There has been a surge of publication of papers on official secrecy, national security classification and freedom of information in law reviews and other professional legal journals. Not all are equally original in their analysis or compelling in their conclusions, but they typically provide a scholarly perspective on matters of secrecy policy, and they often include valuable source citations.
Some of the more interesting new law review articles that have come to our attention are these (mostly pdf):
“Congressional Access to National Security Information” by Louis Fisher, Harvard Journal on Legislation, Volume 45, No. 1, Winter 2008.
“Classified Information Leaks and Free Speech” by Heidi Kitrosser, University of Illinois Law Review, 2008, Issue 3.
“The Chilling of Speech, Association, and the Press in Post-9/11 America” (multiple papers and conference presentations), American University Law Review, June 2008.
“Government Lawyers and Confidentiality Norms” By Kathleen Clark, Washington University Law Review, 2008.
“Our Very Privileged Executive: Why the Judiciary Can (and Should) Fix the State Secrets Privilege” by D. A. Jeremy Telman, Temple Law Review, 2007.
“‘Nothing Is So Oppressive as a Secret’: Recommendations for Reforming the State Secrets Privilege” by Emily Simpson, Temple Law Review, 2007.
“Secrecy and Access in an Innovation Intensive Economy: Reordering Information Privileges in Environmental, Health, and Safety Law,” by Mary L. Lyndon, University of Colorado Law Review, Volume 78, Issue 2, Spring 2007 (not online).
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.
FAS is launching the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI) to build a new, transpartisan vision of government that works – that has the capacity to achieve ambitious goals while adeptly responding to people’s basic needs.