Structuring Information for Executive Action

Author(s):  
C. James Bacon
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Manuel Fröhlich ◽  
Abiodun Williams

The Conclusion returns to the guiding questions introduced in the Introduction, looking at the way in which the book’s chapters answered them. As such, it identifies recurring themes, experiences, structures, motives, and trends over time. By summarizing the result of the chapters’ research into the interaction between the Secretaries-General and the Security Council, some lessons are identified on the changing calculus of appointments, the conditions and relevance of the international context, the impact of different personalities in that interaction, the changes in agenda and composition of the Council as well as different formats of interaction and different challenges to be met in the realm of peace and security, administration, and reform, as well as concepts and norms. Taken together, they also illustrate the potential and limitations of UN executive action.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 80-85
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky

After four years of not simply inaction but significant retrogression in U.S. climate change policy, the Biden administration has its work cut out. As a start, it needs to undo what Trump did. The Biden administration took a step in that direction on Day 1 by rejoining the Paris Agreement. But simply restoring the pre-Trump status quo ante is not enough. The United States also needs to push for more ambitious global action. In part, this will require strengthening parties’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement; but it will also require actions by what Sue Biniaz, the former State Department climate change lawyer, likes to call the Greater Metropolitan Paris Agreement—that is, the array of other international actors that help advance the Paris Agreement's goals, including global institutions such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the Montreal Protocol, and the World Bank, as well as regional organizations and non-state actors. Although the Biden administration can pursue some of these international initiatives directly through executive action, new regulatory initiatives will face an uncertain fate in the Supreme Court. So how much the Biden Administration is able to achieve will likely depend significantly on how much a nearly evenly-divided Congress is willing to support.


1980 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-211
Author(s):  
Harvey E. Pies
Keyword(s):  

1977 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-331
Author(s):  
Harvey E. Pies

AbstractThis Comment explores issues concerning the control of fraud and abuse in health programs financed with public funds, specifically the Medicare and Medicaid programs. It summarizes the nature, scope, and possible causes of what some regard as a fraud and abuse “crisis,” and points out the difficulties and obstacles facing those who attempt to develop legislative and executive action aimed at controlling fraud and abuse. Recent federal initiatives in fraud and abuse control are examined, and a brief summary of key provisions of H.R. 3 (the Medicare-Medicaid Anti-fraud and Abuse Amendments, which may prove to be a landmark piece of legislation in this area) is provided. The author emphasizes that more effective control of fraud and abuse is necessary if further expansion of government financing of health programs, including national health insurance, is to occur in the near future. At the same time, caution must be taken not to neglect the appropriate use of other mechanisms necessary for reducing the costs of medical care and improving its quality. In addition, it is likely that efforts to stem fraud and abuse will raise important medicolegal and public policy issues that will require careful interdisciplinary consideration.


1978 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-66
Author(s):  
Harvey E. Pies
Keyword(s):  

1980 ◽  
Vol 80 (7) ◽  
pp. 1535
Author(s):  
Alan Scott Kaden

1958 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald F. Mulvihill ◽  
Wroe Alderson
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Shane

This article defends President Obama’s actions on immigration as consistent with the rule of law: they were rooted in statutory authority; the President did not advance innovative claims of inherent executive authority to support the DHS programs; the Justice Department articulated limiting principles for DHS non-enforcement discretion that plainly and persuasively distinguished the DHS programs from other cases in which courts have condemned administrative inaction as an abdication of statutory responsibility; the programs enhanced DHS accountability for the administration of the deportation system; and the programs reduced the exercise of arbitrary discretion in the handling of individual cases involving undocumented immigrants.


1977 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-360
Author(s):  
Harvey E. Pies
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document