AbstractIn A Cosmopolitan Legal Order: Kant, Constitutional Justice, and the ECHR, we sought to demonstrate the power of Kantian theory to explain – or at least meaningfully illuminate – (1) the defining characteristics of modern, rights-based constitutionalism; (2) the evolving law, politics and constitutional architecture of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR); and (3) the emergence of a global, cosmopolitan commons, featuring inter-judicial dialogue at its core. This article responds to contributors to the special symposium on the book. In Part I, we defend our account of a Kantian-congruent, domestic system of constitutional justice. Part II reflects on the ECHR as an instantiation of a cosmopolitan legal order, and on the European Court's case law – particularly its enforcement of the proportionality principle. In Part III, we assess the evidence in support of a broader 'constitutionalization' of international human rights law.
Promotion of effective science exchange between government scientists and managers requires thoughtful arrangement and operation of research and management functions. The U.S. Forest Service was established at the peak of the Progressive Era, when science exchange was designed to occur between researchers and resource managers who worked in distinct arms of the agency, but shared similar goals of effective forest management. In this article, the authors explore the implications of diminished agency capacity for science exchange interactions between researchers and managers in recreation management. Managers and researchers identified their current interactions, their perceptions of ideal interactions, and barriers to achieving those ideals. Reductions in agency capacity for recreation management have resulted in the erosion of interactions between managers and researchers. However, effective science exchange does occur, but requires innovative and adaptive approaches.
Explores the roles that an agency plays in a collaborative policy-making process such as regulatory negotiation. Three regulatory negotiation cases are examined to determine the perceived roles of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials & other participants, & the study suggests a number of findings. (1) The EPA fulfills a number of different roles (Expert, Analyst, Stakeholder, Facilitator & Leader) in a negotiation process. (2) The EPA is expected to be an active participant in the negotiations, not simply an overseer or facilitator of interests. (3) The EPA interprets its primary role much more narrowly -- as that of an expert -- than do other participants. Nonagency participants view EPA's primary role as a leader, which combines technical, substantive, &process components. Where previously & in the theoretical literature, agencies exercise leadership through statutory authority or technical expertise, this study suggests that there are additional dimensions to that leadership role. In a collaborative process such as regulatory negotiation, the agency finds itself in a realm that demands that it effectively merge the roles of expert, analyst, & stakeholder into a more complex leadership role than has been suggested in the past. 1 Table, 81 References. Adapted from the source document.