白宫就抗议ABC“杀光中国人”言论的请愿作出回应 蒋继平 2014年1月11日 昨天收到白宫来电，是关于 抗议ABC“杀光中国人”言论的请愿作出回应。 现原文转载如下： What We Have to Say About Jimmy Kimmel Thank you for your petition . Your petition requested an apology from those involved, and to cut the show. The parties involved have already apologized independently. Jimmy Kimmel has apologized on-air, and issued a written apology. ABC has removed the skit from future broadcasts, taken the clip down from online platforms, and detailed several changes in its programming review process in response to this incident. You can find more about Jimmy Kimmel's apology here , and ABC's apology here . On a broader level, as the President has stated publicly, the United States welcomes the continuing peaceful rise of China. The comments you are writing about do not reflect mainstream views of China in the United States. The Federal government cannot force ABC to remove this show. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects free speech, even if individuals might personally find it offensive or distasteful. It may be upsetting when people say things we might personally disagree with, but the principle of protected free speech is an important part of who we are as a nation. If you think this issue merits additional scrutiny, you may file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission by visiting FCC.gov/Complaints . 下面的中文是从中新网的一个相同的报道中拷贝来的 （1）。 谢谢你们的请愿，你们请愿要求有关人员道歉并停播节目。有关各方已经独立道歉。吉米·基梅尔已经在节目中道歉，并出具了书面道歉。ABC电视台已经从网上取下该节目，ABC在对该事件的反应中已经详细说明了在节目审查中的改变。 白宫说，在更广的层面，总统已经公开表态，美国欢迎中国继续和平崛起。你们写的有关评论，并不反映美国对中国的主流观点。 白宫在回应中说，联邦政府不能强迫ABC取消该节目。宪法第一修正案保护言论自由，即使个人可能会认为它冒犯或令人不快。如果你们认为这个问题需要更详细的审查，请向联邦通信委员会投诉。 （1）http://www.chinanews.com/gj/2014/01-11/5725067.shtml
Empirical Research And International Economic Law: A Comment on Susan Francks Essay 【按】学术论文的争鸣和挑战，应该学习 by David Zaring http://opiniojuris.org/2008/07/03/empirical-research-and-international-economic-law-a-comment-on-susan-franck%E2%80%99s-essay/ Susan Francks essay makes the case for more empirical research in international economic law; a project that she has pursued I might venture to say that she owns an important part of the field, given the unique and comprehensive data on investment arbitrations that she has collected and continues to analyze in her other work. It is worth noting both how precise and how important Susans recommendations are. First, when I think about empirical research in international economic relations more generally (and here I should clear my throat apologetically Im not an empirical scholar except in a rather mild sense, but primarily a reader of some of that work), I think of the big picture claims made by some applied economists Andrew Roses claim that membership in the WTO doesnt lead to growth , for example, and the endless debates over whether NAFTA or bilateral investment treaties have been good or bad for their signatories. Susan cites a number of examples of these in her essay. What is underdeveloped is empirical research on the law part of international economic law, specifically the litigation part. There is so much we dont know about what happens when investments disputes are subject to arbitrations, but that hasnt stopped people like Bolivias president Evo Morales making consequential decisions based on their priors about what the process will mean. So thats why I say Susans empirical claims are precise she thinks we need a new perspective on what happens in actual litigation, which is arguably both the signal offer of an investment or trade treaty and its most lawyerly manifestation. And it makes sense to recommend that assumptions like those of Morales be tested. I will also commend her essay for giving us a bit of an intellectual history of the place of empiricism in international law which I think she would say comes largely from the increasing empiricism of international relations scholarship and the increasing popularity of ELS. She also offers outline of one way to pursue empirics in international legal research, which is all to the good. This is already a long post, but Id like to do three more things in it: 1. Note that there increasingly is empiricism in international legal scholarship, 2. Urge a bit of caution on the part of would-be empiricists, and 3. Speculate about some empirical research that might be particularly worth reading in the future. 1. The sort of work that Susan urges is, I agree, unnecessarily rare, but it is not dclass. It has a worthy past and increasingly vibrant future. Robert Hudec, after all, kept track of WTO decisions, and Simon Lester and Kara Leitner continue to build on his work. John Yoo and Eric Posner have made empirical claims about effective international tribunals that occasioned a useful response by Anne-Marie Slaughter and Larry Helfer. And so on. 2. Cutting edge empirical work is technical increasingly so and takes training. Disciplinary barriers are often higher than you think. Pick up a copy of the American Political Science Review and Quarterly Journal of Economics and give them a casual read if you think you might disagree. I am, as I have said, no empiricist, but my sense is that legal scholars are often best-served by co-authoring if they feel the urge to do empirical work and by training themselves to read empirical papers (no easy task!) as a prelude to pursuing empirical work. 3. A couple of predictions about the future. Careful event studies might be useful evidence in determining whether and which international legal institutions matter. Ron Wright and Marc Miller have noted the growing prevalence of content analyses in legal research, and, done well, it seems to me that they are a natural complement to doctrinal work (its often hard getting enough observations to make that useful, though). http://scs.student.virginia.edu/~vjil/PDF/48_768-815.pdf Empirical Research And International Economic Law
A Response to David Zaring 很好的论文回应交锋 by Susan Franck http://opiniojuris.org/2008/07/03/a-response-to-david-zaring/ First, I would like to thank David Zaring again for his comments on my essay: Empiricism and International Law: Insights for Investment Treaty Dispute Resolution . I was deeply humbled to read Davids thoughts about both the utility of the essay and the direction of my current research. Davids comments, however, raise a variety of issues worthy of a bit deeper exploration. I wholeheartedly agree that empirical work in international law is decidedly not dclass. As a proud alumna of the University of Minnesota Law School , I had the privilege of taking classes with Bob Hudec . I have profound respect for Hudecs empirical exploration of international trade dispute settlement system and have been grateful to see others continue the empirical exploration of international economic law in the trade context. Perhaps more selfishly, as my research has developed, I have found myself wishing that Hudec was still with us so that I could benefit from his methodological insights related to the analysis of international economic dispute resolution. I would nevertheless hope that Hudec would have been pleased the development of empirical methodologies to areas of international law outside of the trade context. The work of junior scholars such as Oona Hathaway , Elena Baylis , Bill Burke-White , and Melissa Waters spring immediately to mind although there are certainly others engaging in research. In the meantime, I will look forward to hearing the remarks of David Trubek and my co-panelist Juscelino Colares at the forthcoming Society of International Economic Law as they both have critical observations about Hudecs legacy to empirical assessment of international economic law phenomena. David also makes an interesting point about how research in international investment law might evolve in the future. I am sympathetic to the reference to Wright Millers recent exploration of content analyses and the value of using rigorous social science methodology to study the content of judicial decisions. No doubt this literature, and its underlying methodological rigor, will aid the evolution of methodological approaches involving the analysis of investment treaty arbitration awards. As the essay also suggests, there are other critical methodological approaches that could be likewise as this area evolves. For example, provided that scholars are sufficiently transparent in the description and analysis of their quantitative research, meta-analysis may be possible. As discussed eloquently in Jeremy Blumenthal s article Meta-Analysis: A Primer for Legal Scholars , meta-analysis can synthesize empirical analysis across studies in order to summarize the research and identify variables influencing the findings of particular research. These additional methodological approaches only scratch the surface of potential ways to develop international law empiricism. One might even imagine much like social science counterparts the development of research methodologists, who are dedicated to the exploration and improvement of empirical methodologies, as a type of international law sub-specialty. But my suspicion is these last two evolutionary advances may be years in the offing. Finally, in providing the cautionary observation about the need for training, David observes that inter-disciplinary collaboration can help bridge the methodological divide by providing much needed skills in this regard. I decidedly agree with David about the value that collaboration brings on the methodological side and offer two counter-points. First, there are also practical benefits to be garnered from collaboration beyond methodological insights. Chief among these benefits is: sleep. Empirical research, while rewarding, can take time. The development of datasets can be labor intensive even with the help of able research assistants (and I have been profoundly blessed in that department with the assistance of Melanie Neely and Jenna Perkins). Working in collaboration with others means that some of the most laborious aspects of empirical research namely data collection can be shared. In other words, it means that you are less likely to be sleep deprived and able to work more effectively. (And yes, there is empirical literature in related contexts to back up this claim .) Sharing of such tasks may also mean, provided proper research protocols related to inter-coder reliability are followed, that the reliability of data collection may be enhanced. It also means that research methodology choices can be considered with a view to considering multiple perspectives; and as none of us is perfect, the use of group-think to develop research and analysis can be invaluable. Collaboration also creates research efficiencies. For example, those with an expertise in or aptitude for the creation of graphs, tables and charts can develop them readily. I may, however, say this given my own graduate coursework at the University of Nebraska Law and Psychology JD/PhD program with Cal Garbin on multivariate research design and data analysis (see here and here ) and the learning curve I have experienced in the creation of graphs during my work for Cal this summer. The second counterpoint suggests that there may be a gap to fill within legal education. More particularly, while there are benefits to collaborating in an inter-disciplinary manner, one wonders whether such collaboration may be even more fruitful if legal scholars had access for example in law school to methodological classes to provide basic training. There are certainly useful programs for professors such as the Northwestern/WashU bootcamp or programs for quantitative methods at the University of Michigan , University of Essex or the European Consortium for Political Researchs program at the University of Ljubljana. Nevertheless, the essay explores the unique benefit of systematically providing the next generation of research assistants, lawyers and law professors with training in the law school context. Some law schools, such as Berkeley , Cornell , Harvard , Illinois , Leiden University , Northwestern , Penn , Stanford , University of Chicago , Vanderbilt , Washington University , and Yale have classes related to the empirical methods and the law (and apologies for the lack of a complete list in this regard for other law schools with separate courses focused on empirical methods). A casebook with an accessible teachers manual, such as the one being developed by faculty at the University of Illinois, goes a long way to filling this particular gap in U.S. legal training. I understand Empirical Methods in Law (Aspen, forthcoming), written by Bob Lawless , Jennifer Robbennolt and Tom Ulen , should be available for Fall 2009; and based upon the draft chapters I have seen, I am looking forward to getting my copy. Ultimately, if we are willing to take on the challenge, we are at the first step of a journey of empirical assessment of investment treaty dispute resolution. There are inevitably places where we can grow and develop in collaboration or consultation with others. And that, at least in my view, is certainly a worthy undertaking.
标签: 回应
