This chapter examines the interrelationship between “a market’s materialities and practices” (Geiger and Gross, 2018) by offering an account of how a particular source of energy – wooden biomass – became a perferred energy resource in the Danish energy system. This chapter examines how biomass is qualified, i.e., identified, measured, framed, and, thereby, known. However, the materiality of forests and wooden biomass affords multiple understandings depending on the epistemic equipment – theories, models, and measurements – used. This introduces an epistemic uncertainty in how biomass can be known, providing opportunities for expression and enactment of interests, making policymaking more complex and more contentious. Our analysis highlights the antagonism and power struggles involved in the dynamics of market framing. The chapter concludes with a discussion on how the material ‘unruliness’ of biomass calls for complex accounting methods, leaving biomass incumbents much maneuver room and jeopardizing Denmark’s reputation as ‘a frontrunner’ in energy transition. The chapter contributes to Market Studies research by demonstrating the dual role of materiality in shaping (concrete, situated) interests and valuations while simultaneouly also affecting conditions for future maneuvering/actions. Further, the analysis brings out the politics of valuation.

This chapter discusses the appropriate types of expertise that should be available in the composition of international courts. The main argument is that the international bench needs to include judges with diverse and specialised expertise. For this reason, the concept ‘competence in international law’ as a statutory requirement for nomination and election of judges can be construed broadly, seeking out individuals who not only have recognised competence in international law sensu stricto but also strong complementary knowledge in specialised area(s) of international law relevant to a given court’s judicial work. Judges who are conversant with both general and special aspects and areas of international law are well placed to navigate the complexity and density of international law entrenched in disputes submitted for international adjudication. The first part of the discussion engages with the idea that general international courts value expertise of judges in specialised areas of international law and that specialised international courts value judges with competence in international law. Existing statutory election requirements can accommodate this suggestion. The second part of the discussion explores the detailed expertise requirements incorporated in the statutes of certain, new international courts. Novel developments suggest a turn towards favouring and quantifying required expertise in different areas of international law when deciding the overall composition of a court.

National convention delegates are chosen through a bewildering array of procedures that vary from state to state. Because states, for the most part, determine not only whether parties hold a primary or caucus, but also which voters are eligible to participate, delegates arrive at the national convention having been selected by very different constituencies that have very different policy ideas and very different levels of commitment to their respective parties.

The result is that neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party is able to express a clear ideological message through its presidential nominations. Presidential candidates seeking to win delegates in different state elections must appeal to the electorate in each state—and the state electorates differ greatly because the state-imposed voter eligibility rules differ greatly from state to state. As a result, candidates who articulate a clear and consistent message will draw different levels of support from the primary electorate in the various states, even when their messages appeal to similar proportions of party members and non-party members in each state.