Plan stability: replanning versus plan repair

The ultimate objective in planning is to construct plans for execution. However, when a plan is executed in a real environment it can encounter differences between the expected and actual context of execution. These differences can manifest as divergences between the expected and observed states of the world, or as a change in the goals to be achieved by the plan. In both cases, the old plan must be replaced with a new one. In replacing the plan an important consideration is plan stability. We compare two alternative strategies for achieving the {em stable} repair of a plan: one is simply to replan from scratch and the other is to adapt the existing plan to the new context. We present arguments to support the claim that plan stability is a valuable property. We then propose an implementation, based on LPG, of a plan repair strategy that adapts a plan to its new context. We demonstrate empirically that our plan repair strategy achieves more stability than replanning and can produce repaired plans more efficiently than replanning

Identifying and assessing the implementation of human rights decisions

Assessing the extent to which states have implemented the decisions of supranational human rights bodies is a challenging task. It requires supranational bodies—be they judicial, quasi-judicial or political—to create an evidence-based public record of the status quo of implementation at any point in time and determine whether the measures taken do, in fact, satisfy the requirements of the decision. This, in turn, relies upon states engaging in good faith, victims having a voice, and civil society organisations seizing the opportunity to influence the follow-up process. Using empirical data from interviews in selected states in the African, Inter-American and European regions, and within regional and United Nations bodies, this article argues that in no human rights ‘system’ are all these expectations met, in part because follow-up work is inadequately resourced. It argues that supranational bodies should proactively seek out diverse sources of information and adopt more transparent and responsive working methods so as to enable ‘real time’ participation by all interested parties. The article concludes with recommendations for supranational bodies, and state and non-state actors