversary of the founding of the European Economic Community with this issue. This issue brings together many distinguished experts to deal with the very diverse legal consequences of the Rome Treaty. From these contributions it will be seen that the new legal order in Europe has taken firm root

The Common Market: A New Legal Order

This term, the new legal order, was first used by the Court of Justice in the First Tariff Commission case; I use the expression in its widest possible sense. This new legal order which springs from the Treaty of Rome, and which brings the citizens of the Community within the protection of the Treaty, also applies to the relations between the member states. The constitutional position of the member countries has been radically altered by the terms of the Treaty, and their relationship is no longer one which exists between fully sovereign countries. They have all—and equally—subscribed to build the Community on what has been described as a basis of supranationality. The three fundamental ways in which this supranational element shows itself in the Community are to be seen in the powers of the institutions. First, the Commission is established as an independent body with a motive power of its own. Second, the Council of Ministers is given the right to make certain decisions affecting the member states by a specially qualified majority vote; and third, the Court of Justice has compulsory jurisdiction over the member states in respect of the performance of the Treaty. These three principles are the basis on which the future of Europe—and all its hopes—are built. It is of particular significance that it is the first two—the independence of the Commission, and the principle of majority voting—that have been specifically challenged recently, and therefore are most worthy of examination. It is therefore my present intention to examine these principles

Obama's Ethics Agenda: The Challenge of Coordinated Change

Obama's "ethics agenda" is the most ambitious ever set out by a new administration. It promises a tougher approach not only to the usual problems such as conflict of interest and the revolving door, but also to broader challenges such as political influence on career officials and lack of transparency in government. The goals of the agenda are a step forward insofar as they focus more on improving the democratic process than disciplining political miscreants. But the means relied on to carry out the goals are less impressive. They perpetuate a major deficiency of the current ethics regime—its disjointedness, which undermines the transparency and accountability necessary for a robust democracy. What is needed is a coordinated approach, led from the White House itself, that takes a more comprehensive view of ethics regulation throughout the government.Governmen