scholarly journals Localism and police governance in England & Wales: Exploring continuity and change

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 552-572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor Jones ◽  
Stuart Lister

This article develops further criminological understandings of ‘localism’ in police governance and contributes to broader theoretical discussions about ‘governance’ in contemporary policing, via a critical analysis of major recent law and policy reforms in England & Wales. Recent legislation has brought important changes to the balance of constitutional-legal powers and the institutional architecture of police governance. However, we argue that for several reasons it is problematic to interpret these developments in straightforward terms of greater ‘localization’. First, in so far as there has been a decentralization of control, this represents a growth of ‘regional’ rather than ‘local’ auspices of power. Second, there is widespread evidence of continuing interventionism by ‘the centre’, asserting strong influences on local policing via a range of national bodies. Third, important developments in the wider context of police policy-making – most importantly the conditions of austerity – have circumscribed the capacity of Commissioners to set their own policy agendas and resulted in a retrenchment of policing provision at the most ‘localized’ geographical units of neighbourhoods. Indeed, the combination of decentralizing formal responsibility for policing policy and restrictive central financial controls amounts in practice to a ‘devolution of blame’ by the centre for falling service standards. Finally, we argue that the growing complexity and fragmentation of police governance cannot be captured adequately by ‘vertical’ analysis of central–local relations. Although central influences remain predominant, policing policy networks have become more diverse, with important developments at ‘horizontal’ levels locally, regionally and nationally. Within this more fragmented governance framework, central influences continue to drive local policing, but primarily via a range of ‘arm’s length’ institutions and techniques.

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2021-107332
Author(s):  
John Coggon

Lord Sumption, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, has been a prominent critic of coronavirus restrictions regulations in the UK. Since the start of the pandemic, he has consistently questioned both the policy aims and the regulatory methods of the Westminster government. He has also challenged rationales that hold that all lives are of equal value. In this paper, I explore and question Lord Sumption’s views on morality, politics and law, querying the coherence of his broad philosophy and his arguments regarding coronavirus regulations with his judicial decision in the assisted-dying case of R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice. In Nicklinson, Lord Sumption argued for restrictions on liberty given the priority of the sanctity of life principle and the protection of others who may be vulnerable, as well as for deference to policy-making institutions in instances of values-based disagreement. The apparent inconsistencies in his positions, I argue, are not clearly reconcilable, and invite critical analysis of his impacts on health law and policy.


1995 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 664-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Collins

This paper provides an analytical framework within which to understand the contrasting way farmers' interests are aggregated and articulated in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The analysis draws on the dominant European literature on state-farmer relations which emphasizes the role of policy networks and explores whether the concepts of pluralism or corporatism best characterize policy making in the two states.


Land ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 1072
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Nowakowska ◽  
Agnieszka Rzeńca ◽  
Agnieszka Sobol

One of the pillars of the European Union’s Green Deal is the “Just Transition Mechanism”, which is interpreted here as providing fair access to diverse resources; above all, as a far-reaching reorientation of the approach to regional development and policy-making processes. Rooted in a normative approach to the development of just and fair place-based policy towards promoting growth in Poland, this paper aims to highlight the challenges posed by the Just Transition Mechanism in two selected Polish transition territories (Upper Silesia and Bełchatów Basin). The research methodology employs literary critical analysis along with an examination of pertinent documents, strategic plans and programs created at national and regional EU member levels. Additionally, interviews were conducted with key actors across the spectrum of the process. The authors argue that place-based policy, viewed as a new model of shaping regional policy, seeks to meet the expectations of the Just Transition Mechanism and can successfully face the challenges it encounters. The research reveals a significant gap between the analyzed transition territories in terms of knowledge and substantive preparation towards enacting the process. Visible deficits were noted in both regions concerning approaches to programming, particularly with reference to information policy and networking with partners.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 473
Author(s):  
Bisariyadi Bisariyadi

In a review of the constitutionality of law or policy, the Constitutional Court can take an aggressive approach or choose to take self-restraint. Theoretical justification on the Court to change or made policy derived from the judicialization of politics. Global phenomenon indicates the shift of policy-making authority towards the judiciary. Consequently, policy makers shows resistence. Such conditions forced the Court to use a number of strategies to reduce political tensions between state institutions while at the same time the Court still protect the rights of citizens. The Court uses self-restraint approach to examine policies which in realm of legislative or executive discretion. This approach is referred to by the Court as an “open(ed) legal policy”. This study elaborates on the actions carried out by the Indonesian Constitutional Court to test the constitutionality of law or policy, both in the application of the judicialization of politics nor in the judicial restraint approach. In reality, the Court uses both of these approaches on review the constitutionality of law and  policy.


1995 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Bell

Recent theories of the state (pluralism, statism, Marxism and corporatism) are evaluated in terms of their capacity to explain an historic transformation in industry-state relationships in Australia over the last two decades. The explanatory tasks focus on explaining the shift from high protectionism to free trade for manufacturing industry, coupled with an increase in positive industry assistance measures. The paper argues that a suitably tailored Marxist account avoids most of the limitations of the other theories examined. Yet it is stressed that Marxism's strength lies not in explaining policy details but in providing a broad macro-structural theory of the state in capitalist societies. Marxism's explanatory ‘superstructure’, needs to be filled in at the meso-level by other explanatory elements so that the contours and dynamics of policy making below the macro-structural level can be more fully explained. Concepts such as accumulation strategy, political coalitions and policy networks are suggested for this purpose.


2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-François Durieux

Why do refugees exist – not as an empirical, but as a normative, category? What special sense of duty connects us to those people whom we call refugees, and how does this duty translate into asylum? What does the practice of asylum tell us about who we are, as individuals as well as members of political communities? How does one morally justify the special concern we feel for, and consequently the privileged treatment we give, refugees as compared with other foreigners in need? Revisiting the main features of the ethical debate over asylum and refugeehood, this article argues that the 1951 Refugee Convention provides a coherent framework to explain the ‘refugee privilege’. This contention is based on three features of the Convention, namely: its focus on admission and assimilation; its affirmation of the refugee as a privileged alien; and its emphasis, through the key concept of persecution, on the prohibition of discrimination and the identifying value of tolerance. However, one must acknowledge that a proper understanding of the moral duty to admit and integrate refugees does not suffice to explain contemporary state practice in dealing with the ‘refugee problem’ as a matter of solidarity. This article suggests that there are two additional asylum paradigms at work in today’s world: one takes disaster as a motivation for action, and rescue as the underpinning moral and legal imperative; and the other rests upon a duty not to return individuals to specific forms of danger, absent affinity or even compassion. The article examines some of the impacts which the co-existence of these three paradigms has on the global refugee regime, and their implications for law- and policy-making on asylum, both within and among states.


Author(s):  
Sacha Garben

The environment does not respect man-made borders, and is of common concern and interest of all mankind. As such, it is an area that merits and requires cross-border law and policy making par excellence. This should be reflected in the strong role played by the EU, which has a firm Treaty mandate and duty to protect the environment, features a rich body of case law, and boasts a dense set of secondary legislation. The very good reasons for this notwithstanding, it remains a remarkable development considering the absence of any reference to the environment in the original Treaties. Although a programme for action in this area was soon adopted in 1973, only in the 1986 SEA was an environmental legal basis introduced. Much of the initial environmental acquis was therefore developed by the Commission, the Council, and later the EP on the basis of other Treaty provisions, such as (now) Articles 114, 115, and 352 TFEU. EU environmental protection also owes a debt to the ECJ, which included it in the legitimate objectives on the basis of which MS could derogate from the free movement provisions. The Court has interpreted the provisions of EU environmental law generally in a protective manner, and endorsed the use of criminal law for the effective enforcement of EU environmental legislation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document