Search

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Recent studies of the preliminary reference procedure highlight that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) defers to national courts at higher rates than scholars initially expected. However, we know little about how the Court chooses which questions to leave for national courts to determine and which ones require its attention. I argue that the CJEU evaluates whether a referred question is representative of a broader set of cases nascent in European judiciaries. I expect that Member States expressing an interest in a reference signal that the Court's answer would have an impact on cases in European judiciaries beyond the dispute in the referring national court. Drawing on an original dataset covering more than 5,000 questions referred to the CJEU between 1995 and 2011, I show that the likelihood of the CJEU leaving legal questions unresolved decreases with the number of Member States submitting briefs to the Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the European Court of Justice's strategic use of deference as a resilience technique in the preliminary reference procedure. It focuses on the strategic potential of using deference in two scenarios: first, when the Court uses teleological interpretation or expands the scope of the EU legal order and, second, when it declares national measures incompatible with EU law. The findings indicate that the Court is more likely to use deference when expanding EU law and less likely to defer when it declares national measures incompatible with EU law. The article challenges commonly held assumptions regarding the use of deference. First, the findings substantially qualify accounts linking the increase of deference to the maturity of the EU legal order and a certain halt of judicial activism. Deference allows the Court to explore new frontiers of EU law, suggesting that although the legal order might have matured, the Court does not perceive the project of legal integration as completed. Second, the article defies claims that deference is used by the Court as a 'weapon of restraint'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, many normative theories of democracy have taken an epistemic turn. Rather than focus on democracy's morally desirable features, they argue that democracy is valuable (at least in part) because it tends to produce correct political decisions. I argue that these theories place epistemic demands on citizens that conflict with core democratic commitments. First, I discuss a well-known challenge to epistemic arguments for democracy that I call the 'deference problem'. I then argue that framing debates about this deference problem in terms of work on epistemic defeat reveals a structurally similar but more serious challenge for epistemic arguments for democracy. Succinctly put, the problem is that if democracy tends to produce correct political decisions, then those in the minority might be required to suspend beliefs about political matters; however, this requirement conflicts with the pivotal democratic principle of self-government. Call this the 'suspension problem'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Because moral understanding involves a distinctly first-personal grasp of moral matters, there is a temptation to think of its value primarily in terms of achievements that reflect well on its possessor: the moral worth of one's action or the virtue of one's character. These explanations, I argue, do not do full justice to the importance of moral understanding in our moral lives. Of equal importance is the value of moral understanding in our relations with other moral agents. In particular, I argue that an understanding of moral matters is of central importance within relations of solidarity. In addition to highlighting an overlooked aspect of moral understanding's value, this view also has important implications for what solidarity requires of those who stand in that relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It was in 1976 when, in the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom , the European Court of Human Rights held that the European Convention on Human Rights "leaves to the Contracting States a margin of appreciation". Forty-five years later, in 2021, Protocol No. 15 entered into force and incorporated the "margin of appreciation" into the Preamble of the ECHR. For a long time, the doctrine has been considered a unique feature of the European human rights system, consistently ignored or explicitly rejected by other international adjudicators. This article aims to assess whether the recent international judicial practice still confirms such a conclusion, or whether the margin has migrated across the case law of different international courts and is, nowadays, a doctrine that can be applied to the assessment of the scope and content of international obligations and to the review of compliance with such obligations in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law on cross-border surrogacy establishes that a 'general and absolute impossibility' of obtaining recognition of the relationship, legally established in another country, between a surrogate-born child and their intended parents will violate the child's right to respect for private life. This approach requires States to accommodate familial bonds created through cross-border surrogacy and limits the margin of appreciation available to States to determine their national response. In recent case law, the ECtHR has adopted an interventionist approach in respect of national decision-making and has gone further than might be expected under the principle of subsidiarity. Examination of the emerging body of jurisprudence on cross-border surrogacy, however, reveals a preference for 'traditional' family formations, with the ECtHR tending to adopt a less interventionist and more deferential approach to national decision-making where the family at the centre of the case deviates from the structure of the family reflected in the seminal cross-border surrogacy case of Mennesson v France App no 65192/11 (ECtHR, 26 June 2014). This approach leads to inconsistency in the cross-border surrogacy case law as it creates something of a moving target for the vindication of children's rights in 'less traditional' family forms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article critically engages the normative implications of referring to small- scale, "pop-up" aid actors as Citizen Initiatives for Global Solidarity (CIGS) in the context of citizen-initiated disaster and humanitarian response. The force of the term "global solidarity" can be powerful, yet the precise meaning of the concept is often ambiguous. In light of this ambiguity, this article works toward conceptual clarity while questioning whether or not the label "CIGS" is an instance of parasitical solidarity--a rhetorical use of global solidarity that implies more, or di [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The politics of Queen Anne's reign are characterised as the rage of party; Whigs and Tories contended over religion, the constitution and the succession, and foreign policy. This struggle was taken to the electorate in five elections during Anne's reign, and these raise a question concerning electors' motivations, the answer to which remains elusive: were they acting according to principle, or reflecting the electoral interests to which they were subject? This article analyses the two surviving poll books for Dorset elections in the age of Anne, those at Wareham in 1702 and at Dorchester in 1705. It focuses principally on the voting behaviour of those engaged in the towns' governance structures: corporation members, councils of freemen and local parishes. However, it also considers the behaviour of other categories of voter: politicians, the clergy and non‐conformists. The analysis shows how electoral interest was mediated through the towns' governing institutions and suggests that (at least in these two cases) negotiation between the parties had a greater role in the outcome than has sometimes been suggested. It also demonstrates the limits of the electoral influence of the boroughs' elites: significant numbers of voters were simply not prepared to be led. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper delves into the intricate dynamics of trust-building between museums and community organizations, proposing a paradigm shift in understanding professional relationships, likening them to personal relationships with their inherent complexities. The authors examine the common perception of "soft skills", as well as prevailing institutional power imbalances and financial constraints that affect the capacity for community engagement. It sheds light on the challenges faced by professionals tasked with relationship-building outside conventional office hours and spaces, calling for a reevaluation of professional norms that might hinder authentic engagement. Drawing an analogy to an ecological relationship, the authors highlight the interconnectedness of actions within communities, akin to a watershed, scrutinizing the impact museums have on their communities and downstream partners, and urging reflection on responsibilities and accountability for societal consequences. Relationships between organizations, like relationships between people are essentially organic, and often messy as they evolve and grow. The authors emphasize the need for sustained investment in effective, reciprocal community engagement beyond mere cleanup efforts. Ultimately, this argument calls upon museums to proactively address root causes, invest in robust community relationships, and revamp institutional practices to foster accountable, sustainable community partnerships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is a study on Covid-19 pandemic and restrictions that came along. With restrictions, violations. The principle of legality, the basic historical construction of the rule of law, had been solemnly and repeatedly vilified and carried with it many constitutional rights and principles, which, more than indispensable for us, are so on a universal level, such as the restless go and come and exercise economic activity. Under the auspices of teratological decrees, of congenital malformation, our rights were restricted. But what is worse: often under the parsimonious eye of those who should be keeping the Constitution. Is it deference to the political propaganda pieces, based on biopower, that invade the everyday? Is it a fear of contributing to health discouragement, justifying non-legality? In this paper, more than addressing the unconstitutionality of restrictions, we propose to discuss the reasons for this passivity and acceptance. Methodologically, we use inductive guidance, choosing some characteristics as a starting point to build a broader conclusion, using a wide bibliographic and jurisprudential review.

Reshaping our methodological research tools for adequately capturing injustice and domination has been a central aspiration of feminist philosophy and social epistemology in recent years. There has been an increasingly empirical turn in recent feminist and political theorization, engaging with case studies and the challenges arising from conducting research in solidarity with unequal partners. I argue that these challenges cannot be resolved by merely adopting a norm and stance of deference to those in the struggle for justice. To conduct philosophical research in an engaged and solidaristic manner, I suggest that deference be supplemented by three methodological and normative principles: (1) epistemic humility, (2) accountability, and (3) coproducing knowledge. I situate these principles within contemporary philosophical work on solidarity and show how they might help confront power imbalances and other methodological hazards that arise when conducting research in solidarity with others. I arrive at these principles in part by critically reflecting on my own attempt to conduct research in solidarity with women’s rights activists in Senegal.

Reshaping our methodological research tools for adequately capturing injustice and domination has been a central aspiration of feminist philosophy and social epistemology in recent years. There has been an increasingly empirical turn in recent feminist and political theorization, engaging with case studies and the challenges arising from conducting research in solidarity with unequal partners. I argue that these challenges cannot be resolved by merely adopting a norm and stance of deference to those in the struggle for justice. To conduct philosophical research in an engaged and solidaristic manner, I suggest that deference be supplemented by three methodological and normative principles: (1) epistemic humility, (2) accountability, and (3) coproducing knowledge. I situate these principles within contemporary philosophical work on solidarity and show how they might help confront power imbalances and other methodological hazards that arise when conducting research in solidarity with others. I arrive at these principles in part by critically reflecting on my own attempt to conduct research in solidarity with women's rights activists in Senegal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Justice Rosalie Abella is closely associated with deference to administrative decision makers. I will argue that her deferential approach was multifaceted, much more sophisticated than might typically be assumed. Abella J's administrative law jurisprudence is as much about administrative autonomy as it is about judicial deference. On one level, Abella J's jurisprudence is a jurisprudence of judicial restraint, preaching limited judicial oversight of the administrative process. This reflects the conventional way of thinking about deference in administrative law as a doctrine requiring judicial restraint: it is a shield protecting administrative decision makers from judicial interference. Accordingly, she supported a broad presumption of deference to administrative decision makers and articulated a fairly non-interventionist conception of reasonableness review. But, on a deeper level, Abella J's jurisprudence is more radical. As I explain, Abella J was not committed simply to a restrained approach to judicial review but, rather, to promoting the autonomy of public administration: she furnished swords to administrative decision makers, allowing them to carve out additional space in which to operate and articulate applied versions of legal norms. Her commitment to administrative autonomy, rather than simply to judicial restraint, prompts reflection about the basis of Abella J's administrative law philosophy, which must ultimately be grounded in her trust of the administrative process, aligning her with the so-called 'functionalist' school of thought associated with progressive thinkers. I then turn to the Supreme Court of Canada's recent rearticulation of Canadian administrative law in the Vavilov case – a rearticulation with which Abella J expressed firm disagreement. I reflect on why the majority and Abella J diverged in Vavilov and suggest that the key features of Abella J's jurisprudence – restraint and autonomy – are rooted in a mode of thinking about administrative law that has fallen out of favour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Justice Rosalie Abella is closely associated with deference to administrative decision makers. I will argue that her deferential approach was multifaceted, much more sophisticated than might typically be assumed. Abella J's administrative law jurisprudence is as much about administrative autonomy as it is about judicial deference. On one level, Abella J's jurisprudence is a jurisprudence of judicial restraint, preaching limited judicial oversight of the administrative process. This reflects the conventional way of thinking about deference in administrative law as a doctrine requiring judicial restraint: it is a shield protecting administrative decision makers from judicial interference. Accordingly, she supported a broad presumption of deference to administrative decision makers and articulated a fairly non-interventionist conception of reasonableness review. But, on a deeper level, Abella J's jurisprudence is more radical. As I explain, Abella J was not committed simply to a restrained approach to judicial review but, rather, to promoting the autonomy of public administration: she furnished swords to administrative decision makers, allowing them to carve out additional space in which to operate and articulate applied versions of legal norms. Her commitment to administrative autonomy, rather than simply to judicial restraint, prompts reflection about the basis of Abella J's administrative law philosophy, which must ultimately be grounded in her trust of the administrative process, aligning her with the so-called 'functionalist' school of thought associated with progressive thinkers. I then turn to the Supreme Court of Canada's recent rearticulation of Canadian administrative law in the Vavilov case – a rearticulation with which Abella J expressed firm disagreement. I reflect on why the majority and Abella J diverged in Vavilov and suggest that the key features of Abella J's jurisprudence – restraint and autonomy – are rooted in a mode of thinking about administrative law that has fallen out of favour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I suggest that a moderate version of pessimism about moral testimony succeeds. However, I claim also that all major pessimist accounts—Understanding, Affect, Virtue, and Autonomy—fail. Having argued for these claims, I propose a new pessimist alternative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to explore the research niche of deeper critical reflection on the limits of the exercise of powers by administrative courts by providing a new perspective on issues related to this subject. In the first part, the article draws inspiration from P. Lindseth and his comparative framework of judicial review. The article uses this to demonstrate that Czech jurisprudence has so far mostly left aside questions of the extent or intensity of the exercise of judicial review. In the next section, the article follows this up by explaining and defending the concept of judicialization as regards public administration. This discussion relates to the understanding of administrative court's jurisdiction as mandate for judicialization. In the following section, the article discusses the notion of deference, which is understood as a kind of antithesis to judicialization. The article explains the history of the concept and describes how and when are Czech administrative courts deferential and on what basis. The article concludes by summarizing the findings and outlining further research possibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Questions of statutory interpretation form a significant portion of administrative law cases. Accordingly, judicial methodology in this area requires careful consideration by public law commentators. The core aim of this paper is to question the general orthodoxy that statutory interpretation is invariably a question for judges. In recent times, one prominent argument has been that between jurists arguing that interpretation should be the realisation of Parliament's intention ('intentionalist'), and those who prefer the closely related but subtly distinct focus on its objective purpose ('purposivist'). I contend that this argument, framed as a question over the inter-institutional relationship between Parliament and the courts, focuses on how interpretation is carried out without considering who is best placed to do the interpreting. Given, as I demonstrate with a series of case studies, that in hard cases the distinction between interpretation and discretion/policymaking can become obscure to the point of nullity, the debate fails to consider institutional arguments for judicial deference on questions of law. Moreover, and counterintuitively, the arguments of the intentionalists/purposivists can be used to bolster an argument for deference. My conclusion adopts a wider lens, setting out a broader constitutional argument for, and addressing objections against, cautious and context-sensitive deference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Law enforcement's troubled interactions (characterised by unusually harsh, arbitrary, unjust, and racist interactions and attitudes) with minority and marginalised populations in Canada and other western countries are well documented. Against the backdrop of such scholarship, this paper attempts to make sense of alternative perceptions held by some sex workers of colour about police officers' attitudes or behaviours towards minority and marginalised communities. Using qualitative interview data, this paper explains how some sex workers of colour in Canada actively interpret the character of law and legality to negotiate power imbalances when interacting with police officers. The main aim here is to show how research participants produce a counter-narrative and a polarised image (instead of a fixed one) of police officers as simultaneously 'compassionate' and 'prejudiced' social control agents, bringing out the symbiotic tensions between such dichotomous characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Espaço Jurídico: Journal of Law is the property of Espaco Juridico: Journal of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper discusses the concept of honorification with a focus on the essential correlation between human relations and society. While the structural aspect of honorification, in the form of honorifics, has been discussed extensively the functional aspect of honorification as a research question requires equal consideration. It has often been claimed that obligation is one of the primary motivations behind honorification owing to its ubiquitous influence on social interactions due to differences in status, social distance, and power. However, a closer look will reveal how such social factors are a reflection of not the obligation but the underlying acknowledgement of this obligation leading to the social recognition of honorification and, thus, shifting the perspective from necessity to choice. In other words, this paper explores honorification as a synthesis of society, culture, and human nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court’s implicit deference to the Office of the Solicitor General in patent cases is well-documented: What the Solicitor General requests, the Solicitor General typically receives. But we know far less about how the Solicitor General arrives at these preferred policy positions, or why the Solicitor General comes to advocate for some outcomes over others. This is problematic. In practically every other corner of the administrative state, an agency earns substantial deference to its views only where robust procedural protections attend to the policymaking process, where the agency’s outcome reflects its substantive expertise, and where the agency may, through presidential removal and election, be held politically accountable for its policy choices. Not so in patent law. The Patent Office has never claimed to exercise any substantive rulemaking power. Meanwhile, the Solicitor General develops and advocates for patent policy outcomes, but behind closed doors, without deep internal expertise, and under the time constraints of appellate litigation. These shortcomings (among others) suggest that we should reexamine the Solicitor General’s influence over patent policy in favor of alternate interpretive practices that improve Executive Branch decisionmaking. And they counsel in favor of several reforms—most importantly, to the policymaking power of the Patent Office.

Status is an independent basis of inequality. Cultural meanings create the voluntary esteem and deference that distinguish status inequities from inequalities in power and material resources, as Cecilia Ridgeway and Hazel Markus explain in the introduction to this issue. Here, we use affect control theory (ACT)—a formal theory of culture, identity, and social action—to explore how cultural meanings of occupational identities shape status behavior. ACT assumes that people try to maintain cultural meanings for identities and behaviors on three affective dimensions (evaluation, potency and activity) as they interact with others. We use ACT to define how actors in different status groups—occupations with similar patterns of deference to and from other occupations—act toward one another. We validate our theoretical behavioral predictions with vignette survey data.

Scholars of populism have suggested that it might best be described as 'unpolitical', rather than apolitical or anti‐political. This term captures the populist claim to stand morally above the sphere of politics (which it deems inherently corrupting), while being simultaneously drawn to engage in it. But such ambivalence towards politics is not limited to populist actors; indeed, 'unpolitics' might be considered intrinsic to British political culture. Most obviously, Conservatives historically portrayed themselves as unsullied by ideology, above party competition, and deriving their values from embodied experience rather than political reasoning. But, while traditional Conservative unpolitics emphasised hierarchy, new anti‐deferential forms of unpolitics emerged in the postwar period. These were based on claims to be 'ordinary', which was defined in opposition to the 'political' in ways that made the latter seem necessarily illegitimate. Focussing on unpolitics shows that populism grew out of mainstream British political culture, as well as in opposition to it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opportunities to celebrate the success of the firm, its leaders and, by extension, its employees, were numerous in the mid-Victorian period: banquets, dinners and outings, annual gatherings, pleasure trips and excursions, processions around the mills, or ceremonies directly related with the employer's family. The purpose of this paper is to analyse some of these large communal events organized in textile mills in order to better understand the practices and meanings of paternalism on the side of the workers. The first part of this study of paternalism 'from below' explores the feudal structure of paternalism and the complex role played by deference in the large communal events organized in textile factories. The second part, about the large social events organized by captains of industry turned philanthropists, Titus Salt and Samuel Courtauld, examines the display of power in 'the theatre of paternalism' and raises the question of a possible circumvention of the paternalistic model on the part of workers. The last part is about the specificities of laudatory poems praising captains of industry and thanking them for the outings and celebrations they organized for their employees. It analyses how this specific poetical subgenre offers a space for renegotiation of paternalism and social boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supra-Bayesianism is the Bayesian response to learning the opinions of others. Probability pooling constitutes an alternative response. One natural question is whether there are cases where probability pooling gives the supra-Bayesian result. This has been called the problem of Bayes-compatibility for pooling functions. It is known that in a common prior setting, under standard assumptions, linear pooling cannot be nontrivially Bayes-compatible. We show by contrast that geometric pooling can be nontrivially Bayes-compatible. Indeed, we show that, under certain assumptions, geometric and Bayes-compatible pooling are equivalent. Granting supra-Bayesianism its usual normative status, one upshot of our study is thus that, in a certain class of epistemic contexts, geometric pooling enjoys a normative advantage over linear pooling as a social learning mechanism. We discuss the philosophical ramifications of this advantage, which we show to be robust to variations in our statement of the Bayes-compatibility problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Italy's controversial decision to sign a Memorandum of Understanding for collaboration on the Belt and Road Initiative with China in 2019 has been widely debated. This article seeks to break new ground by offering a theory-informed contribution investigating the rationale behind Beijing's own commitment in the negotiations leading to the signing of the BRI MoU. It argues that the Chinese government accepted the risks involved in the process for the sake of promoting an accelerated advancement in China's positioning in the international status hierarchy through negotiation of deference against agency with Italy. The article empirically probes the extent to which such a strategy of status enhancement on China's part is sustainable over time. Based on a content analysis of all China-related political stances expressed in ordinary non-legislative policy-setting acts tabled in both Houses of the 18th Italian Parliament, from March 2018 through to August 2021, the article suggests that China's strategy is hardly sustainable. In fact, the steady deterioration of China-related sentiment among Italian Members of Parliament as a consequence of Beijing's policies towards Hong Kong, the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) outbreak, and Xinjiang matches the expectations of previous scholarship on international status as it confirms that social closure mechanisms discussed in the literature prevail over foreign policy consistency when the status-seeking actor is perceived as crossing critical normative thresholds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Cognitive Reflection Test is a widely used measure of the degree to which individuals override an intuitive response and engage in reflection. For both theoretical and practical reasons, it is widely taken to assess an important component of rational thought. In this paper, I will argue that while doing well on the CRT requires valuable cognitive capacities and dispositions, doing badly does not always indicate a lack of such capacities and dispositions. The CRT, I argue, offers respondents implicit (but misleading) testimony: some of those who do badly do so due to a stronger disposition to defer to testimony. Since deference is not irrational, those who do badly need not be irrational, not even in part. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

V literatuře bylo uvedeno mnoho důvodů, proč soudy respektují rozhodnutí jiných orgánů nebo nižších soudů. Některé se týkají strukturálních otázek, jako je doktrína dělby moci, jiné se vztahují k povaze předmětu řízení. Na základě empirické analýzy stovek rozhodnutí Ústavního soudu článek uvádí důvody, které vedou ke zdrženlivému přezkumu Ústavním soudem. Hlavním důvodem deference v praxi Ústavního soudu je komplexnost posuzované problematiky a objektivní mezery v poznání. První z nich se projevuje zejména při přezkumu hospodářských otázek. Druhý se názorně ukázal při nedávné pandemii nemoci COVID-19. Článek důvody pro zdrženlivost, které ve své praxi používá Ústavní soud, analyzuje a argumentuje, že komplexnost problému a objektivní mezery ve znalostech jsou dobrými důvody pro deferenci. Oproti tomu zvýšená potřeba mimoprávních expertních znalostí či doktrína dělby moci nejsou důvody, které by samy o sobě mohly vysvětlit, kdy má být Ústavní soud zdrženlivý.

Status is an independent basis of inequality. Cultural meanings create the voluntary esteem and deference that distinguish status inequities from inequalities in power and material resources, as Cecilia Ridgeway and Hazel Markus explain in the introduction to this issue. Here, we use affect control theory (ACT)--a formal theory of culture, identity, and social action--to explore how cultural meanings of occupational identities shape status behavior. ACT assumes that people try to maintain cultural meanings for identities and behaviors on three affective dimensions (evaluation, potency and activity) as they interact with others. We use ACT to define how actors in different status groups--occupations with similar patterns of deference to and from other occupations--act toward one another. We validate our theoretical behavioral predictions with vignette survey data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dual-strategies theory of social rank proposes that both dominance and prestige are effective strategies for gaining social rank (i.e., the capacity for influence) in groups. However, the only existing longitudinal investigation of these strategies suggests that, among undergraduate students, only prestige allows people to maintain social rank over time. The current study provides a longitudinal test of dominance and prestige in a context where dominance is more normative: MBA project groups. Among 548 MBA students in 104 groups, peer-rated dominance and prestige predicted gains in social rank over the course of 4 weeks, indicating that both strategies may help people not only gain social rank but also maintain it over time. Furthermore, prestige—but not dominance—led to social rank because of willingly given deference from group members. This confirms a central but thus-far-untested principle of dual-strategies theory: While prestige is based on freely conferred deference, dominance is not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Direito GV is the property of Fundacao Getulio Vargas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Swedish Municipality Act, issued in 1862, consolidated a plutocratic system in which ownership and income, and the resulting level of taxation, translated into political power. However, as a measure to hinder large landowners from holding a majority of the votes, the Act guaranteed voting rights for tenants. The aim of this article is to analyse how power relations played out after this challenge to landlords' hegemony. Through an analysis of tenants' contracts, appeals to the King in Council and minutes from municipal board meetings, we show how landlords did not trust a political culture of deference to secure power, even if they had demanded subservience in contracts. In a deliberate and specific way, they also reserved voting rights for themselves, which we find to have been a widespread pattern, although it was repeatedly pointed out as unlawful by the King in Council. However, through the analysis of the board meetings, it becomes clear that the position of manorial landlords in these municipalities was so obvious that they rarely had to confront their tenants with their illegitimate contractual restrictions. The results empirically challenge a narrative of slow but steady democratisation and theoretically challenge the alleged reciprocity of landlord–tenant relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many philosophers have claimed that relying on the testimony of others in normative questions is in some way problematic. In this paper, I consider whether we should be troubled by deference in democratic politics. I argue that (i) deference is less problematic in impure cases of political deference, and (ii) most non-ideal cases of political deference are impure. To establish the second point, I rely on empirical research from political psychology. I also outline two principled reasons why we should expect political deference to be untroubling: political problems are difficult and require a division of epistemic labour; furthermore, there is value in exercising epistemic solidarity with those one shares an identity or interests with. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Customer satisfaction in hotels has been measured by considering different aspects of the client's experience, one of these being interaction with hotel staff. The receptionist is probably the most important member of staff in this context, since this person is the first that the customer meets upon arrival and the one consulted when having a problem or doubt. In this paper, receptionists' views regarding what they consider to be appropriate verbal and non-verbal behaviour in reception desk service encounters in Spain are analysed. The results show that (a) the participants have very specific expectations regarding what constitutes appropriate receptionist behaviour and (b) there appears to be a general preference for deference politeness strategies and a focus on the transactional part of the interaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2012 the Government made a number of controversial changes to the Immigration Rules, which it claimed would 'comprehensively reform the approach taken towards ECHR Article 8 in immigration cases'. This paper examines the judicial response, arguing that the courts 'fell into line', adapting human rights law to the government's aims through unprincipled and opportunistic techniques, whilst inflicting hardship and injustice on working‐class British citizens in particular. Four key moves are identified. First, the courts created an 'incapable' test which immunised the rules from in principle challenges. Second, Lord Bingham's Article 8 test, in which the reasonableness of any family member relocation was a central consideration, was replaced with a far less family‐friendly test. Third, the courts adopted an ultra‐lax rationality test at common law, even when the 'fundamental rights' of British citizens were engaged. Finally, the courts identified immigration policy as the 'constitutional responsibility' of the executive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of this study is to assess the perceptions of Japanese speakers about the alternation tú/usted in Spanish L2/FL requests. In Spanish, this choice changes the formality, while in Japanese both lexical variations and verbal inflection regulate the degree of politeness. Also, honorific speech is more common in Japanese than usted in Peninsular Spanish. If based on this comparison, Japanese learners might find it difficult to acquire adequate politeness marking in Peninsular Spanish. To analyze this phenomenon, a Spanish MDCT was administered to two experimental groups of learners (L1 = Japanese; L1 = other languages), as well as to a control group of native speakers of Spanish. Results show that Japanese speakers perceive tú as a less appropriate form of address and favor the use of usted. Nonetheless, Japanese speakers approach native-like performance as the level of competence increases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citizens of liberal democracies today increasingly exhibit a distrust of perceived elites, especially experts and those of advanced educational attainment more generally. John Stuart Mill's work offers potential responses to this phenomenon. Mill regards deference to superior wisdom as an essential part of a well-developed character while esteeming independent thought. Although his emphasis on the importance of character formation is well known, his concern for inculcating a salutary form of deference has been underexplored. I show how Mill's approaches to this task include redesigning the political process to amplify the voice of the highly educated, promoting more widespread opportunities for learning, and consistently emphasizing the partiality of human understanding. I also compare Mill's treatment of the place of deference in democratic politics with that of Alexis de Tocqueville's, and consider how Tocqueville might critique Mill's strategies for cultivating deference. In so doing, I demonstrate how these authors provide us with resources for navigating the tensions between popular sovereignty and expertise, and between independent thought and intellectual authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates the construction of the bodies of live-in Indonesian domestic workers in their employers' homes in Malaysia. Through an analysis of everyday practices at the micro level, this study suggests that the spatiality of domestic work is central to the bodily construction of migrant workers. Surveillance and mobility restrictions in the employer's home condition the worker's body to be constantly productive. The body, at the same time, is inscribed with gender, racial and class differences. It is marked as deferential as a result of its proximity to the employer's body in the enclosed space of the home. These practices take place at home, but they draw on practices by the host state and recruitment agencies. This suggests that bodily construction at the household level is inherently linked to national and global processes. Migrant domestic workers nevertheless may find themselves either adopting these constructions through self-discipline or resisting them to a limited extent. In doing so, the workers' bodily performances bring the home into being as a performative space of power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Chilena de Derecho y Ciencia Política is the property of Revista Chilena de Derecho y Ciencia Política and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

How should we adjust our beliefs in light of the testimony of those who are in a better epistemic position than ourselves, such as experts and other epistemic superiors? In this paper, I develop and defend a deference model of epistemic authority. The paper attempts to resolve the debate between the preemption view and the total evidence view of epistemic authority by taking an accuracy-first approach to the issue of how we should respond to authoritative and expert testimony. I argue that when we look at the debate through the lens of accuracy, it becomes clear that matters are more complicated than either the preemption view or the total evidence view are able to account for. Consequently, a deference model, outlined within a credence-based framework, does a better job of capturing the relevant phenomena, and explaining how we should update our beliefs in response to epistemically authoritative testimony. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]