scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers on "Doctrine published in 1995"


Book
01 May 1995
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that during the 1978-1992 period, U.S. immigration and drug enforcement policies and practices in the United States-Mexico border region became increasingly militarized.
Abstract: This monograph argues that during the 1978-1992 period, U.S. immigration and drug enforcement policies and practices in the U.S.-Mexico border region became increasingly militarized. Tim Dunn examines these policies and practices in detail, and considers them in light of the strategy and tactics of the Pentagon doctrine of "low-intensity conflict." Developed during the 1980s for use in Central America and elsewhere, this doctrine is characterized by broad-ranging provisions for establishing social control over specific civilian populations, and its implementation has often been accompanied by widespread human-rights violations. The study reflects a deep concern for human-rights conditions in the U.S.-Mexico border region - which has a troubled history in that regard - and is informed by the belief that the "official" story is usually but one version of events and should never be accepted uncritically.

169 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a unique study challenging the assumption that the doctrine of "creation out of nothing" was inherited by Christianity along with the Jewish scriptures which the Church adopted is presented.
Abstract: A unique study challenging the assumption that the doctrine of 'creation out of nothing' was inherited by Christianity along with the Jewish scriptures which the Church adopted

109 citations


Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that a human rights doctrine that is legitimate across cultures and traditions is not possible without the participation of the wider globe and argue that African cultures and conceptions of man have a lot to contribute to the exercise of the reconstruction of the human rights corpus.
Abstract: This article questions the universality of the human rights corpus and argues that a human rights doctrine that is legitimate across cultures and traditions is not possible without the participation of the wider globe. Its purpose is to imagine and reconfigure a rights regime that could achieve legitimacy in Africa. It argues that African cultures and conceptions of man have a lot to contribute to the exercise of the reconstruction of the human rights corpus. The piece focuses attention on particular African ideas and conceptions of society, morality, and human ethos that would enrich the human rights regime and make it more legitimate in Africa.

93 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify four distinct "doctrines" of self-executing treaties and examine the very different types of analysis that they call for, with a view to furthering the development of doctrine in conformity with constitutional allocations of power.
Abstract: A distinction has become entrenched in United States law between treaties that are “self-executing” and those that are not. The precise nature of this distinction—indeed, its very existence—is a matter of some controversy’ and much confusion. More than one lower federal court has pronounced the distinction to be the “most confounding” in the United States law of treaties. A tremendous amount of scholarship has sought to clarify this distinction, but the honest observer cannot but agree with John Jackson’s observation that “[t]he substantial volume of scholarly writing on this issue has not yet resolved the confusion” surrounding it. The continuing, and remarkably candid, judicial confusion over this issue will, I hope, excuse yet another attempt to bring some coherence to the doctrine. In this article, I argue that much of the doctrinal disarray and judicial confusion is attributable to the failure of courts and commentators to recognize that for some time four distinct “doctrines” of self-executing treaties have been masquerading as one. With a view to furthering the development of doctrine in conformity with constitutional allocations of power, I identify these four “doctrines,” as reflected in the self-execution decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, and I examine the very different types of analysis that they call for.

92 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Wael B. Hallaq1
TL;DR: The authors argued that the relationship between model ShurūṬ and documents originating in practice was dialectical, involving complex processes of editing, interpolation and selection, processes that functioned almost imperceptibly within the conventional legal dynamics of the madhhab.
Abstract: The relationship between documents emanating from the world of judicial practice and model formulae recorded in juristic manuals has been viewed differentially by modern scholars. Whereas Joseph Schacht posited the existence of a close relationship between the the realia of judicial practice and juristic manuals, others did not. Going one step beyond Schacht, I argue that the relationship between model ShurūṬ and documents originating in practice was dialectical, involving complex processes of editing, interpolation and selection, processes that functioned — almost imperceptibly — within the conventional legal dynamics of the madhhab. If this view is accepted, it follows that the conventional wisdom regarding a gap between Islamic legal doctrine and judicial practice is untenable, at least in the areas of the law covered by ShurūṬ manuals.

75 citations


Book
01 Nov 1995
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the doctrine of Earth First!, the environmental movement whose tactics include unorthodox activities and the background, economic status and members of the organization of the movement are included along with details of the F.B.I. investigation which occurred.
Abstract: This text examines the doctrine of Earth First!, the environmental movement whose tactics include unorthodox activities. The background, economic status and members of the organization of the movement are included here, along with details of the F.B.I. investigation which occurred.

75 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The need for such a transtemporal transnational approach to law was explained most clearly by Portalis, the architect of the French Civil Code, who did not say that answers were to be found by exegesis of the Code.
Abstract: Most jurists assume that the law of a single country can be studied independently of the law of others. Law students study the law of their own nation. Judges consult national codes and case law. An American or a German scholar assumes that he can write about American law or German law without examining French or Italian law. Even scholars in comparative law often assume that they should first find out what the American, German, French and Italian law is, and then make comparisons. I do not think the law of a single country can be an independent object of study. To understand law, even as it is within that country, one must look beyond its boundaries, indeed, beyond one's own time. Curiously enough, the need for such a transtemporal transnational approach to law was explained most clearly by Portalis, the architect of the French Civil Code. We associate the Code with the emergence of national legal systems in the 19th century. Eventually, nearly every country enacted its own code, each supposedly containing a distinct law. Portalis explained that the French Civil Code could not be the unique source of French law. It could not "govern all and foresee all."' Indeed, virtually every case would present the judge with a problem that the Code by itself could not resolve since "no one pleads against a clear statutory text."2 Unlike 19th century French jurists, he did not say that answers were to be found by exegesis of the Code. He did not say they were to be found by consulting precedent. "Few cases are susceptible of being decided by a statute, by a clear text. It has always been by general principles, by doctrine, by legal science, that most disputes have been

59 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The British Conservative Party has consistently portrayed itself as the party of law and order but, despite high levels of investment in the criminal justice system since 1979, crime and disorder show no signs of diminishing.

53 citations


01 Jan 1995
Abstract: CHANGE IN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST THEOLOGY A STUDY OF THE PROBLEM OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT

44 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Robert C. Post1
TL;DR: The authors argues that the doctrinal disarray in these two areas of First Amendment law stems from the fact that the Court has attempted to locate constitutional value in speech itself, but, Professor Post contends, the constitutional values actually recognized by First Amendment jurisprudence inhere instead in discrete social practices.
Abstract: Contemporary First Amendmentjurisprudence seeks to protect the abstract fact of communication. In this essay, Professor Post argues that this ambition has led to deep doctrinal incoherence. He illustrates this incoherence by examining two specific areas of First Amendment law-the question of what triggers First Amendment scrutiny, and the issue of time, place, and manner regulations. The essay asserts that the doctrinal disarray in these two areas of First Amendment law stems from the fact that the Court has attempted to locate constitutional value in speech itself But, Professor Post contends, the constitutional values actually recognized by First Amendment jurisprudence inhere instead in discrete social practices. Professor Post argues that First Amendment doctrine will continue to flounder until the Court establishes a new frameworkfor First Amendment jurisprudence, one in which particular forms of social structure form the basic units of analysis rather than speech as such.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The debate as to the usefulness of the precautionary principle is voluminous and invariably centers around its dubious potential as an effective international policy tool as mentioned in this paper, and the debate appears irreversibly polarized and reflects the misunderstanding many scholars and policymakers have when confronted with new environmental doctrines.
Abstract: Modern oceanic policies have begun to embrace the precautionary principle in regime formation. The debate as to the usefulness of the doctrine is voluminous and invariably centers around its dubious potential as an effective international policy tool. The debate appears irreversibly polarized and reflects the misunderstanding many scholars and policymakers have when confronted with new environmental doctrines: lost in the debate over attempting to “define”; the precautionary principle is the question of “why”; the doctrine figures prominently in today's international community. With a clearer understanding of the theoretical foundations of the precautionary principle, future oceanic regimes will apply the doctrine with a fuller appreciation as to what it is subtly signifying—a change in the international ethical order. Initially such changes within international policy processes are indiscernible, yet when recognized they prove to have profound implications for the future of international management regimes.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper argued that contract law should not be applied in surrogacy cases because "parents, unlike courts, cannot make enforceable agreements concerning their child's custody." This distinction begs the question of whether contract principles should be used in certain instances of family relations.
Abstract: THERE has been much debate about whether surrogate motherhood should be regulated within the realm of contract law' or family law.2 Both sides in the debate have generally used a very simplified view of one doctrine or the other. Some family law professors, for example, argue that contract law should not be applied in surrogacy cases because "parents, unlike courts, cannot make enforceable agreements concerning their child's custody."3 This distinction begs the question of whether contract principles should be used in certain instances of family relations. It also fails to recognize the many ways in which contract ideas already have entered the family realm.4 Those who press for use of the family law model in surrogacy often seem to be applying an idealized model that does not exist in practice,


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Earth First! movement as discussed by the authors was one of the earliest environmental movements, which advocated both biodiversity and biocentric equality, and determined to protect the environment through both non-violent direct action, and "monkeywrenching", the destruction of private property.
Abstract: The radical environmental movement ‘Earth First!’ began in 1980. Its adherents predicted an imminent biological meltdown that would cause the destruction of one‐half to one‐third of the earth's species, and significant areas of habitat. In response, they adopted a doctrine that emphasized both biodiversity and biocentric equality, and determined to protect the environment through both non‐violent direct action, and ‘monkeywrenching’, the destruction of private property. Over time, the movement split into two factions, one that focused on the relationship of environmental issues and social justice; its goal was public education, and it stressed the use of non‐violent direct action. The second faction argued that protecting the planet's biodiversity was the most critical goal; it continued to stress that the planet's biodiversity should be protected ‘by any means necessary’. Earth First!'s doctrine and evolution illustrate in concentrated form the tendency of all environmental ideologies to incorporate mill...

Book
01 Jun 1995
TL;DR: The concept of a functional air component commander written into joint doctrine was the culmination of 43 years of effort on the part of the Air Force-but it did not occur without dissent as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: : In 1986 Joint Chiefs of Staff Publication (JCS Pub) 26, Joint Doctrine for Theater Counterair Operations (for Overseas Land Areas), first defined the position of joint force air component commander (JFACC). Having the concept of a functional air component commander written into joint doctrine was the culmination of 43 years of effort on the part of the Air Force-but it did not occur without dissent. Following the publication of JCS Pub 26 and the supporting 1986 Omnibus Agreement, many people have selectively interpreted what the JFACC is and what he or she can do. Letters from both Headquarters US Air Force and Headquarters US Marine Corps have eloquently argued in legalistic detail for and against the authority of the JFACC. Additionally, the Army's new concept of airland operations in Training and Doctrine Command Pamphlet (TRADOC Pam) 525-5, AirLand Operations: A Concept for the Evolution of AirLand Battle for the Strategic Army of the 1990s and Beyond, envisions much greater control over the joint battle area, previously an exclusive region of JFACC direction. Finally, the Navy remains wary of an Air Force JFACCs ability to understand the intricacies of sea warfare and therefore releases only excess sorties for the JFACC's control.

01 Dec 1995
TL;DR: The Air Force's need for an established and institutionalized process for the development and transmission of basic and operational-level doctrine has been identified as a major obstacle in the development of Air Force doctrine as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: : The doctrinal history of the United States Air Force has been short and troubled. The Air Force first tried to write doctrine in the aftermath of World War I, while still an organic part of the United States Army. It confronted numerous problems then, just as it has ever since that time. Some of those problems run like consistent threads through Air Force history, and they are the focus of this article. Until the Air Force acknowledges, accepts, and understands these persisting problems, it will not be able to resolve them. Until it does resolve them, it will continue to have trouble with its doctrine and its place in the order of battle. The consequences of these problems for its relations with the other services, its role on the battlefield, and its continued viability as a fighting force, will be highly significant. This is especially true in a time of serious fiscal constraint. Four problems stand out. The first is a corollary to the argument that Carl Builder advances in his new book, The Icarus Syndrome. Builder argues that the Air Force has neglected airpower theory as the basis for its mission or purpose. This neglect of airpower theory, from which doctrine should flow, has also impaired the ability of the Air Force to write sound doctrine, particularly operational doctrine. The second problem is the Air Force's need for an established and institutionalized process for the development and transmission of basic and operational-level doctrine. The third problem is its fear of finding itself committed doctrinally to more than it can in fact deliver. As a result of this concern, the Air Force has been unwilling to articulate precisely what it can do for each of the other services. The fourth problem is that of its own longterm paranoia, a difficulty that has been to a great extent an influence on the Air Force abandoning its reliance upon airpower theory as its underlying creed.


Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1995
TL;DR: The changes stemming from the collapse of the Soviet empire have been so swift and so drastic that the West laboured long to comprehend what occurred and to adapt to new conditions as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The changes stemming from the collapse of the Soviet empire have been so swift and so drastic that the West laboured long to comprehend what occurred and to adapt to new conditions. That process continues. NATO, as an alliance, has made a series of adjustments in force structure, doctrine and military mission — leading finally to a more expansive conception of its purpose and membership. But, as for the wider dimensions of our radically transformed political and strategic environment, the Western democracies are making only modest progress in charting a course for meeting new and different obligations. Even more neglected have been the implications for the operational norms of existing institutions and for the terms of cooperation among the Atlantic partners.

Book
01 Mar 1995
TL;DR: In this paper, Ringgren focuses on the major themes of Doctrine, Organization, and Cult, and Place Within the History of Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, including a new Foreword by James H. Charlesworth, which portrays the importance of this book in light of recent controversy and research.
Abstract: In the only book that comprehensively treats the thelogical ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ringgren focuses on the major themes of Doctrine, Organization, and Cult, and Place Within the History of Religion. Includes a new Foreword by James H. Charlesworth, which portrays the importance of this book in light of recent controversy and research.



Posted Content
TL;DR: A distinction has become entrenched in United States law between treaties that are "self-executing" and those that are not, and the precise nature of this distinction is a matter of some controversy and much confusion as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: A distinction has become entrenched in United States law between treaties that are "self-executing" and those that are not. The precise nature of this distinction -- indeed, its very existence -- is a matter of some controversy and much confusion. More than one lower federal court has pronounced the distinction to be the "most confounding" in the United States law of treaties. A tremendous amount of scholarship has sought to clarify this distinction, but the honest observer cannot but agree with John Jackson's observation that "[t]he substantial volume of scholarly writing on this issue has not yet resolved the confusion" surrounding it. The continuing, and remarkably candid, judicial confusion over this issue will, in the hopes of the author, excuse yet another attempt to bring some coherence to the doctrine. In this article, he argues that much of the doctrinal disarray and judicial confusion is attributable to the failure of courts and commentators to recognize that for some time four distinct "doctrines" of self-executing treaties have been masquerading as one. With a view to furthering the development of doctrine in conformity with constitutional allocations of power, the author identifies these four "doctrines," as reflected in the self-execution decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, and he examines the very different types of analysis that they call for. At a general level, a self-executing treaty may be defined as a treaty that may be enforced in the courts without prior legislation by Congress, and a non-self-executing treaty, conversely, as a treaty that may not be enforced in the courts without prior legislative "implementation." This definition helps us understand the domestic allocation-of-powers function of the distinction: it allocates between the judiciary and the legislature the responsibility for enforcing compliance with treaties by everyone else (private individuals, state and federal executive officials, state legislatures). But the doctrine allocates this responsibility only provisionally. Because of the last-in-time rule, under which a statute is to be enforced by the courts even if it conflicts with an earlier treaty, the legislature ultimately has the power to control the judiciary's role in enforcing even self-executing treaties. The doctrine of self-executing treaties thus serves to distinguish those treaties that require an act of the legislature to authorize judicial enforcement from those that require an act of the legislature to remove or modify the courts' enforcement power (and duty).

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a collection of Robert Clower's writings over four decades, including important papers that have not been reprinted in any other similar volume and recent material on economic method and theoretical foundations.
Abstract: Covering Robert Clower’s writings over four decades, this collection brings together important papers that have not been reprinted in any other similar volume and recent material on economic method and theoretical foundations. Issues discussed include the doctrine and methodology of economics, price determination, oligopoly theory and Keynesian economics, as well as some of Professor Clower’s substantial reviews of the work of other scholars. Above all, they offer an instructive ‘history’ of one scholar’s attempt to enhance scientific understanding of observed economic phenomena during the last half century. The volume concludes with a complete listing of Professor Clower’s publications.

Book
01 Jan 1995
TL;DR: The Devil's rights and the doctrine of the redemption were discussed in the "Gospel of Nicodemus" and the "Chasteau d'Amour".
Abstract: The Devil's rights and the doctrine of the redemption (1) - the 12th century controversy and its origins the Devil's rights and the doctrine of the Redemption (2) - commentaries and encyclopaedic texts from the "Gospel of Nicodemus" to the "Trials of Satan" Robert Grosseteste's "Chasteau d'Amour" the Devil's rights in the vernacular "Gospel of Nicodemus" and instructional writing "Piers Plowman" the Middle English mystery plays and the "Cornish Ordinalia" the Devils' parliament.

Book
24 Jan 1995
TL;DR: The role of theory and strategy in the development of the strategic offensive and the Battles in Whitehall is discussed in this paper, with a focus on the relationship between theory and Strategy.
Abstract: Acknowledgments Preface Introduction Strategic Bombing as an Idea: The Relationship of Theory and Strategy The Role of Theory Early Experience with "Strategic" Air Power The Foundations of Independent Air Power The Theory of the Strategic Offensive and the Battles in Whitehall The Development of Doctrine in the RAF Equipment Policy and Aircraft Development Equipping the Bomber Aircraft Formulating and Testing Strategic Doctrine Doctrinal Considerations and Tactical Problems The Planning Process and Operations Conclusion Appendix Bibliography Index

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For instance, the authors argues that the problem of political liberalism is not primarily rooted in self-interest, irrationality and bad faith, but rather a "dissensus" between reasonable people who, even after painstaking and rational reflection, cannot reach a consensus on the truth.
Abstract: Since the publication of A Theory of Justice, Rawls has not ceased to reflect on the range and significance of his theory. Political Liberalism presents the (provisional?) results of his ongoing considerations. Rawls situates political liberalism within the issue of religious pluralism. According to him, political liberalism began when the conflict between religions and conceptions of truth was taken seriously rather than in the efforts to limit the absolute power of princes (xxiv-vi). He endeavours to find an answer to the question how an honest society of persons can be viable when there is deep division on matters of religion. What can society’s foundation be when social unity can no longer ground itself in a consensus on truth, on a general and comprehensive religious doctrine? With this, however, the context of political liberalism is only partly outlined. According to Rawls, this context is determined in part by the acceptance of an epistemological datum which caused the solution proposed by the Enlightenment for the problem of pluralism to fail. Indeed, it is apparently impossible to rationally devise a secular, comprehensive doctrine which would adequately convince everyone and thereby become the foundation of society. The “burdens of judgement,” the many hazards involved in the use of reason, imply that different people will determine what they consider to be the relevant facts, values and arguments in different ways (xviii; 55f.) People make judgements about moral truths, “all things considered: that is, taking into consideration what they see as all relevant moral and political values and all relevant facts (as each doctrine determines)” (xx, italics mine). What results is that comprehensive doctrines, which can only exercise their power of conviction among those who share the same principles or points of departure, can no longer be measured by the same standard. Rawls’ formulation of the problem, therefore, is determined more by reasonable pluralism than by pluralism as such (63-66; 144; 179). The ‘dissensus’ which defines the problem of political liberalism is not primarily rooted in self-interest, irrationality and bad faith. Rather, it is a ‘dissensus’ between reasonable people who, even after painstaking and rational reflection, cannot reach a consensus on the truth. In Rawls’ opinion, such reasonable pluralism is not a passing contingency of history. Instead, it is the normal result of human reason operating within the framework of the free institutions which developed in the constitutional regimes after the wars of religion (xvi; xxiv; 36-37). Rawls is well aware, of course, that much division has its roots in bad faith, etc. (55). The phenomenon of violence, which has traditionally played an important role in political philosophy, does not, however, define the problem at issue in his ideal theory. It is the task of the non-ideal theory to determine how one must deal with those who choose violence. It is for this reason that Rawls only cursorily suggests that societies should contain irrational, comprehensive doctrines in order to prevent them from undermining the unity and justice of the society in question (xvii; 64, n. 19). It is a fact, nevertheless, that, even in societies where the people are not violent and unreasonable, comprehensive doctrines are still too diverse to be able to serve as public frames of reference. As a result, the ideal of a political community, a community united around one and the same comprehensive doctrine, has become the definitive

01 Jan 1995
TL;DR: In this article, the authors outline the basic elements of a notional, systematic, intellectual approach to the development of Air Force doctrine and propose three fundamental steps that, if taken, can implement the approach.
Abstract: : The truth of the matter is that the U.S. Air Force does not have any sort of systematized process for developing its doctrine. Continuous pronouncements from the highest command levels over the past 50 years have trumpeted the importance of sound doctrine. Yet, no system or organized intellectual process exists to capture and evaluate ideas and concepts and then formulate them into useful doctrine. One can find the unfortunate results of this intellectual void in the manuals of Air Force basic doctrine from the early 1950s to the present. Three examples illustrate the point. First, Air Force basic doctrine totally ignored protracted revolutionary warfare (insurgency) until 1964 and then referred to it almost as an afterthought. Second, a less-than-subtle hint has it that Air Force basic doctrine is not the product of serious research and analysis. More often, it seems to reflect the opinion of the "senior officer present." Third, until the appearance of the 1992 version of Air Force basic doctrine, no one attempted to justify what doctrine said. Correct or incorrect, without any evidence, doctrine was nothing more than a collection of assertions. These three examples do not provide any degree of confidence that Air Force basic doctrine is the product of thorough, systematic inquiry and reasoned synthesis. They do illustrate the consequences of not having a systematic intellectual process for the development of Air Force doctrine. This article outlines the basic elements of a notional, systematic, intellectual approach to the development of Air Force doctrine and proposes three fundamental steps that, if taken, can implement the approach. Basic doctrine provides the perspective for this investigation. However, similar approaches should prove useful and beneficial in the development of other levels and kinds of doctrine.