Barbara M. Yarnold – författare

In this penetrating analysis of international extradition practices, Barbara Yarnold argues that, as they currently exist, these practices are not functioning adequately. This breakdown is confirmed, she demonstrates, by repeated incidents of illegal international extradition, most recently the 1989 gunboat extradition of Panama's General Noriega by the United States. Yarnold contends that the inability of current extradition procedures to fulfill the needs of the parties involved poses a serious threat to world peace and security because the extra-legal extraditions that are substituted often involve the violation of the territorial sovereignty of another state. Yarnold proposes an alternative mechanism for dealing with requests for international extradition in which the International Court of Justice plays a central role.Divided into three parts, the book begins with a group of chapters that examine and evaluate contemporary extradition practices. The author looks at the history of extradition agreements, analyzes the international extradition proceedings of U.S. district courts during the last sixty years, and shows that the inherent uncertainty and delay in international extradition practices often leads frustrated states to resort to extra-legal or illegal alternatives. In Part II, Yarnold examines efforts that have been made toward resolving international disputes through negotiation rather than through the use of force, focusing particular attention on the development of the International Court of Justice. Finally, the author suggests that the world community of states grant to the International Court of Justice jurisdiction over both international crimes and crimes committed against states but involve the flight of the fugitive from one state to another. She suggests further that the decision regarding whether or not international extradition of a fugitive is warranted should also be made by the International Court of Justice, instead of by courts within states, which are subject to local biases. Students of international relations and international law will find Yarnold's work illuminating reading.

This collection of essays analyzes the impact of religious organizations on social movements in the United States. The contributors detail religious support for political sanctuary, gay and lesbian rights, peace, and moral majority themes, emphasizing how religious institutions help communicate the core ideas of these movements. Among their findings: religious organizations become significant communication vehicles for certain movements whose ideologies are consistent with their religious tenets.Drawing from cultural pluralism and communications theory, these essays focus on communications networks and how they facilitate the spread of core ideas of social movements. Two questions are examined: why do religious organizations become involved in particular social movements?; and what are the implications of this involvement? The authors find that movements experience a significant increase in legitimacy and endurance when they are supported by the communications resources of religious groups. This book is valuable to scholars of social movements, government and religion.

In the public law area, there is an understanding that judicial decision making is not always objective, that the courts are not constrained by the law and the facts of the case, and that courts are actually policy makers influenced by extraneous factors that have little to do the legal and factual matters of a case. Through a combination of an integrative review of the relevant literature in the public law area and new case studies researched by the author, Barbara Yarnold argues that the public law area has discarded the traditional view of the judiciary as a passive interpreter of the law who truly weigh the facts of each case. She examines political and environmental variables that have been used to explain judicial outcomes and develops an original general theory of public law explaining under what circumstances political variables impact court decisions, and when region, as an environmental variable, is related to judicial outcomes.The central question in this study is When exactly do the law and the facts count? As Yarnold's analyses of the judicial decision field draw variables from political science, economics, psychology, and criminal justice, among other fields, this work also suggests that the public law area is multidisciplinary in nature. The book concludes with a case study examination of interest groups involved in asylum-related appeals and their role in the Sanctuary Movement. Students and scholars of public administration, law and society, and public law will find Yarnold's integration of research and current literature toward a general theory of public law highly provocative and interesting.

In this analysis of federal court cases relying upon the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, the author finds that the pro-life movement in the United States has suffered repeated losses in abortion litigation. Additionally, her research indicates that, despite claims to the contrary, the pro-life movement is a loose collection of underfunded and understaffed public interest organizations. The pro-choice forces are vastly more powerful in abortion litigation, have superior organization and financing, and include not only public interest groups but also private interests such as clinics and professional medical organizations. Divided into three parts, the study begins with a public law analysis of the progeny of Roe cases, examining those variables which appear to impact court decisions. Next the work examines political factors and litigation resources as variables in explaining court decisions. And finally, the work offers a descriptive analysis of abortion litigants which divides the groups into major categories and evaluates them in terms of their resources, longevity, and other such factors. This book will be of interest to those seriously interested in the political and legal ramifications of the abortion controversy.

In this analysis of federal court cases relying upon the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, the author finds that the pro-life movement in the United States has suffered repeated losses in abortion litigation. Additionally, her research indicates that, despite claims to the contrary, the pro-life movement is a loose collection of underfunded and understaffed public interest organizations. The pro-choice forces are vastly more powerful in abortion litigation, have superior organization and financing, and include not only public interest groups but also private interests such as clinics and professional medical organizations. Divided into three parts, the study begins with a public law analysis of the progeny of Roe cases, examining those variables which appear to impact court decisions. Next the work examines political factors and litigation resources as variables in explaining court decisions. And finally, the work offers a descriptive analysis of abortion litigants which divides the groups into major categories and evaluates them in terms of their resources, longevity, and other such factors. This book will be of interest to those seriously interested in the political and legal ramifications of the abortion controversy.