The Experts below are selected from a list of 103218 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Stephen Meili - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the right not to hold a Political Opinion implications for asylum in the united states and the united kingdom
Social Science Research Network, 2015Co-Authors: Stephen MeiliAbstract:This article analyzes the vastly different approaches taken by the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom toward asylum claims based on Political neutrality. In the recent case of RT (Zimbabwe) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (UKSC 38 (2012)), the U.K. Supreme Court ruled in favor of several aPolitical Zimbabweans who sought asylum in the U.K. on the grounds that they would be tortured if they refused to swear allegiance to the Mugabe regime if deported. This case stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in INS v. Elias-Zacarias (502 U.S. 478 (1992)), which denied asylum to an aPolitical Guatemalan man who fled to the U.S. after resisting the recruitment efforts of guerillas fighting a civil war against the government. This article uses these two seminal cases to illustrate the wide gulf between U.S. and U.K. jurisprudence in their reliance on international human rights norms and foreign law. In RT (Zimbabwe), the U.K. Supreme Court referenced numerous human rights treaties, as well as the jurisprudence of several common law countries (including the United States) in holding that those who choose not to express a Political Opinion – for whatever reason – are entitled to the same protection from persecution that extends to the Politically active and vocal. In Elias-Zacarias, on the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court did not cite any international or foreign law. Its decision was based entirely on statutory interpretation of the U.S. law governing asylum. This article contributes to the literature on the human rights approach to asylum law, which argues that domestic courts considering asylum claims should be guided by the norms promoted in human rights treaties. RT (Zimbabwe) embraces this approach; Elias-Zacarias ignores it. This contrast begs the question that this article interrogates: does the human rights approach to asylum law make a difference to asylum-seekers? It approaches this question through a counterfactual analysis: would Mr. Elias-Zacarias have obtained asylum before the U.K. Supreme Court, and how would the claimants in RT (Zimbabwe) have fared before the U.S. Supreme Court? In addition, this article suggests how U.S. courts might rely on the rulings of their sister signatories to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in ways that would promote a uniform interpretation of that treaty across national borders. It also suggests ways that lawyers representing refugees in the United States might utilize a human rights-based approach to refugee law to benefit clients. And finally, it considers whether one of the factors contributing to the effectiveness of human rights treaties is the adoption of the human rights approach to asylum law by the domestic courts of a ratifying country.
-
the right not to hold a Political Opinion implications for asylum in the united states and the united kingdom
Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 2015Co-Authors: Stephen MeiliAbstract:This Article analyzes the vastly different approaches taken by the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom toward asylum claims based on Political neutrality. In the recent case of RT (Zimbabwe) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (UKSC 38 (2012)), the U.K. Supreme Court ruled in favor of several aPolitical Zimbabweans who sought asylum in the United Kingdom on the grounds that they would be tortured if they refused to swear allegiance to the Mugabe regime if deported. This case stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in INS v. EliasZacarias (502 U.S. 478 (1992)), which denied asylum to an aPolitical Guatemalan man who fled to the United States after resisting the recruitment efforts of guerillas fighting a civil war against the government. This Article uses these two seminal cases to illustrate the wide gulf between U.S. and U.K. jurisprudence in their reliance on * University of Minnesota Law School. Many thanks to University of Minnesota Foreign, Comparative & International Law Librarian Mary Rumsey for her numerous insights and suggestions, as well as to University of Minnesota Law School students Anu Jaswal (’15) and Eleanor Lewis (’14) for their excellent research assistance. I received helpful comments on earlier versions of this article from Alex Aleinikoff, June Carbone, Ben Casper, Carol Chomsky, Jessica Clarke, Katherine Evans, Timothy Garton-Ash, Jennie Green, James Hathaway, Neha Jain, Elizabeth Keyes, Meghan Heesch, Claire Hill, Fatma Marouf, Bill McGeveran, Fred Morrison, Karen Musalo, Michele Pistone, Chris Roberts, Daniel Schwartz, Francis Shen, Laura Thomas, Diane Uchimiya, and David Wippman. Finally, I am indebted to my Administrative Assistant Jean Wells for her indefatigable logistical support. 2 COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW [46.3:1 international human rights norms and foreign law. In RT (Zimbabwe), the U.K. Supreme Court referenced numerous human rights treaties, as well as the jurisprudence of several common law countries (including the United States) in holding that those who choose not to express a Political Opinion—for whatever reason—are entitled to the same protection from persecution that extends to the Politically active and vocal. In Elias-Zacarias, on the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court did not cite any international or foreign law. Its decision was based entirely on statutory interpretation of the U.S. law governing asylum. This Article contributes to the literature on the human rights approach to asylum law, which argues that domestic courts considering asylum claims should be guided by the norms promoted in human rights treaties. RT (Zimbabwe) embraces this approach; EliasZacarias ignores it. This contrast begs the question that this article interrogates: does the human rights approach to asylum law make a difference to asylum-seekers? It approaches this question through a counterfactual analysis: would Mr. Elias-Zacarias have obtained asylum before the U.K. Supreme Court, and how would the claimants in RT (Zimbabwe) have fared before the U.S. Supreme Court? In addition, this Article suggests how U.S. courts might rely on the rulings of their sister signatories to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in ways that would promote a uniform interpretation of that treaty across national borders. It also suggests ways that lawyers representing refugees in the United States might utilize a human rights-based approach to refugee law to benefit clients. And finally, it considers whether one of the factors contributing to the effectiveness of human rights treaties is the adoption of the human rights approach to asylum law by the domestic courts of a ratifying country.
Dustin Sebell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the problem of Political science Political relevance and scientific rigor in aristotle s philosophy of human affairs
American Journal of Political Science, 2016Co-Authors: Dustin SebellAbstract:Treatments of Aristotle's moral-Political science have largely disregarded the methodological statements that he delivers as he embarks on his “philosophy of human affairs” in book I of the Nicomachean Ethics. A consideration of these statements, however, lends critical support to the view that Aristotle sought to give the sharpest possible expression to ordinary moral-Political Opinion. Moreover, apart from revealing the by-no-means ordinary reasons that induced Aristotle to do so (and to do so in contrast to Plato), such a consideration sheds light on the source of the vagueness or ambiguity that defines moral-Political Opinion as such. Indeed, the methodological statements are perhaps the first entries in the old quarrel of “relevance versus rigor.” And, through them, Aristotle suggests how Political scientists today might walk a fine line between “politics,” on one hand, and “science,” on the other, without losing sight of the ultimate tension between them.
-
the problem of Political science Political relevance and scientific rigor in aristotle s philosophy of human affairs
American Journal of Political Science, 2016Co-Authors: Dustin SebellAbstract:Treatments of Aristotle's moral-Political science have largely disregarded the methodological statements that he delivers as he embarks on his “philosophy of human affairs” in book I of the Nicomachean Ethics. A consideration of these statements, however, lends critical support to the view that Aristotle sought to give the sharpest possible expression to ordinary moral-Political Opinion. Moreover, apart from revealing the by-no-means ordinary reasons that induced Aristotle to do so (and to do so in contrast to Plato), such a consideration sheds light on the source of the vagueness or ambiguity that defines moral-Political Opinion as such. Indeed, the methodological statements are perhaps the first entries in the old quarrel of “relevance versus rigor.” And, through them, Aristotle suggests how Political scientists today might walk a fine line between “politics,” on one hand, and “science,” on the other, without losing sight of the ultimate tension between them.
Ron Levy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
regulating Opinion polling a deliberative democratic perspective
University of New South Wales law journal, 2016Co-Authors: Graeme Orr, Ron LevyAbstract:Political Opinion polling, especially about electoral matters, is ubiquitous. Ostensibly, polling takes snapshots of the mood of the electorate. Whether it is an accurate reading of that mood is, of course, unknowable. But polling results and trends are highly influential in making and shaping Political policy, careers and even the fate of governments. In the lead up to elections, polling is widely assumed (and indeed marketed) for its predictive value. Occasionally, as in the United Kingdom ('UK') general election of 2015, such predictions miscue badly. Often it pre-empts debate about - and even drowns out - substantive issues. The question animating this article is: how, if at all, should such polling be regulated?
-
regulating Opinion polling a deliberative democratic perspective
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Graeme Orr, Ron LevyAbstract:The quantity and quality of Political Opinion polling are sources of concern for electoral democracies worldwide. A significant number of countries regulate polling by embargoing publication in the latter stages of the election period, or by mandating disclosure of key information about each poll. Such regulation, however, is rare in common law systems, where ‘free speech’ arguments tend to hold sway, sublimating concern for the deliberative health of Political discourse. This article examines the issue, comparing regulation and case law internationally in light of the evolution, benefits and pathologies of Opinion polling. A distinction can be made between polling on issues, which permit us all to reflect on the positions of fellow citizens on substantive issues, and the almost endless stream of polling on voting intentions, which offers little from a deliberative perspective. We recommend regulation to ensure disclosure, at the point of publication, of key information about each Opinion poll (eg who conducted it, the wording of questions and margins of error), as well as a campaign-period embargo on publishing electoral Opinion polling.
Anthony Pecotich - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Political Opinion Leadership and Electoral Behavior
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 2005Co-Authors: Aron O'cass, Anthony PecotichAbstract:A micro-model that focuses on Political Opinion leadership within an extended nomological network is developed and tested. Data were gathered from a sample of voters in an election. The results indicate that Political Opinion leadership played a central role in the voting behavior. Key antecedents to Opinion leadership were voter involvement, subjective knowledge, and indirectly, information seeking behavior. Important consequences were voting stability, perceived risk and Political satisfaction.
-
the dynamics of voter behavior and influence processes in electoral markets a consumer behavior perspective
Journal of Business Research, 2005Co-Authors: Aron Ocass, Anthony PecotichAbstract:Consumer behavior theory is applied to voter behavior in the electoral context, and a model that focuses on perceived risk, voter involvement, and Political Opinion leadership (OL) is developed and tested. Data were gathered from a sample of 240 registered voters in Australia. The results show that perceived risk, voter involvement, and Political OL played a central role in the voting process. The results also indicate that OL is influenced by voter involvement, perceived risk, and subjective knowledge. Further, the results show that satisfaction and voting stability are important consequences of OL. The significance of these findings to electoral marketing is discussed.
Dimitris Kotzinos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evolution of the Political Opinion landscape during electoral periods
EPJ Data Science, 2021Co-Authors: Tomas Mussi Reyero, Mariano G Beiro, Ignacio J Alvarezhamelin, Laura Hernandez, Dimitris KotzinosAbstract:We present a study of the evolution of the Political landscape during the 2015 and 2019 presidential elections in Argentina, based on data obtained from the micro-blogging platform Twitter. We build a semantic network based on the hashtags used by all the users following at least one of the main candidates. With this network we can detect the topics that are discussed in the society. At a difference with most studies of Opinion on social media, we do not choose the topics a priori, they emerge from the community structure of the semantic network instead. We assign to each user a dynamical topic vector which measures the evolution of her/his Opinion in this space and allows us to monitor the similarities and differences among groups of supporters of different candidates. Our results show that the method is able to detect the dynamics of formation of Opinion on different topics and, in particular, it can capture the reshaping of the Political Opinion landscape which has led to the inversion of result between the two rounds of 2015 election.
-
evolution of the Political Opinion landscape during electoral periods
arXiv: Social and Information Networks, 2020Co-Authors: Tomas Mussi Reyero, Mariano G Beiro, Ignacio J Alvarezhamelin, Laura Hernandez, Dimitris KotzinosAbstract:We present a study of the evolution of the Political landscape during the 2015 and 2019 presidential elections in Argentina, based on the data obtained from the micro-blogging platform Twitter. We build a semantic network based on the hashtags used by all the users following at least one of the main candidates. With this network we can detect the topics that are discussed in the society. At a difference with most studies of Opinion on social media, we do not choose the topics a priori, they naturally emerge from the community structure of the semantic network instead. We assign to each user a dynamical topic vector which measures the evolution of her/his Opinion in this space and allows us to monitor the similarities and differences among groups of supporters of different candidates. Our results show that the method is able to detect the dynamics of formation of Opinion on different topics and, in particular, it can capture the reshaping of the Political Opinion landscape which has led to the inversion of result between the two rounds of the 2015 election.