The Experts below are selected from a list of 17466 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
John E Lopatka - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the microsoft case as a Political Trial
Social Science Research Network, 2017Co-Authors: William H Page, John E LopatkaAbstract:This essay, written for a planned volume on Political Trials, considers the Political dimensions of the government’s monopolization suit against Microsoft. The Microsoft case was not a Political Trial in the usual sense, but it was Political for three reasons: first, it was a classic cause celebre; second, it exposed the ideological conflicts within antitrust policy; and third, it brought unusually intense interest-group pressure on the Antitrust Division. We argue that the government’s case and its judicial resolution are best understood in terms of ideology, rather than naked interest-group pressure. The simple interest-group hypothesis has never explained the enactment and evolution of antitrust law very well, and it does not explain Microsoft. Both antitrust law and Microsoft are products of a subtler process, one characterized by conflicting and shifting conceptions of the capacity and limitations of the market and the government. These conceptions, or visions, are deeply held views of the public interest, and its relationship to conflicting private interests. They are not neatly separable from special interest pressures. Groups invoke these conceptions to press arguments for regulation in service of their own interests. But arguments in these terms are persuasive only if they resonate with the policymakers’ understanding of the public interest. Administrators and courts must routinely distinguish arguments that credibly advance the public interest from those that invoke it only as lip service. When a special interest group succeeds in persuading the government that an action that benefits the special interest also advances the public interest, the result can fairly be attributed to the interaction of the special interest’s narrative with the ideological outlook of the government policymaker. The Microsoft case illustrates these dynamics.
William H Page - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the microsoft case as a Political Trial
Social Science Research Network, 2017Co-Authors: William H Page, John E LopatkaAbstract:This essay, written for a planned volume on Political Trials, considers the Political dimensions of the government’s monopolization suit against Microsoft. The Microsoft case was not a Political Trial in the usual sense, but it was Political for three reasons: first, it was a classic cause celebre; second, it exposed the ideological conflicts within antitrust policy; and third, it brought unusually intense interest-group pressure on the Antitrust Division. We argue that the government’s case and its judicial resolution are best understood in terms of ideology, rather than naked interest-group pressure. The simple interest-group hypothesis has never explained the enactment and evolution of antitrust law very well, and it does not explain Microsoft. Both antitrust law and Microsoft are products of a subtler process, one characterized by conflicting and shifting conceptions of the capacity and limitations of the market and the government. These conceptions, or visions, are deeply held views of the public interest, and its relationship to conflicting private interests. They are not neatly separable from special interest pressures. Groups invoke these conceptions to press arguments for regulation in service of their own interests. But arguments in these terms are persuasive only if they resonate with the policymakers’ understanding of the public interest. Administrators and courts must routinely distinguish arguments that credibly advance the public interest from those that invoke it only as lip service. When a special interest group succeeds in persuading the government that an action that benefits the special interest also advances the public interest, the result can fairly be attributed to the interaction of the special interest’s narrative with the ideological outlook of the government policymaker. The Microsoft case illustrates these dynamics.
Marlies Glasius - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
expression of justice or Political Trial
Human Rights Quarterly : a comparative and international journal of the social sciences humanities and law, 2013Co-Authors: Tim Meijers, Marlies GlasiusAbstract:This article examines the discourses of prosecution and defense in the case of Radovan Karadžic before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It focuses on what happens in the courtroom—a site mostly neglected in the literature on transitional justice—and the consequences courtroom discourses may have for societies in transition. Our theoretical point of departure is the concept of "expressivism," which is an attempt to theorize courts' potential to send messages as a key feature in thinking about the relationship between normative legitimacy, support, [End Page 720] and utility of international Trials. We conclude that the defense by Karadžic disrupts and thwarts the pedagogical messaging intended by expressivism to a considerable extent, and reflect on the generalizability of our findings by considering the elements of the actors, audiences, and the stage in the posited "courtroom drama."
-
expression of justice or Political Trial discursive battles in the karadžic case
Human Rights Quarterly, 2013Co-Authors: Tim Meijers, Marlies GlasiusAbstract:This article examines the discourses of prosecution and defence in the case of Radovan Karadžic before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It contributes to current debates about the legitimacy and utility of international criminal justice, which have tended to neglect the examination of actual Trials, and particularly the role of the defence. We draw on the legal doctrine of "expressivism", which treats Trials as theatrical, message-sending spectacles, to theorise the connection between normative legitimacy, actual support and utility of international criminal justice as dynamic, and partly determined in court. We conclude that the defence by Karadžic disrupts and thwarts the pedagogical messaging intended by expressivism to a considerable extent, and reflect on the generalizability of our findings by considering the elements of the actors, audiences, and the stage in the posited "courtroom drama".
Louise Bethlehem - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
stenographic fictions mary benson s at the still point and the south african Political Trial
Safundi, 2019Co-Authors: Louise BethlehemAbstract:From the mid-1960s onward, compilations of the speeches and Trial addresses of South African opponents of apartheid focused attention on the apartheid regime despite intensified repression in the w...
Paul Finkelman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Zenger's Case: Prototype of a Political Trial
2009Co-Authors: Paul FinkelmanAbstract:In this article, Professor Finkelman examines the 1735 Zenger case and its implications for free press in America. Despite its limited legal significance, the Zenger case became an important ideological and Political precedent. While some scholars have argued against the historical significance of the case, Professor Finkelman holds that the most important aspect of the Zenger legacy is that “in the revolutionary period it was always there as a guiding light for those who were gradually developing an ideology of freedom of expression.”