Paradoxically, the American party system is both highly polarized and unable to confront issues of vital importance. This paper examines the limitation of debate, and in some cases the complete absence of debate, on four major issues in the 2012 election: economic policy, climate change, international security, and -- paradoxically, given the strength of racial voting in that election -- race. The inability of the two-party system to provide choices on such issues is a serious restriction on popular sovereignty, and one indication that the system is in crisis. This revision of an earlier paper, which did not consider race as an issue, was presented at the 2013 annual conference of the New England Political Science Association, Portland ME, April 25-27, 2013.
{"title":"Issue Suppression and the Crisis of the American Party System: The Cost of Two-Party Duopoly","authors":"John C. Berg","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2198572","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2198572","url":null,"abstract":"Paradoxically, the American party system is both highly polarized and unable to confront issues of vital importance. This paper examines the limitation of debate, and in some cases the complete absence of debate, on four major issues in the 2012 election: economic policy, climate change, international security, and -- paradoxically, given the strength of racial voting in that election -- race. The inability of the two-party system to provide choices on such issues is a serious restriction on popular sovereignty, and one indication that the system is in crisis. This revision of an earlier paper, which did not consider race as an issue, was presented at the 2013 annual conference of the New England Political Science Association, Portland ME, April 25-27, 2013.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116992429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This book offers a detailed account of how the Chinese real estate market actually operates in practice, from both legal and business perspectives. My goals are twofold. First, I seek to establish and describe how the Chinese real estate market, with so few written laws, actually functions. How do real estate professionals operate on such a large scale when they are not sure what the applicable law is or how it will be applied? Second, I aim to address the broader question of how a huge nation can achieve such dramatic levels of economic development so rapidly while its legal system is still so unsettled. In what ways does China force us to reconsider the traditional model of economic growth and expansion, which assumes that legal and institutional development is a prerequisite to economic growth?Part I of the book, which includes this chapter and Chapter 2, offers introductory material and some background information, along with my preliminary observations and conclusions. Part II, encompassing Chapters 3 through 10, discusses specific sub-topics within Chinese real estate law and practice and examines each of these sub-topics in detail. These chapters are designed to provide a thorough analysis of how Chinese experts have been managing to function so successfully in a nation with a rapidly changing legal system. Part III, which consists of Chapters 11 and 12, shifts the focus considerably, by discussing conventional law and development theory and its application within China. The traditional theory holds that a firmly established legal structure is an essential precondition to significant economic development. These chapters ask how the theory can be reconciled with China’s experience during the past quarter-century. Finally, Part IV offers some conclusions.
{"title":"Modern Chinese Real Estate Law: Property Development in an Evolving Legal System (Chapter 1)","authors":"Gregory M. Stein","doi":"10.4324/9781315595870","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315595870","url":null,"abstract":"This book offers a detailed account of how the Chinese real estate market actually operates in practice, from both legal and business perspectives. My goals are twofold. First, I seek to establish and describe how the Chinese real estate market, with so few written laws, actually functions. How do real estate professionals operate on such a large scale when they are not sure what the applicable law is or how it will be applied? Second, I aim to address the broader question of how a huge nation can achieve such dramatic levels of economic development so rapidly while its legal system is still so unsettled. In what ways does China force us to reconsider the traditional model of economic growth and expansion, which assumes that legal and institutional development is a prerequisite to economic growth?Part I of the book, which includes this chapter and Chapter 2, offers introductory material and some background information, along with my preliminary observations and conclusions. Part II, encompassing Chapters 3 through 10, discusses specific sub-topics within Chinese real estate law and practice and examines each of these sub-topics in detail. These chapters are designed to provide a thorough analysis of how Chinese experts have been managing to function so successfully in a nation with a rapidly changing legal system. Part III, which consists of Chapters 11 and 12, shifts the focus considerably, by discussing conventional law and development theory and its application within China. The traditional theory holds that a firmly established legal structure is an essential precondition to significant economic development. These chapters ask how the theory can be reconciled with China’s experience during the past quarter-century. Finally, Part IV offers some conclusions.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126251494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) is a recognized international standard setter for securities markets. Development and implementation of an effective global regulatory and enforcement mechanism is one of the organization's major purposes. In 2002, IOSCO introduced the Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Consultation and the Exchange of Information. The Memorandum promotes cross-border enforcement of securities laws through strengthening information exchange among securities regulators. This paper examines the reasons that led securities regulators to seek development and implementation of a mechanism for cross-border exchange of information and how IOSCO addressed the main issues of cross-border exchange of information in the Memorandum. In addition, this paper examines the problems of development and implementation of mutual assistance in freezing and repatriation of assets derived from violations of securities laws.
{"title":"The Role of the International Organization of Securities Commissions in Cross-Border Enforcement of Securities Laws","authors":"Yuriy L. Nemets","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2849539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2849539","url":null,"abstract":"The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) is a recognized international standard setter for securities markets. Development and implementation of an effective global regulatory and enforcement mechanism is one of the organization's major purposes. In 2002, IOSCO introduced the Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Consultation and the Exchange of Information. The Memorandum promotes cross-border enforcement of securities laws through strengthening information exchange among securities regulators. This paper examines the reasons that led securities regulators to seek development and implementation of a mechanism for cross-border exchange of information and how IOSCO addressed the main issues of cross-border exchange of information in the Memorandum. In addition, this paper examines the problems of development and implementation of mutual assistance in freezing and repatriation of assets derived from violations of securities laws.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129326895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper analyzes electoral cycles in distributional bargaining in the European Union. I argue that governments attempt to increase their EU membership benefits above average levels in the pre-election period hoping to appear politically competent to their voters. The theory discusses when and how EU members can increase these gains before elections through negotiations in the Council of Ministers. A time-series cross sectional analysis of EU member states' annual budget negotiations from 1977-2006 supports the existence of electoral cycles in distributional bargaining and generally points to the importance of accounting for such cycles when analyzing patterns of international cooperation.
{"title":"Domestic Elections and Distributional Bargaining in the European Union","authors":"C. Schneider","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1948688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1948688","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyzes electoral cycles in distributional bargaining in the European Union. I argue that governments attempt to increase their EU membership benefits above average levels in the pre-election period hoping to appear politically competent to their voters. The theory discusses when and how EU members can increase these gains before elections through negotiations in the Council of Ministers. A time-series cross sectional analysis of EU member states' annual budget negotiations from 1977-2006 supports the existence of electoral cycles in distributional bargaining and generally points to the importance of accounting for such cycles when analyzing patterns of international cooperation.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123345415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyzes decision making in national security cases on the Israeli Supreme Court and draws broader comparative conclusions. In the post-9/11 era, security has topped the national agendas in numerous established democracies, with repercussions involving their courts. Analyses of decision making on national security in Western judiciaries may benefit from lessons from the Israeli Court, which has been a pivotal player in this domain. A formal model analyzes how internal court institutions plus the rationality of individual justices are conducive to strategic Court behavior. Predictions are tested empirically using an original database with security decisions from 1997 to 2004. The findings indicate that constitutional design, Court leadership, ideology of the ruling coalition and interest group activity have influenced decisions of the Israeli Court on national defense. This study builds on and expands existing scholarship on the complex links among law, politics, and national security in Israel and beyond.
{"title":"A Strategic Court and National Security: Comparative Lessons from the Israeli Case","authors":"Udi Sommer","doi":"10.3167/ISF.2010.250203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ISF.2010.250203","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes decision making in national security cases on the Israeli Supreme Court and draws broader comparative conclusions. In the post-9/11 era, security has topped the national agendas in numerous established democracies, with repercussions involving their courts. Analyses of decision making on national security in Western judiciaries may benefit from lessons from the Israeli Court, which has been a pivotal player in this domain. A formal model analyzes how internal court institutions plus the rationality of individual justices are conducive to strategic Court behavior. Predictions are tested empirically using an original database with security decisions from 1997 to 2004. The findings indicate that constitutional design, Court leadership, ideology of the ruling coalition and interest group activity have influenced decisions of the Israeli Court on national defense. This study builds on and expands existing scholarship on the complex links among law, politics, and national security in Israel and beyond.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123357608","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We establish the relationship between property rights and income inequality within 22 former European colonies. The key, unexpected result is: stronger property rights are associated with higher income inequality levels. We provide plausible explanations for these findings.
{"title":"Property Rights and Income Inequality","authors":"J. Haidar, Marcelo Velásquez","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1386923","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1386923","url":null,"abstract":"We establish the relationship between property rights and income inequality within 22 former European colonies. The key, unexpected result is: stronger property rights are associated with higher income inequality levels. We provide plausible explanations for these findings.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123438454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The explosion of scholarship in comparative constitutional law in the last decade tends to overshadow the traditional suspicion that comparative law exhibited towards public law. For the greater part of the 20th century, the dominant paradigm in comparative public law was particularism and strong skepticism towards universalist features and possibilities in public law, especially constitutional law. With the rise of judicial review after World War II and especially in Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union, comparative judicial review has begun to flourish. This paper is a comment on a paper by Professor Miguel Schor entitled "Mapping Comparative Judicial Review" presented at the Second Osgoode Hall Law School Constitutional Law Roundtable in Toronto in February 2007. In this paper, the author argues that the comparative scholarship on judicial review overemphasizes the centrality of "the Question of Legitimacy" of judicial review in a democratic polity. This is attributed to the mistaken extrapolation of the American debate over judicial review to universal application. Drawing on the examples of Canada, South Africa and Israel, the author argues that the Question of Legitimacy has less importance and a decisively different character in those countries than in the United States. It is time to recall and embrace some of the particularist skepticism in comparing judicial review across different legal systems.
{"title":"A Tale of Two Maps: The Limits of Universalism in Comparative Judicial Review","authors":"A. Dodek","doi":"10.60082/2817-5069.1151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.1151","url":null,"abstract":"The explosion of scholarship in comparative constitutional law in the last decade tends to overshadow the traditional suspicion that comparative law exhibited towards public law. For the greater part of the 20th century, the dominant paradigm in comparative public law was particularism and strong skepticism towards universalist features and possibilities in public law, especially constitutional law. With the rise of judicial review after World War II and especially in Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union, comparative judicial review has begun to flourish. This paper is a comment on a paper by Professor Miguel Schor entitled \"Mapping Comparative Judicial Review\" presented at the Second Osgoode Hall Law School Constitutional Law Roundtable in Toronto in February 2007. In this paper, the author argues that the comparative scholarship on judicial review overemphasizes the centrality of \"the Question of Legitimacy\" of judicial review in a democratic polity. This is attributed to the mistaken extrapolation of the American debate over judicial review to universal application. Drawing on the examples of Canada, South Africa and Israel, the author argues that the Question of Legitimacy has less importance and a decisively different character in those countries than in the United States. It is time to recall and embrace some of the particularist skepticism in comparing judicial review across different legal systems.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126394571","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines the link made on occasion between the concept of dignity and substantive equality; it is further noted that dignity can have very different meanings in different contexts. While the notion of dignity does not often play a substantive role in the resolution of decisions, sometimes the underlying understanding of dignity does matter. However, in all cases, judges should avoid the temptation to rely on unarticulated value judgments or subjective notions of dignity. When judges make reference to dignity, they should articulate the values underpinning their conception of it.
{"title":"The Role of Dignity in Equality Law: Lessons from Canada and South Africa","authors":"Rory O’Connell","doi":"10.1093/ICON/MON004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ICON/MON004","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the link made on occasion between the concept of dignity and substantive equality; it is further noted that dignity can have very different meanings in different contexts. While the notion of dignity does not often play a substantive role in the resolution of decisions, sometimes the underlying understanding of dignity does matter. However, in all cases, judges should avoid the temptation to rely on unarticulated value judgments or subjective notions of dignity. When judges make reference to dignity, they should articulate the values underpinning their conception of it.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125628726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article challenges the prevailing view that the United States acts exceptionally by examining the insufficiently considered legal exceptionalism of other countries. It puts U.S. Exceptionalism in perspective by identifying European exceptionalism as well as noting developing country exceptionalism, pointing to the exceptional rules sought by the European Union and by developing countries in numerous international agreements and institutions. It argues that most nations seek different international rules for themselves when they perceive themselves to have an exceptional need. Indeed, in cases of exceptional need, numerous countries believe themselves entitled to exceptional legal accommodation and may even perceive other countries' unwillingness to accommodate their needs as unfair. Requests for special treatment even exhibit patterns. I conclude by suggesting that the present emphasis on U.S. exceptionalism is overstated at best, misguided and even dangerous at worst. Furthermore, having shown that most nations seek exceptional legal accommodation, or double standards, in certain situations, I identify some parameters for future work on the proper place for exceptionalism in international law.
{"title":"The Un-Exceptionalism of U.S. Exceptionalism","authors":"Sabrina Safrin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1018142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1018142","url":null,"abstract":"This article challenges the prevailing view that the United States acts exceptionally by examining the insufficiently considered legal exceptionalism of other countries. It puts U.S. Exceptionalism in perspective by identifying European exceptionalism as well as noting developing country exceptionalism, pointing to the exceptional rules sought by the European Union and by developing countries in numerous international agreements and institutions. It argues that most nations seek different international rules for themselves when they perceive themselves to have an exceptional need. Indeed, in cases of exceptional need, numerous countries believe themselves entitled to exceptional legal accommodation and may even perceive other countries' unwillingness to accommodate their needs as unfair. Requests for special treatment even exhibit patterns. I conclude by suggesting that the present emphasis on U.S. exceptionalism is overstated at best, misguided and even dangerous at worst. Furthermore, having shown that most nations seek exceptional legal accommodation, or double standards, in certain situations, I identify some parameters for future work on the proper place for exceptionalism in international law.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126082721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：