The Quantitative Peace

What does Universal Jurisdiction Mean for the Future of the Sovereign State?

Earlier this month, Spain's National Court decided to hear a case arising by a lawsuit from a pro-Tibet group against seven Chinese officials over the pre-Olympics repression of protests in Tibet.  This case draws on that court's Doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction, as no Spaniards were personally harmed and, of course, the events in question did not occur on Spanish territory.  Perhaps the most notable instance of Spain's use of Universal Jurisdiction is the charge of genocide against former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet (those interested specifically in this case may want to check out my review of a recent documentary chronicling Chile's attempts at reconciliation)--though, of course, the initial charges against Pinochet in Spain arose because of his crimes specifically against Spanish citizens in Chile.  Spain isn't the only country that has begun to use such a legal doctrine more widely in recent years to attempt prosecutions for crimes against humanity.  Belgium and Canada are among the handful of countries that have asserted similar jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against humanity extra-territorially. 

Plenty of law review articles have been written about Universal Jurisdiction and what it means for international law, but what might it mean for international relations more generally?  What does it mean that one state can rule against the actions of another that don't directly affect citizens or property of the first state?  Is this the death knell for the sovereign state? 

@ APSA

I was hoping to produce a substantive post this week, but the upcoming conference for the American Political Science Association seems to monopolizing my time this week.  As such, I may see some of you there ; though, maybe not at 8am. This is my first official trip to Boston, so thankfully I am going with an experienced tour guide.

Despite my absence, I am sure my co-bloggers will hold down the fort this week in my absence.

A Draft is Just a Draft (as in writing, not the “Oh No, I am going to war” type)

Writing for Social Scientists by Howard Becker is a book I would strongly recommend to any graduate student who is about to begin the prospectus and/or dissertation process. This book is not solely about “how to write” in the sense of making outlines and editing. Instead, it is about how to overcome the obstacles people create for themselves before writing.

There are many obstacles to writing. These obstacles include having a tidy desk, making sure the right music is available to listen to, making sure no one else is around so that complete concentration is possible, and making sure to have all the resources that could possibly be cited available and read before starting to write. Without these conditions (and many others), it is often hard to write.

One of the key points to Becker’s book is that there is no reason to have a tidy desk, the right music, et cetera, to write. In fact, he points out that often we make up these conditions as a way for us to feel more secure that what we are writing is of good academic quality. However, having a tidy desk, or having the right music, will not change the quality of what we write. What it does is keep us from writing so in the end, we have less time to edit and we will produce less quality papers.

So the point is: just write. And do not be afraid that the first draft is not perfect. It will most likely not be, but there is a ton of time for editing. The editing phase is where you turn the paper into a good scholarly article.

Knowing that a draft is just a draft makes it easier to write. I know it has for me.

P.O.V.: Truth and Reconciliation in Chile

The PBS series, P.O.V., aired an excellent documentary Tuesday night called The Judge and The General.  This film tells the story of Juan Guzmán, a judge assigned to try criminal cases against members of Augusto Pinochet's regime in Chile.  Guzmán had been a supporter of Pinochet, and the film chronicles the information he uncovered while investigating these cases, and how he ultimately came to the realization that Pinochet's legal immunity from prosecution was a huge hurdle toward Chile's goal of truth and reconciliation.  From the P.O.V. synopsis:

The Judge and the General follows the twists and turns of the efforts of Guzmán and others to overcome Pinochet's immunity and his claims to be too ill, even too senile, to stand trial, and then his final defense — when significant proof had been gathered — that he had known nothing of the crimes. Was Pinochet, who died in 2006 while under house arrest, brought to justice in the eyes of society? Or did he escape being "touched," as his supporters jubilantly proclaim? What are the prospects for the cases against Pinochet underlings that are now under way? Most important, what are the prospects for Chile finding both truth and reconciliation through a legal accounting of its recent violent past?

A brief discussion of the film's finer points follows the jump.

Pirates, the Dark Knight, and more Game Theory

Presh Talwalkar at Mind Your Decisions has posted a decent piece on another game theoretic situation from the opening scene in the Dark Knight (contains mild spoilers):

The original plan of equal division is flawed. Each robber has incentive to increase his share by killing a fellow team member. Once a member performs his job, he loses his negotiating power and value to the team.

The Joker plays off this conflict by instructing the robbers to take out fellow teammates once their tasks are performed. The game would be different if the robbers were a group and they repeated crimes together—perhaps an even split could be sustainable. But as the movie hints right away with the first backstabbing scene, this robbery will be a one-shot game.

The list of examples and analysis provides some critical insight into one of the many situations of the movie that has yet to be fully explored.  Unlike the ferry scene where many bloggers and others incorrectly asserted that it was just a fancy prisoner's dilemma, this one is ripe for fresh exploration and Talwalkar does a pretty good job analyzing the components of the game.

World of Warcraft makes people better scientists

A News Lite article reporting on academic research indicates that WoW makes the world more scientific:

They looked at a random sample of nearly 2,000 discussion posts to see what types of conversations took place, such as social bantering versus problem-solving, that classified as scientific reasoning.

It was concluded that the forum and game-based learning could supplement textbooks and science labs in fostering scientific thinking and problem-solving ability.

The article seemed a bit light so I figured finding an article by the authors would help:

In MMOGs, individuals collaborate to solve complex problems within the virtual world, such as figuring out what combination of skills, proficiencies, and equipment are necessary to conquer an in-game boss monster. As part of developing efficient and effective solutions, players are customarily expected to research various game strategies and tactics by consulting on- and offline manuals, databases, and discussions and by using such knowledge as the basis
for in-game action. Thus, as part of standard gameplay (particularly beyond the beginning levels), individuals share their own hypotheses about what strategies work by proposing models for solutions, justifying their “theories” with evidence (such as tabulated mathematical results aggregated across multiple trials), and debating the merits of conflicting hypotheses – not as aimless contentious discussion (although there is a bit of that as well) but rather as part and parcel of the collective intelligence (Levy, 1999) amassed through patterned participatory consumption (Jenkins, 1992) the hallmark of interactive“entertainment” media such as games.

This 2006 piece, I believe, is the preliminary study that only looks at one particular thread that details answers to a particular problem while I am guessing a later article does the random sample to correct for the bias in the initial sample (if someone finds it, do post it and I will put it in the blog post).  However, there is probably some cause and effect selection bias still present.  Those posting on the threads they evaluate may already be familiar with the scientific method given the large amount of college students and beyond that make up the 10 million subscribers - however, I doubt all members of the community are.  Instead, it is possible that the expansive user base brings to the table several scholars who then impose such standards for the sake of valid comparison.  As the standards become socially reinforced, then others learn to imitate them.  Thus, I wouldn't be surprised that the underlying norm of science is implicitly observed while many individuals may not actually be able to articulate the process theoretically.

This can be coupled with Freakonomics posting on studies that argue beer consumption may be bad for science scholars.  So, if we learn anything from today, it would be to play more video games and to drink less beer.  Or do both to even things out.

Browsing History and Gender Identity

The Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science blog posted an interesting tool (direct link) that attempts to discern your gender identity by evaluating your browser history.  Particular websites are weighted based on the known gender ratio of the user base for that particular website and creates a new score.   The site assures users it does not store user information and it suggests that there is a 99% chance that I am male versus, obviously a 1% chance that I am female:

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 1%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 99%

End of the week blogging

The summer is rapidly approaching its end as many of us are preparing for the classes we are teaching, quickly completing those papers for the upcoming APSA conference, and finishing up any summer projects (or finding ways to push back those deadlines).  As such, the blogging here has slowed down a bit while the Dark Knight post continues to draw hundreds of new hits daily from Google, blogs, and some random message boards - but normal posting should resume once people re-settle into the semester swing. 

The International relations dispute of interest for the week has been the continued conflict between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia.  The Duck of Minerva has had several posts on the subject and these links only represent a fraction of the number of thoughts and commentary on the on going conflict provided by the blog.  I have been coding and working on a set of asymmetric conflicts over the summer and the conflict between Georgia and Russia has come up a few times in the past: see cases 407 and 445 at the ICB Data Viewer for post-Soviet conflicts between he two state - the latter of which directly concerns South Ossetia.  Thus, while the specifics of this iteration of the conflict are indeed interesting, the emergence of new data points provides equal academic interest as I conceive of how the underlying conditions give rise to such war when the outcome should be known ex ante, make bargaining clear, and induce a non-conflict settlement. Or, at least, this is what rationalist explanations of war tell us. The normal theoretical escape hatch of uncertainty giving rise to war only really works for parity or near-parity interactions - not in extreme disparity. 

As such, I leave the direct commentary to other blogs - however, such conflicts involving minor powers or minor powers against major powers can prove better in defining the utility of theories than conflicts purely between great powers.  The latter of the three tends to be over-represented in theory generation despite the prominence of the former cases.

Data collection using Web-based Forms

Thanks to a comment on an earlier post, Stephen Haptonstahl answered some of my questions and technical misgivings I had about setting up a larger user interface for collecting data via a webpage.  Specifically, he has an article in the Political Methodologist's from 2008 (the specific issue can be found here, starts on page 12) that details the set up for data entry using the web-based forms to compile data:

[...]Web-based forms provide some clear advantages: more than one person can enter data at a time without fear of writing over each other’s work; the data is stored on a server where it is (almost certainly) safer; the researcher can impose more structure on the data entered using pull-down menus, check boxes, and radio buttons. Two caveats: an Internet connection and some technical skills are required. However, if those entering the data will have Internet access and if you can create and upload a simple Web page, then this article fills in the rest, providing the tools you need to set up your own Web-based data collection form.

The article goes through both the details of setting up the forms, the programs needed, sample code, and finally how to test and make sure the form is behaving correctly.  Such design with a walk-through is more desirable, at this point, than the problems I have been encountering with Base thus far.  Thanks Stephen!