| Abstrakt: |
The judicial system is an arena where conflicts are assumed to find their final resolution by appealing to the complex arrays of concepts, standards, rules, and principles of a society (i.e., law). Whereas this is the case for the vast number of instances where there is a discrete cause and a discrete outcome, there remains a class of judicial decisions (e.g., allocation of natural resources) which require an ongoing involvement of the parties in implementing the decision. In such cases, judicial decisions must not be seen as a mechanical translation of goals into routine procedures. Rather they must be seen as something that emerges out of the struggles and negotiations that continually take place between the actors involved. The article illustrates this by examining how a 50:50 judicial allocation of fishery resources to Wisconsin Indian bands and the State of Wisconsin was transformed into a realized 6:94 allocation, respectively, during implementation. Factors that contributed to such an outcome include the interests and strategies of social actors, institutional characteristics, availability of resources, reporting mechanisms within the bureaucracies, and the power differential between parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
