1,720,960 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Calculated Discrimination: Exposing Racial Gerrymandering Using Computational Methods
Get PDFIn Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court held that challenges to partisan gerrymanders presented a nonjusticiable political question. This decision threatened to discard decades of work by political scientists and other experts, who had developed a myriad of techniques designed to help the courts objectively and unambiguously identify excessively partisan district maps.
Simulated redistricting promised to be one of the most effective of these techniques. Simulated redistricting algorithms are computer programs capable of generating thousands of election-district maps, each of which conforms to a set of permissible criteria determined by the relevant state legislature. By measuring the partisan lean of both the automatically generated maps and the map put forth by the state legislature, a court could determine how much of this partisan bias was attributable to the deliberate actions of the legislature, rather than the natural distribution of the state’s population.
Rucho ended partisan gerrymandering challenges brought under the U.S. Constitution—but it need not close the book on simulated redistricting. Although originally developed to combat partisan gerrymanders, simulated redistricting algorithms can be repurposed to help courts identify intentional racial gerrymanders. Instead of measuring the partisan bias of automatically generated maps, these programs can gauge improper racial considerations evident in the legislature’s plan and demonstrate the discriminatory intent that produced such an outcome. As long as the redistricting process remains in the hands of state legislatures, there is a threat that constitutionally impermissible considerations will be employed when drawing district plans. Simulated redistricting provides a powerful tool with which courts can detect a hidden unconstitutional motive in the redistricting process
Calculated Discrimination: Exposing Racial Gerrymandering Using Computational Methods
Get PDFIn Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court held that challenges to partisan gerrymanders presented a nonjusticiable political question. This decision threatened to discard decades of work by political scientists and other experts, who had developed a myriad of techniques designed to help the courts objectively and unambiguously identify excessively partisan district maps. Simulated redistricting promised to be one of the most effective of these techniques. Simulated redistricting algorithms are computer programs capable of generating thousands of election-district maps, each of which conforms to a set of permissible criteria determined by the relevant state legislature. By measuring the partisan lean of both the automatically generated maps and the map put forth by the state legislature, a court could determine how much of this partisan bias was attributable to the deliberate actions of the legislature, rather than the natural distribution of the state’s population.Rucho ended partisan gerrymandering challenges brought under the U.S. Constitution—but it need not close the book on simulated redistricting. Although originally developed to combat partisan gerrymanders, simulated redistricting algorithms can be repurposed to help courts identify intentional racial gerrymanders. Instead of measuring the partisan bias of automatically generated maps, these programs can gauge improper racial considerations evident in the legislature’s plan and demonstrate the discriminatory intent that produced such an outcome. As long as the redistricting process remains in the hands of state legislatures, there is a threat that constitutionally impermissible considerations will be employed when drawing district plans. Simulated redistricting provides a powerful tool with which courts can detect a hidden unconstitutional motive in the redistricting process
Reinterpreting The Reinterpretation: Collective Self-Defense As Constitutional Fidelity
No full textAs currently interpreted, Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution requires Japan’s Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) to operate in a purely defensive capacity. Recently, however, the United States has increasingly asked Japan to participate in joint military operations, in which Japanese forces would defend not only themselves, but also their American allies. This raises an important legal question: does Article 9 permit the JSDF engage in this kind of collective self-defense? Former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo believed so. After a government panel of legal experts found that collective self-defense was consistent with Article 9, the Abe administration adopted the panel’s conclusion. However, this “Reinterpretation” of Article 9 has been highly controversial. Japanese scholars of constitutional law are deeply divided on the meaning of Article 9 and the legality of the Reinterpretation. While some maintain that Article 9 prohibits collective self-defense, others have argued that Article 9 either permits it, or is superseded by Japan’s treaty obligations to the United States. However, until now, these arguments have not been reflected in the non-Japanese literature. Accordingly, English-language scholarship has often assumed with little discussion that the Reinterpretation is inconsistent with Article 9, before proceeding to analyze the Reinterpretation as a failed attempt to informally amend the Article 9 without the requisite democratic support. This essay re-frames the debate. The Reinterpretation is not an attempt to amend Article 9, but an attempt to understand it. Accordingly, its legitimacy is not derived from the magnitude of its popular support, but the strength of its legal justifications
Reinterpreting The Reinterpretation: Collective Self-Defense As Constitutional Fidelity
No full textAs currently interpreted, Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution requires Japan’s Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) to operate in a purely defensive capacity. Recently, however, the United States has increasingly asked Japan to participate in joint military operations, in which Japanese forces would defend not only themselves, but also their American allies. This raises an important legal question: does Article 9 permit the JSDF engage in this kind of collective self-defense? Former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo believed so. After a government panel of legal experts found that collective self-defense was consistent with Article 9, the Abe administration adopted the panel’s conclusion. However, this “Reinterpretation” of Article 9 has been highly controversial. Japanese scholars of constitutional law are deeply divided on the meaning of Article 9 and the legality of the Reinterpretation. While some maintain that Article 9 prohibits collective self-defense, others have argued that Article 9 either permits it, or is superseded by Japan’s treaty obligations to the United States. However, until now, these arguments have not been reflected in the non-Japanese literature. Accordingly, English-language scholarship has often assumed with little discussion that the Reinterpretation is inconsistent with Article 9, before proceeding to analyze the Reinterpretation as a failed attempt to informally amend the Article 9 without the requisite democratic support. This essay re-frames the debate. The Reinterpretation is not an attempt to amend Article 9, but an attempt to understand it. Accordingly, its legitimacy is not derived from the magnitude of its popular support, but the strength of its legal justifications
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Recommended from our members
Reinterpreting The Reinterpretation: Collective Self-Defense As Constitutional Fidelity
No full textAs currently interpreted, Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution requires Japan’s Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) to operate in a purely defensive capacity. Recently, however, the United States has increasingly asked Japan to participate in joint military operations, in which Japanese forces would defend not only themselves, but also their American allies. This raises an important legal question: does Article 9 permit the JSDF engage in this kind of collective self-defense? Former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo believed so. After a government panel of legal experts found that collective self-defense was consistent with Article 9, the Abe administration adopted the panel’s conclusion. However, this “Reinterpretation” of Article 9 has been highly controversial. Japanese scholars of constitutional law are deeply divided on the meaning of Article 9 and the legality of the Reinterpretation. While some maintain that Article 9 prohibits collective self-defense, others have argued that Article 9 either permits it, or is superseded by Japan’s treaty obligations to the United States. However, until now, these arguments have not been reflected in the non-Japanese literature. Accordingly, English-language scholarship has often assumed with little discussion that the Reinterpretation is inconsistent with Article 9, before proceeding to analyze the Reinterpretation as a failed attempt to informally amend the Article 9 without the requisite democratic support. This essay re-frames the debate. The Reinterpretation is not an attempt to amend Article 9, but an attempt to understand it. Accordingly, its legitimacy is not derived from the magnitude of its popular support, but the strength of its legal justifications
Taking National Security Seriously: Navigating Japan’s Expanded Restrictions on Global Trade and Investment
Get PDFThis paper explores recent changes to Japan’s national security restrictions on the foreign acquisition of Japanese companies and other financial assets. Commentators have often incorrectly characterized these developments as driven by economic or diplomatic considerations. In fact, a different set of concerns has motivated Japan’s policy shift: national security. Due to the critical security relationship between Japan and the United States, Japanese macroeconomic policy often changes in response to American politics. Recently, changes in the Trump Administration’s approach to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) have caused corresponding changes in how Japan regulates international business transactions. Even under the Biden administration, these changes are likely here to stay, and corporate leaders will have to learn how to navigate them
Reinterpreting The Reinterpretation: Collective Self-Defense As Constitutional Fidelity
No full textAs currently interpreted, Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution requires Japan’s Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) to operate in a purely defensive capacity. Recently, however, the United States has increasingly asked Japan to participate in joint military operations, in which Japanese forces would defend not only themselves, but also their American allies. This raises an important legal question: does Article 9 permit the JSDF engage in this kind of collective self-defense? Former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo believed so. After a government panel of legal experts found that collective self-defense was consistent with Article 9, the Abe administration adopted the panel’s conclusion. However, this “Reinterpretation” of Article 9 has been highly controversial. Japanese scholars of constitutional law are deeply divided on the meaning of Article 9 and the legality of the Reinterpretation. While some maintain that Article 9 prohibits collective self-defense, others have argued that Article 9 either permits it, or is superseded by Japan’s treaty obligations to the United States. However, until now, these arguments have not been reflected in the non-Japanese literature. Accordingly, English-language scholarship has often assumed with little discussion that the Reinterpretation is inconsistent with Article 9, before proceeding to analyze the Reinterpretation as a failed attempt to informally amend the Article 9 without the requisite democratic support. This essay re-frames the debate. The Reinterpretation is not an attempt to amend Article 9, but an attempt to understand it. Accordingly, its legitimacy is not derived from the magnitude of its popular support, but the strength of its legal justifications
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
