Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text


Showing 1 through 5 of 2,019 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 404 - Next  Jump:
2007 - International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention Pages: 28 pages || Words: 6056 words || 
1. Amisi, Bertha. and Duffy, Gavan. "New Rules for the Rule of Law? External Actors and Rule of Law Development in Post-Conflict African Societies" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007 <Not Available>. 2019-11-19 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Transgressive political contention can incapacitate state efforts to secure peace and restore order. Increasingly, external non-state actors seek to fill this gap by implementing a variety of rule-of-law programs designed to promote peace and public order in post-conflict settings. At same time, local peoples increasingly call for the use of traditional legal mechanisms to promote peace and justice. It is unclear whether and how such externally provided rule-of-law programs can articulate effectively with local legal traditions to yield peace and justice. We contend that externally implemented rule-of-law programs beneficially introduce normative concerns that would otherwise remain unaddressed. However, we further contend that realization of any such benefit depends upon the extent to which such programs resonate with traditional norms and customs and are designed with sensitivity to the political and cultural context of their implementation. We compare cases of external non-state actor?s programs that promote the rule of law in several African states that have recently experienced conflict episodes (e.g., Liberia, Rwanda, Burundi). To test our contentions, by examining the discourse and circumstances surrounding their formulation and implementation, we assess the linkages between underlying motives and political effectiveness of each rule-of-law promotion program.

2015 - SRCD Biennial Meeting Words: 492 words || 
2. Robson, Jane. and Kuczynski, Leon. "“Rules?... What rules?” Parents’ perspectives on their rules and expectations in middle childhood." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SRCD Biennial Meeting, Pennsylvania Convention Center and the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown Hotel, Philadelphia, PA, Mar 19, 2015 <Not Available>. 2019-11-19 <>
Publication Type: Individual Poster
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Parental rules and expectations are an important construct in socialization theory and implicit in constructs such as parental “firm control”, “structure” and “demands” yet have received little attention as a naturalistic phenomenon. Most existing conceptions of parental rules are based on behavioral perspectives (Forehand & McMahon, 2003) in which rules are clearly stated, created by and strictly enforced by parents. In contrast, developmental research suggests that parental expectations are situational specific (e.g. Smetana, 1997) and co-constructed during parent-child transactions (Maccoby, 1985) with considerable leeway for children to interpret their requirements (Goodnow, 1997). Indeed, a recent study found that adolescents perceived few firm and inflexible rules in their homes (Parkin & Kuczynski, 2012).

Forty parents of children, 8-13 years of age, participated for a one-week period in a study on socialization in middle childhood. Parents reported their rules using a five-day digital event diary and a one-hour semi-structured interview. The research questions concerned: 1) parents’ implicit conceptions of the nature of their rules and expectations and 2) their perceptions of how they developed their rules and expectations. Parental narratives were analyzed using the qualitative thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) aided by MAXQDA software. The analyses were informed by social relational theory (Kuczynski & De Mol, in press) which is based on Sameroff’s (2009) transactional model of human development.

Parental conceptions of rules. The majority of parents reported that their rules and expectations were flexible (73%), co-regulated (65%), mutually accepted or internalized (50%); only 28% of parents talked about rules in the traditional sense of firm and explicit. Parents described three modes of flexibility when setting or enforcing expectations: parents allowed their children leeway when either they or their children were under stress, depending on the specific situational context and in the time frame within which a child could fulfill an expectation. With regard to coregulation, parents regarded their rules as “guided options”, as created “as needed” by the child’s development or performance and as “prompted self-regulation” which involved scaffolding the child’s performance of standing rules with reminders.

Parents’ conceptions of process of rule development. Most parents (70%) described their enforcement of rules as negotiated during interactions with their children. As well, 68% of parents perceived that their rules and the enforcement of rules were adapted to developmental changes in their children. Lastly, 50% of parents described their rules as accommodations to external influences such as expectations of extended family members, responses to the behavior of children’s peers and reactions to the presence or absence of rules in their own socialization history.

The results were discussed using Goodnow’s (1997) conception of leeway. It is argued that in place of linear and deterministic conceptions of parental rules, parental expectations should be considered as affording considerable leeway for children’s agency. Leeway is apparent in the way parental rules are communicated and enforced, and children exploit the leeway that is afforded by their transactions with parents. Implications for clinical interventions and models of socialization are discussed.

2015 - SRCD Biennial Meeting Words: 500 words || 
3. Riggs, Anne. and Young, Andrew. "Bending the rules: Children’s interpretation of rules depends on the context in which rules were learned" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SRCD Biennial Meeting, Pennsylvania Convention Center and the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown Hotel, Philadelphia, PA, <Not Available>. 2019-11-19 <>
Publication Type: Presentation
Abstract: Children understand that the social world is organized around conventional rules that are both arbitrary in origin but behaviorally prescriptive (Kalish, 1998). Recent research has established that young children are acutely aware of the binding nature of conventions, as evidenced by their tendency to actively enforce conventions on violators (Rakoczy, et al., 2008; Schmidt, et al., 2012). In much of this work, however, children learn conventional rules from authorities, which could lead to a rather strict interpretation of rules. In the current research, we explore whether children’s interpretation of the prescriptive force of conventional rules is dependent on the context in which they are learned. Rules are often learned from authority figures, with varying levels of instruction, but they are also created amongst group members. Thus, in the current research we explore children’s interpretation of rules learned or created in collaboration with peers.
Thirteen 4 to 5-year-old dyads and nineteen 6 to 7-year-old dyads played a boardgame in which each square afforded two possible actions (Figure 1). Dyads participated in one of three conditions: In the Top-Down-Light condition, children learned and practiced the rules of a pre-existing game, ‘Lex,’ after watching videotaped adults demonstrate the rules. The Top-Down-Heavy condition was identical to the Top-Down-Light condition, but the instructional video also demonstrated how not to play Lex. In the Bottom-Up condition, children created and practiced the rules of a game they invented (called ‘Lex’), after watching video-demonstrations of all possible board uses. Children then independently watched videos of adults performing both rule-consistent and rule-violating actions on each square of the board. Children were asked if the adult was playing Lex and if that is how they played Lex with their partner.
Did children’s responses to rule-violating actions depend on the context in which they learned Lex? Figure 2 presents the results of a logistic mixed-effects model on children’s endorsement of rule violations (i.e., responding ‘yes’ that actors were playing Lex) by age-group and condition. There was a main effect of condition, LRT X2(2) = 16.52, p < .001. Both age-groups were more likely to endorse rule violations in the Bottom-Up condition than Top-Down-Heavy condition (odds-ratio = 113.25, p = .006). However, children’s behavior in the Top-Down-Light condition varied by age-group (p < .01). Older children were less likely to endorse rule violations the Top-Down-Light condition than the Bottom-Up condition (odds-ratio = 176.26, p = .002), whereas younger Top-Down-Light children did not differ from those in the Top-Down-Heavy or Bottom-Up conditions.
These results suggest the rigidity of children’s interpretation of rules depends on the context of instruction: Older children were relatively strict whenever the game rules were taught by an authority, but younger children were only strict when game rules and game violations were demonstrated. Both age groups, however, were most flexible in their interpretation of rules when they were part of the creation process. Thus, children's understanding of the binding nature of rules continues to develop into the early school years and, critically, depends on how rules were introduced.

2008 - ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES Pages: 38 pages || Words: 13041 words || 
4. Herlihy, Mark. "Are "Secondary Rules" Law? -- Assessing the Rules of Treaty Interpretation of The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2019-11-19 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The paper examines the status as law of the rules of treaty interpretation set out in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Initially, the paper examines the drafting history of the Convention, in an attempt to discern the understanding of those Articles held by the Special Rapporteur, The International Law Commission, and the adopting Convention. The paper then considers the application of the rules in the jurisprudence of four respected international tribunals: the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice, and the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization. It then reconsiders the status of the rules in light of this jurisprudence. In a concluding section the paper considers the suitability and utility of an evaluation based on positivist conception of law, at least with regard to rules of this type.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 404 - Next  Jump:

©2019 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy