Effective governance is a crucial aspect of all modern nations. Through various collaborative efforts and processes, nations can enhance their current governance systems. The Handbook of Research on Sub-National Governance and Development is a pivotal reference source for the latest scholarly material on the intersection between local and national politics, analyzing how this relationship affects nations' economy and administration. Highlighting theoretical foundations and real-world applications, this book is ideally designed for professionals, academics, students, and practitioners actively involved in the fields of public policy and governance.

When an economic collapse, natural disaster, epidemic outbreak, terrorist attack, or internal crisis puts a country in dire need, governments must rise to the occasion to protect their citizens, sometimes employing the full scope of their powers. How do political systems that limit government control under normal circumstances allow for the discretionary and potentially unlimited power that such emergencies sometimes seem to require? Constitutional systems aim to regulate government behavior through stable and predictable laws, but when their citizens' freedom, security, and stability are threatened by exigencies, often the government must take extraordinary action regardless of whether it has the legal authority to do so. In Extra-Legal Power and Legitimacy: Perspectives on Prerogative, Clement Fatovic and Benjamin A. Kleinerman examine the costs and benefits associated with different ways that governments have wielded extra-legal powers in times of emergency. They survey distinct models of emergency governments and draw diverse and conflicting approaches by joining influential thinkers into conversation with one another. Chapters by eminent scholars illustrate the earliest frameworks of prerogative, analyze American perspectives on executive discretion and extraordinary power, and explore the implications and importance of deliberating over the limitations and proportionality of prerogative power in contemporary liberal democracy. In doing so, they re-introduce into public debate key questions surrounding executive power in contemporary politics.

On the surface, the case itself seems a minor one at best. William Marbury, a last-minute judicial appointee of outgoing Federalist president John Adams, demanded redress from the Supreme Court when his commission was not delivered. But Chief Justice John Marshall could clearly see the danger his demand posed for a weak court filled with Federalist judges. Wary of the Court's standing with the new Republican administration of Thomas Jefferson, Marshall hit upon a solution that was both principled and pragmatic. He determined that while Marbury was justified in his suit, the law on which his claim was based was in conflict with the Constitution. It was the first time that the Court struck down an act of Congress as unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review that designates the Court as chief interpreter of the Constitution.Nelson relates the story behind Marbury and explains why it is a foundational case for understanding the Supreme Court. He reveals how Marshall deftly avoided a dangerous political confrontation between the executive and judicial branches by upholding the rule of law. Nelson also shows how Marshall managed to shore up the Court's prestige and power rather than have it serve partisan political agendas.

This book offers various perspectives, with an international legal focus, on an important and underexplored topic, which has recently gained momentum: the issue of foreign fighters. It provides an overview of challenges, pays considerable attention to the status of foreign fighters, and addresses numerous approaches, both at the supranational and national level, on how to tackle this problem. Outstanding experts in the field - lawyers, historians and political scientists - contributed to the present volume, providing the reader with a multitude of views concerning this multifaceted phenomenon. Particular attention is paid to its implications in light of the armed conflicts currently taking place in Syria and Iraq. Andrea de Guttry is a Full Professor of International Law at the Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy. Francesca Capone is a Research Fellow in Public International Law at the Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna. Christophe Paulussen is a Senior Researcher at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut in The Hague, the Netherlands, and a Research Fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism - The Hague.

Writing of the France of the 1930s, the late Simone Weil declared, The state has morally killed everything smaller than itself. Liebmann asserts that a comparable development has recently taken place in the United States, fostering civic apathy and an inability to address serious social problems, and that, not for the first time, abuse of judicial review has caused the Constitution to be used as a tool of class interests. After a general survey of these consequences, Liebmann discusses the original constitutional debates and understanding. He then assesses First Amendment doctrine, through a discussion of the views of Harry Kalven, the most influential modern commentator on free speech issues, and then discusses the appropriate relationship of constitutional restraints to governmental fostering of public policy, on zoning, education, law enforcement, urban renewal, day care, traffic regulation, and care of the elderly, and illustrates the hopeful developments that are possible if judicial restraint is restored. A significant analysis for all scholars and researchers in the areas of constitutional law and current American public policy and politics.

This pioneering study explores the problems of politics and law that lie behind the growing phenomenon of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), a stance taken by residential property owners attempting to keep various types of facilities out of their neighborhoods. Denis J. Brion argues that the pejorative connotation that NIMBY carries is both unfortunate and unwarranted and seeks to expose the underlying problems for which NIMBY is a symptom. In particular, Brion examines the impact of siting decisions on those who will be the neighbors of a potential project and the political gridlock that so often results when they become aware of the nature of this impact. The discussion is illuminated by a review of the journalistic accounts of particular episodes chosen to demonstrate the pervasiveness and complexity of the NIMBY phenomenon.

Divided into three sections, the study begins by analyzing how a system of public decisionmaking, founded on the ideal of participatory democracy and built on the structure of representative government, is peculiarly subject to capture by small groups intent on pursuing their own narrow agendas. The result, Brion shows, is often allocational choices which yield benefits to few and harm to many. In Part II, he demonstrates the failure of the public remedial process to provide traditional common-law remedies to those harmed by Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs). Brion then looks at the consequences of this remedial failure from both traditional and non-traditional points of view in order to provide a basis for devising an approach to the problems that underly the NIMBY syndrome. The concluding section proposes a solution that involves both expanding the focus of political and constitutional debate to include the notion of communality and narrowing the traditional conception of right to property. As a unique full-length treatment of the subject, this study makes a significant contribution to the ongoing debate over the NIMBY phenomenon and its consequences.

In May It Please the Court, artist Xavier Cortada portrays ten significant decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States that originated from people, places, and events in Florida. These cases cover the rights of criminal defendants, the rights of free speech and free exercise of religion, and the powers of states. In Painting Constitutional Law, scholars of constitutional law analyse the paintings and cases, describing the law surrounding the cases and discussing how Cortada captures these foundational decisions, their people, and their events on canvas. This book explores new connections between contemporary art and constitutional law. Contributors are: Renee Ater, Mary Sue Backus, Kathleen A. Brady, Jenny E. Carroll, Erwin Chemerinsky, Xavier Cortada, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Leslie Kendrick, Corinna Barrett Lain, Paul Marcus, Linda C. McClain, M.C. Mirow, James E. Pfander, Laura S. Underkuffler, and Howard M. Wasserman.

Accounting for participation, separation of powers and democratic accountability, federalism gains momentum in times when traditional democratic legitimacy of institutional decision-making is challenged. Its ability to include multiple interests makes federalism a means to ensure good governance. Based on a multidisciplinary analysis, the book tackles the question of whether federalism as a pragmatic governance tool provides answers to current challenges and what those answers are. Thirty-three leading experts critically examine to what extent federalism serves this purpose in compound states, looking at different countries and policies. The volume revolves around five sub-themes: 'federalism, democracy and governance', 'participation mechanisms and procedures', 'policy areas compared', 'institutional innovation and participatory democracy' and 'federalism: from theory to governance'.

Classicists and lawyers alike will find this a fascinating study that shows how certain principles of Athenian maritime law are still imbedded in the modern international law of maritime commerce. Cohen has made a unique and substantial contribution to our understanding of the Athens of Plato, Aristotle and Demosthenes. Athens was the dominant maritime power in the West from the eighth to fourth centuries BCE. Athenian preeminence insured that its maritime law was accepted throughout the Mediterranean world. Indeed, its influence outlasted Athens and is the only area of classical Greek law that wasn't replaced entirely by Roman models. Codified during the Roman period in the Rhodian Sea laws, it went on to influence the subsequent development of European commercial and maritime law. Using both ancient and secondary sources, Cohen explores the development of Athenian maritime law, the jurisdiction and procedure of the courts and the Athenian principles that have endured to the present day. He successfully treats the much-discussed problem of why they were termed "monthly" and describes how "supranationality" was a feature of all Hellenic maritime law. He goes on to show how their jurisdiction was limited ratione rerum, not ratione personarum, because a legally defined "commercial class" did not exist in Athens at this time. Edward E. Cohen, an attorney with a Ph.D. in Classics, is both distinguished historian of Classical Greece, Professor of Ancient History (adjunct) at the University of Pennsylvania and the Chief Executive Officer of Atlas America, a producer and processor of natural gas. His other books include Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective (1992) and The Athenian Nation (2000). "Cohen's competence in the history of law, his own experience as a practicising lawyer with a Ph.D. in Classics, and his belief that in the principles of Greek maritime commerce reside "the germinal cells of the complex modern international law of maritime commerce" (p. 5), ought to have won for this book a much wider audience than it is likely to have. (...) As the most detailed treatment of Athenian maritime law Cohen's valuable book must be given a place beside the important contributions of his predecessors, Paoli, Calhoun, and Gernet.": Ronald S. Stroud, American Journal of Legal History 19 (1975) 71. " A] learned and precise examination of certain terms and procedures associated in the fourth century B.C. with lawsuits that arose out of Athenian maritime commerce. (...) Argumentation throughout is responsible. Cohen knows the sources and has read critically in a wide range of secondary material. The book is a valuable addition to our understanding of a comparatively little known area of Athenian law.": Alan L. Boegehold, The Classical World 69, No. 3 (Nov., 1975) 214.

A pioneering model for constructing and assessing government authority and achieving policy goals more effectively Regulation is frequently less successful than it could be, largely because the allocation of authority to regulatory institutions, and the relationships between them, are misunderstood. As a result, attempts to create new regulatory programs or mend under-performing ones are often poorly designed. Reorganizing Government explains how past approaches have failed to appreciate the full diversity of alternative approaches to organizing governmental authority. The authors illustrate the often neglected dimensional and functional aspects of inter-jurisdictional relations through in-depth explorations of several diverse case studies involving securities and banking regulation, food safety, pollution control, resource conservation, and terrorism prevention. This volume advances an analytical framework of governmental authority structured along three dimensions-centralization, overlap, and coordination. Camacho and Glicksman demonstrate how differentiating among these dimensions better illuminates the policy tradeoffs of organizational alternatives, and reduces the risk of regulatory failure. The book also explains how differentiating allocations of authority based on governmental function can lead to more effective regulation and governance. The authors illustrate the practical value of this framework for future reorganization efforts through the lens of climate change, an emerging and vital global policy challenge, and propose an "adaptive governance" infrastructure that could allow policy makers to embed the creation, evaluation, and adjustment of the organization of regulatory institutions into the democratic process itself.

A behind-the-scenes examination of the special court dedicated to claims that vaccines have caused harm The so-called vaccine court is a small special court in the United States Court of Federal Claims that handles controversial claims that a vaccine has harmed someone. While vaccines in general are extremely safe and effective, some people still suffer severe vaccine reactions and bring their claims to vaccine court. In this court, lawyers, activists, judges, doctors, and scientists come together, sometimes arguing bitterly, trying to figure out whether a vaccine really caused a person's medical problem. In Vaccine Court, Anna Kirkland draws on the trials of the vaccine court to explore how legal institutions resolve complex scientific questions. What are vaccine injuries, and how do we come to recognize them? What does it mean to transform these questions into a legal problem and funnel them through a special national vaccine court, as we do in the US? What does justice require for vaccine injury claims, and how can we deliver it? These are highly contested questions, and the terms in which they have been debated over the last forty years are highly revealing of deeper fissures in our society over motherhood, community, health, harm, and trust in authority. While many scholars argue that it's foolish to let judges and lawyers decide medical claims about vaccines, Kirkland argues that our political and legal response to vaccine injury claims shows how well legal institutions can handle specialized scientific matters. Vaccine Court is an accessible and thorough account of what the vaccine court is, why we have it, and what it does.

Federalism remains a highly contentious issue in the United Kingdom, but however suspect the 'F' word may be, a substantial amount of devolution has already become part of the local landscape and more may yet follow. With the competence for a number of policies thus shifting from Westminster to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and in future perhaps even within England itself, foreign experience with federal and regional structures becomes a valuable source of ideas. In a series of contributions, distinguished experts from a wide range of legal systems including Canada, the United States, Germany, South Africa and the European Union present their experience, criticisms, and views concerning, inter alia, the distribution of power, judicial review and human rights protection in federalised and regionalised states. The book contains the papers from a conference jointly organised by the Institute of Global Law (UCL) and the Institute of Transnational Law (The University of Texas at Austin).

Attitudes Aren't Free: Thinking Deeply about Diversity in the US Armed Forces emerged from a vision to collect essays from the brightest voices of experts across the range of contentious social issues to catalyze productive discussions between military members of all ranks and services. Forty-nine experts contributed to the following 29 chapters writing on the primary themes of religious expression, homosexuality, gender, race, and ethics. Chapters appearing in this volume passed the scrutiny of a double-blind peer-review by one or more referees from the board of reviewers. The chapters are largely written in a colloquial, intellectual op-ed fashion and capture a "snapshot" of the current discussions regarding a particular topic of interest to uniformed personnel, policy makers, and senior leaders. Each section seeks to frame the spectrum of perspectives captured within the current debates and lines of argument. Authors were specifically asked not to address all sides of the issue, but rather to produce a well-reasoned argument explaining why they believe their well-known position on an issue is in the best interests of the military members and make specific recommendations about how best to address the policy issues from their perspective. The volume is arranged in four primary sections by theme: Religious Expression, Homosexuality, Race and Gender, and Social Policy Perspectives. Within each section, readers will find multiple chapters-each embracing a different perspective surrounding the section's theme. Thus, because of the unbalanced nature of many of the individual chapters, it is critically important that readers focus on the entire spectrum of perspectives presented within a section to ensure they have the context necessary to frame any single perspective. Diversity of opinion has been the hallmark of the United States since its dramatic birth in 1776 and has continued unfettered through today where we now have developed the most innovative and effective military the world has ever known. Thus, it is imperative that we continue to reflect upon the diversity of ideas about how best to formulate the "right" social policy to ensure our service members can most effectively execute their missions.

This volume deals with questions of political party funding and campaign financing, issues which arouse controversy in many parts of the world. How are the central actors in the political arena supposed to gather the funds necessary to operate effectively on behalf of their chosen political ends? And, how may they spend money in furtherance of their political objectives? The aim of this volume, the first in a new series of Columbia University/London University collaborative projects, is to explore these issues in the specific context of a number of national settings.The studies presented here show that financing questions cannot be addressed independent of the constitutional conventions of the country, the nature of the political parties in the country, and the means of access to publication and the media in any given nation. The national studies in this volume reveal a rich diversity in the approach to regulation in Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, Quebec, the United Kingdom and the United States. The topicality of the issues considered is reflected in the fact that since the book was first mooted there have been major decisions of the US Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as an investigation and report by the Electoral Commission in the United Kingdom, all of which have a direct bearing on the legal and policy issues discussed in this book.

In Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall defined the Constitution as "a superior, paramount law," one that superseded the laws passed by Congress and state legislatures. What makes it paramount? This book sets out to recover the enduring principles, purposes, and meanings that inform the founders' charter and continue to offer us political guidance more than 200 years later. In so doing it steers a middle course between "originalists" who constrict interpretation to constitutional specifics and "relativists" who adapt the Constitution to the moment by ignoring original meaning. "Original intent," Ralph Ketcham argues, is best discerned by a study of the political climate that nourished the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and, more particularly, by understanding the broader meanings, intentions, and purposes of the framers.

To recover this full context of political thinking, Ketcham delves not only into the meaning of the documents but also into the connotations of the framers' vocabulary, the reasoning behind both accepted and rejected propositions, arguments for and against, and unstated assumptions. In his analysis the fundamental or enduring principles are republicanism, liberty, public good, and federalism (as part of the broader doctrine of balance of powers).

Ketcham answers convincingly those who question the relevance to modern constitutional interpretation of the finding that the founders were both republican and liberal. He asserts that the rights-protecting character of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights derived from the founders' belief that private rights depended upon active government and public virtue. In other words, private liberties rested on the citizenry's right to self-governance.

James Madison sought to ensure a system of government that would serve as guardian "both of public Good and of private rights." In providing an interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that incorporates both republican and liberal perspectives, Ketcham should find a wide readership among politically active citizens, lawyers, judges, and those who teach and study constitutional law and political theory.

Koshner explores the increase in interest group participation before the U.S. Supreme Court. Since 1953, when less than 13 percent of the Court's full opinion cases were accompanied by friend of the court briefs, there has been a steady increase in interest group litigation. By the 1993 term, interest groups participated in 92 percent of the cases brought before the Supreme Court. While asking whether the rise in interest group activity in this supposedly independent arena should concern us, Koshner attempts to solve the fascinating political puzzle of this tremendous growth. He begins with the growth of interest group participation and asks, quite simply, why? In answering this question, Koshner draws on a series of studies that focus primarily on individual groups and their litigation decisions. He then uses them to explore the macro-level trends that pervade the relationship between the Supreme Court and interest groups. In particular, Koshner studies the roles of four important groups: the Court, Congress, the executive branch, and the interest groups themselves. Within each, he finds a series of changes or shifts in policy that begins to answer the puzzle, and examines his conclusions within the context of First Amendment church-state cases. Students, scholars, and other researchers dealing with contemporary public law issues will find this work of particular value.