Scholarship Roundtable: Challenges to Democracy in Divided Societies

January 24, 2011Duke Law News

Saturday, January 29, 2011 • Duke Law School, Room 4044

The topic of the roundtable will be “Challenges to Democracy in Divided Societies.” The purpose of the roundtable is to bring together scholars who are not often in conversation with one another across a range of disciplines—particularly law, political science and economics—to think through the current and future challenges to democracy in fractured societies.

Sponsors

Participants

  • Suren Avanesyan, USAID Washington
  • Valerie Bunce, Cornell Government
  • Guy-Uriel Charles, Duke Law
  • James Gardner, SUNY Buffalo Law
  • Laurence Helfer, Duke Law
  • Donald L. Horowitz, Duke Law
  • Sam Issacharoff, NYU Law
  • Ellen Katz, Michigan Law
  • Judith Kelley, Duke Public Policy
  • Staffan I. Lindberg, Florida Political Science
  • Ellen Lust, Yale Political Science
  • Jennifer McCoy, Carter Center and Georgia State Political Science
  • Ralf Michaels, Duke Law
  • Gary Milante, World Bank, Development Economics Research Group
  • Christina Murray, University of Cape Town Public Law
  • Janai Nelson, St. Johns Law
  • Wayne Norman, Duke Ethics
  • Brendan O'Leary, Penn Political Science
  • Richard Pildes, NYU Law
  • Benjamin Reilly, Johns Hopkins SE Asia Studies
  • Andrew Reynolds, UNC Political Science
  • Steven Wilkinson, Yale Political Science
Other News
  • Economic Growth and Development in Africa

    Nelly Wamaitha LLM ’17, an attorney from Kenya, describes herself as a skeptic of foreign aid structures and delivery in Africa. “I don’t think Africa’s problems can be solved with some Herculean effort that Africa does on its own, it’s obviously going to be a cooperative effort,” said Wamaitha, who practiced corporate law in Nairobi and London and studied theology at Oxford University before coming to Duke. “That having been said, the world has really botched up Africa in the past.”

      
  • Keeping a critical eye on enforcement

    Decisions regarding the enforcement of laws are highly discretionary. The choice of a federal or state agency or attorney general to investigate, charge, litigate, or resolve a specific infraction of a statute or regulation or not gets little public, judicial, or scholarly scrutiny.