Rules in the Shadow of the Future: Prudential Rule-Making under Ambiguity in the Aviation Sector Business

International Relations

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 343-349

  Lampel, Joseph ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

airline safety; electromagnetic interference; prudential rules

Indexed keywords

EID: 43249177290     PISSN: 00471178     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0047117806066712     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Anthony F Lang Jnr, Nicholas Rengger and William Walker, ‘The Role(s) of Rules: Some Conceptual Clarifications’, International Relations, this issue, pp. 274–94.
2. US House and Senate Intelligence Committee, The 9/11 Report (22 July 2004), pp. 339–44.
3. Blaise Pascal, Pensées, trans. J. M. Cohen (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1961).
4. Boeing, Service Letter, ‘Passenger Carry-on Electronic Devices’, 9 March 2001.
5. ‘Detector in Cabin Could Help Pinpoint Interference from Passengers' Portable Electronic Devices’, Air Safety Week, 14(31), 31 July 2000.
6. Boeing, Service Letter, ‘Passenger Carry-on Electronic Devices’.
7. ‘Turn off that Gameboy! With No Clear Proof on Whether Electronic Gadgets Can Interfere in Flight, Airlines Confuse Passengers with Differing Policies on What They Can and Can't Use’, Globe and Mail, 25 February 1997.
8. C. Berg, ‘Can We Remove the Ban on Mobiles in Planes Without Killing Each Other?’ IPA Review, 57(3), 1 September 2005, p. 22.
9. ‘Interference from Portable Electronic Devices Demonstrates “Potential for Catastrophe”’, Air Safety Week, 17(6), 19 February 2003.
10. ‘Hearing on Portable Electronic Devices: Cell Phones on Aircraft: Nuisance or Necessity?’, US House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Aviation. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (July 2005).
11. K. Essick, ‘Some Email with your Drink?’, Wall Street Journal (Europe), 24(10), 13 February 2006, p. R6.