Award-winning professor and author Matthew Lippman enhances teaching and learning with his newest text, Striking the Balance: Debating Criminal Justice and Law. Organizing the book around clashing points of view on contemporary issues in criminal justice and criminal law, Lippman puts each debate into context for students to help them develop a better understanding of the issue. Designed to develop the reader’s critical thinking skills, the text offers students summaries of contrasting views from original sources, questions for classroom discussion, and engaging “You Decide” activities. Additionally, chapter topics are independent of one another, giving instructors the flexibility to customize the material to their individual course organization. Edited to minimize technical legal terms, the text is the perfect companion to any criminal law or introductory criminal justice textbook.

An innovative volume that covers all the common topics of climate law currently debated in the global academic community.

An internationally-recognized authority on constitutional law, national security law, and counterterrorism, William C. Banks believes changing patterns of global conflict are forcing a reexamination of the traditional laws of war. The Hague Rules, the customary laws of war, and the post-1949 law of armed conflict no longer account for nonstate groups waging prolonged campaigns of terrorism—or even more conventional insurgent attacks. Recognizing that many of today's conflicts are low-intensity, asymmetrical wars fought between disparate military forces, Banks's collection analyzes nonstate armed groups and irregular forces (such as terrorist and insurgent groups, paramilitaries, child soldiers, civilians participating in hostilities, and private military firms) and their challenge to international humanitarian law. Both he and his contributors believe gaps in the laws of war leave modern battlefields largely unregulated, and they fear state parties suffer without guidelines for responding to terrorists and their asymmetrical tactics, such as the targeting of civilians. These gaps also embolden weaker, nonstate combatants to exploit forbidden strategies and violate the laws of war. Attuned to the contested nature of post-9/11 security and policy, this collection juxtaposes diverse perspectives on existing laws and their application in contemporary conflict. It sets forth a legal definition of new wars, describes the status of new actors, charts the evolution of the twenty-first-century battlefield, and balances humanitarian priorities with military necessity. While the contributors contest each other, they ultimately reestablish the legitimacy of a long-standing legal corpus, and they rehumanize an environment in which the most vulnerable targets, civilian populations, are themselves becoming weapons against conventional power.

A history of international law in public debates and its resulting popular language of international law.

Debating Hate Crime examines the language and argumentation used by parliamentarians, senators, and committee witnesses to debate Canada’s “hate-crime” laws. These lively, and at times raucous, legislative debates and committee hearings reveal much about party politics, public policy, and social issues of the day, including citizenship, nationhood, and Canadian values. Drawing on discourse analysis, semiotics, and critical psychoanalysis, Allyson Lunny explores how the tropes, metaphors, and other linguistic signifiers used in these debates expose the particular concerns, trepidations, and anxieties of Canadian lawmakers and the expert witnesses called before their committees. In so doing, Lunny reveals and interrogates the meaning and social signification of the endorsement of, and resistance to, hate law. The result is a rich historical and analytical account of some of Canada’s most passionate public debates on victimization, rightful citizenship, social threat, and moral erosion.

The book gathers the general report and the national reports presented at the XXth General Congress of the IACL, in Fukuoka (Japan), on the topic “Debating legal pluralism and constitutionalism: new trajectories for legal theory in the global age”. Discussing the major contemporary changes occurring in and problems faced by domestic legal systems in the global age, the book describes how and to what extent these trends affect domestic legal orderings and practices, and challenges the traditional theoretical lenses that are offered to tackle them: constitutionalism and pluralism. Combining comparative law and comparative legal doctrine, and drawing on the national contributions, the general report concludes that most of the classic tools offered by legal doctrine are not appropriate to address most of today’s practical and theoretical global legal challenges, and as such, the book also offers new intellectual tools for the global age.

In this new addition to the 'Debating Law' series, Emily Jackson and John Keown re-examine the legal and ethical aspects of the euthanasia debate. Emily Jackson argues that we owe it to everyone in society to do all that we can to ensure that they experience a 'good death'. For a small minority of patients who experience intolerable and unrelievable suffering, this may mean helping them to have an assisted death. In a liberal society, where people's moral views differ, we should not force individuals to experience deaths they find intolerable. This is not an argument in favour of dying. On the contrary, Jackson argues that legalisation could extend and enhance the lives of people whose present fear of the dying process causes them overwhelming distress. John Keown argues that voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are gravely unethical and he defends their continued prohibition by law. He analyses the main arguments for relaxation of the law - including those which invoke the experience of jurisdictions which permit these practices - and finds them wanting. Relaxing the law would, he concludes, be both wrong in principle and dangerous in practice, not least for the dying, the disabled and the disadvantaged.

The only current authorized edition of the classic work on parliamentary procedure--now in a new updated edition Robert's Rules of Order is the recognized guide to smooth, orderly, and fairly conducted meetings. This 12th edition is the only current manual to have been maintained and updated since 1876 under the continuing program established by General Henry M. Robert himself. As indispensable now as the original edition was more than a century ago, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is the acknowledged "gold standard" for meeting rules. New and enhanced features of this edition include: Section-based paragraph numbering to facilitate cross-references and e-book compatibility Expanded appendix of charts, tables, and lists Helpful summary explanations about postponing a motion, reconsidering a vote, making and enforcing points of order and appeals, and newly expanded procedures for filling blanks New provisions regarding debate on nominations, reopening nominations, and completing an election after its scheduled time Dozens more clarifications, additions, and refinements to improve the presentation of existing rules, incorporate new interpretations, and address common inquiries Coinciding with publication of the 12th edition, the authors of this manual have once again published an updated (3rd) edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief, a simple and concise introductory guide cross-referenced to it.

Offers students an overview of the world schools style of debating, with expert advice for every stage of the process, including preparation, rebuttal, style, reply speeches, and points of information.