Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Japan’s quasi-jury trial begins in 2009, and this paper analyzes the procedure of quasi-jury selection as specified in the 2004 Quasi-Jury Act and examines the potential impact of procedural defects and logistical problems on racial, ethnic and gender representation of the quasi-jury.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper considers the effect of the procedural reform
of the Amsterdam Treaty on the relative legislative power between
European Union institutions. A simple game theoretic model with
complete information is presented to show the relative legislating
power shift among EU institutions by the reform. The equilibrium of the model shows that the procedural reform advanced the institutional aspect of the EU democracy. In the supranational level, it significantly increased
the direct responsiveness of EU decisions to its citizens as the
European Parliament replaced the Commission's agenda setting power. In the national level, it made EU
decisions more admissible to member states by making the voice of each
Council member more influential and reducing the pivotal member's overwhelming power. However, some implications of the equilibrium make us doubt whether the current legislative power relation between the
EU institutions survives from the ongoing process of EU integration. The potential legislative deadlock by the reduced Commission's role, and conflicts between large and small member states within the Council are said to be the resources of current debates on future EU institutional reform.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper examines the history of the basic safeguards of defendants in America and compares them to comparables under both Continental and Islamic Law. It presents important information about comparative legal systems and concepts, especially Islam, in a time when such information is llacking. Part I of the paper presents the history of the criminal trial and many of its traits. This part compares the developments and characteristics of Continental Common and Islamic law. Relying upon commentary and recent scholarship from 16th Century England, the paper traces the earliest versions of trials at the Old Bailey. The development in the prosecution of criminal defendants is traced to the Warren court. The paper does likewise with both Continental and Islamic law to date as well. _x000d_Part II of the paper examines the historical division of labor in the Common law courtroom. The presence of counsel, use of charges, the exclusion of evidence, removal of sentencing , among other reasons, have altered the balance of power. Part III of the paper argues that in an age of terrorism in the society these purported safeguards offer little more than impediments. The paper argues that some safeguards must be reconsidered.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Despite the prevalence of conflict resolution between individuals with who have continued contact after they leave the courtroom, mediator’s office, or agree to contract terms, few studies have explored how various types of alternative dispute resolution affect the relationship between disputants. Drawing on recent research in social exchange that explore how various types of exchange affect perceptions of exchange partners, this paper explores how various levels of neutral third party intervention in an exchange (low and high, operationalized as mediation and arbitration) affect perceptions exchange partners have of one another. Experimental results indicate that third party intervention is positively related to perceptions of the other party (perceptions of fairness of, general positive regard toward, and optimism about the tone of future interactions). Increased likelihood of situational attributions for disputants’ behavior and decreased salience of conflict with high levels of third party intervention partially explain this relationship.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: How is it possible to punish all guilty of authoritarian repression when evidence is either incomplete or its authenticity problematic? Outgoing regimes, especially if they knew early enough that they were to abandon positions of control, had both the power and incentives to destroy and manipulate evidence of the crimes they authorized against former dissidents. Does this imply that any attempts of transitional justice are doomed to upset the normative goals of prosecuting all guilty and shielding the innocent? I begin with proposing an alternative framework for studying screening (lustration) laws and truth commissions, one that distinguishes between Incentive -exploiting and Evidence -exploiting Truth Revelation procedures (ITRs and ETRs). A decision making model is used to represent the mechanism of ITRs. The main result is that, in transitional environments, truth revelation procedures which violate principles of rule of law, such as due process, might reduce the levels of false acquittal and false conviction. The practical implication of this finding is that decision makers responsible for transitional justice who want to maximize the number of sanctioned perpetrators while keeping the abuse of innocent as low as possible, should choose institutions which “exploit incentives” rather than “exploit evidence.'' The chapter covers a range of cases from Post-communist Europe to South Africa.