This volume, from the Policy Studies Organization, examines the role of presidential leadership in the development and implementation of civil rights policy in the United States. Covering a broad time period, the work takes a social scientific approach to the understanding of civil rights, utilizing both quantitative and archival research. The editors attempt to place and analyze civil rights in context--as a policy arena representative of broader presidential leadership concerns--and look at the development of civil rights policy since Brown v. Board of Education from the perspectives of (1) the public, (2) government institutions, and (3) particular policy arenas.

This is one of the few book-length analyses of judicial review and public policy in very different parts of the world today. Donald W. Jackson and C. Neal Tate have gathered together respected scholars and set forth a framework for comparative analysis into the origins of judicial review, its use as a policy tool, and its exercise and impact in the policy-making process. Political scientists, public policy analysts, and public administrators will find this a thought-provoking study in comparative politics and public administration and a useful classroom text. The text opens with an overview and a delineation of basic concepts and closes with a framework for analyzing the exercise of judicial review in policy making. The major part of the book offers case studies and analyses of the establishment of judicial review as a policy tool, and the impact of judicial review in various types of legal situations. These studies cover twelve countries, including the United States, Great Britain, Japan, India, Israel, and the USSR, among others. Chapter reference lists and a selected bibliography at the end of the book refer readers to current studies of importance.

Donald Jackson investigates the United Kingdom's surprisingly dismal record of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. During the first 30 years of the European Convention on Human Rights (1959-89), the UK was found in violation of the Convention more frequently than any other country, and its violations have continued apace in the 1990s. Jackson traces the source of the problem through the UK's lack of judicially enforceable rights law to the application of executive/bureaucratic discretion under UK law. In order to examine ""discretion"" in this context, Jackson focuses on various ways in which UK authorities have dealt with four specific issues: the problem of terrorism and of due process issues involved in the UK's efforts to counter it; the rights of inmates in UK prisons; problems of nationality and immigration; and freedom of expression, particularly that of the press relative to the conduct of trials and to national security issues. His study illuminates the interworkings of British democracy, political culture and ""officialdom"". Jackson demonstrates the status and perception of the Convention in UK courts by concluding with an analysis of the references in UK judicial decisions to the European Convention on Human Rights. Having suggested the reasons why the UK legal and political establishments so often fail to recognize and enforce rights, Jackson goes on to review various proposals for the development of an effective rights document and enforcement mechanism in the UK.