When rules and principles are not enough: insiders’ views and narratives on the global financial crisis

Much has been written about Wall Street and the global financial crisis (GFC). From a fraudulent derivatives market to a contestable culture of banking bonuses, culpability has been examined within the frames of American praxis, namely that of American exceptionalism. This study begins with an exploratory analysis of non-US voices concerning the nature of the causes of the GFC. The analysis provides glimpses of the globalized extent of assumptions shared, but not debated within the globalization convergence of financial markets as the neo-liberal project. Practical and paradigmatic tensions are revealed in the capture of a London-based set of views articulated by senior financial executives of financial service organizations, the outcomes of which are not overly optimistic for any significant change in praxis within the immediate future.

Scoring rules and competitive behavior in best value construction auctions

This paper examines the extent to which engineers can influence the competitive behavior of bidders in Best Value or multi-attribute construction auctions, where both the (dollar) bid and technical non-price criteria are scored according to a scoring rule. From a sample of Spanish construction auctions with a variety of bid scoring rules, it is found that bidders are influenced by the auction rules in significant and predictable ways. The bid score weighting, bid scoring formula and abnormally low bid criterion are variables likely to influence the competitiveness of bidders in terms of both their aggressive/conservative bidding and concentration/dispersion of bids. Revealing the influence of the bid scoring rules and their magnitude on bidders’ competitive behavior opens the door for the engineer to condition bidder competitive behavior in such a way as to provide the balance needed to achieve the owner’s desired strategic outcomes.

Remote law-making? American drone strikes and the development of jus ad bellum

There is growing concern amongst international lawyers that the United States’ use of unmanned armed vehicles to conduct lethal targeting operations against non-state actors is setting a dangerous precedent for the future and might lead to an erosion of important rules under international law. Taking seriously these concerns, this article examines in more detail the potential precedent created by the US through its lethal drone strikes and the provided justifications, for the purpose of the development of jus ad bellum. In identifying the claims made by the US under different theories of customary international law as qualified practice or expressions of opinio juris that can lead to an alteration of the law should they be accepted by the international community, this article takes a first step towards a more extensive debate on the potential effects of the US drone strikes on the development of international law.