At first glance, the adventure of restorative justice (RJ) in Belgium can be considered a real success story. At the turn of the 21st century, programmes oriented towards this justice model officially determined the criminal justice agenda. What were the key ideas that led to the conceptualisation of restorative justice in Belgium? Who were the main actors and agencies that carried them out? What were the main issues that led to the institutionalisation of restorative justice? What are the effects of its implementation on the Belgian criminal justice system in general? This article strives to present the main findings of a study on the basis of an extensive data collection effort and analysis targeting discourses and practices created by actors from the Belgian academic, scientific, political, administrative, social work and judicial spheres from the 1980s to 2015. |
Search result: 5190 articles
Report |
IISL/ECSL Symposium on the occasion of the 57th Session of the Legal Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer SpaceVienna International Centre, 9 April 2018 |
Journal | International Institute of Space Law, Issue 10 2018 |
Authors | Thea Flem Dethlefsen, Heejeong Vicky Jeong and Antonino Salmeri |
Author's information |
Response |
Training in restorative justice for sex crimes from the perspective of sexual assault specialists |
Journal | The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 2 2018 |
Authors | Elise C. Lopez DrPH and Mary P. Koss PhD |
Author's information |
Book Review |
Ivo Aertsen and Brunilda Pali (eds.), Critical restorative justice |
Journal | The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 2 2018 |
Authors | Esther Friedman |
Author's information |
Article |
The adventure of the institutionalisation of restorative justice in Belgium |
Journal | The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 2 2018 |
Keywords | Restorative justice, institutionalisation, penal change, Belgium |
Authors | Anne Lemonne |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Conversations on restorative justice |
|
Journal | The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 2 2018 |
Authors | Albert Dzur |
Author's information |
Notes from the field |
Training for restorative justice work in cases of sexual violence |
Journal | The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 2 2018 |
Authors | Marie Keenan |
Author's information |
Article |
Introducing and theorising an in-prison restorative justice programme: the second-generation Sycamore Tree Project |
Journal | The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 2 2018 |
Keywords | Sycamore Tree Project, in-prison restorative justice programming, human condition, liminality, narrative |
Authors | Jane Anderson |
AbstractAuthor's information |
This article introduces an in-prison restorative justice programme: the second-generation Sycamore Tree Project (STP-2). The programme brings together crime victims and unrelated offenders in a prison setting to discuss and address the harm of crime to their lives. In the first part of the article, description is given to how STP-2 has evolved in Australia from a ‘faith-based’ programme to one that is restorative. In the second part, three anthropological theories are used to provide explanation and prediction of the transformative effects of in-prison restorative justice programming on prisoners as informed by STP-2. The prisoner-participant is viewed as a ‘person’ who, in liminal conditions, is afforded agency to create a meaningful narrative that is directed to revising how one is to associate with others in morally acceptable ways. The article concludes with a comparison between STP-1 and STP-2, and some proposals for research beyond this theoretical excursion. |
Article |
Restorative justice as empowerment: how to better serve the goals of punitive retribution |
Journal | The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 2 2018 |
Keywords | Restorative justice, retributive punishment, empowerment of victims, restoring dignity and autonomy in survivors of crime |
Authors | Theo van Willigenburg |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Restorative justice practices are applied only to the margins of criminal justice systems. These systems generally punish the wrongdoer in order to give him his ‘just desert’. For restorative justice to be more attractive, we need to understand why punitive retribution is such a powerful motive. If the scales of justice are out of balance because of suffering inflicted (to the offended), why would the infliction of more suffering (to the offender) bring redemption? It is argued that much of the sting of being harmed by an offender derives from the identity implications of the act. Punitive retribution may satisfy short-lasting vindictive desires, but its main symbolic function is to restore the victim’s self-image and dignity by humiliating the perpetrator. This is done in a notoriously indirect and ineffective way, though. It is argued that restorative justice can do much better, if it is understood in terms of empowering the offended. This involves procedures that restore the victim’s autonomy, prestige and self-confidence. Apart from bringing the offended back into the driver’s seat of the process, restorative justice empowers the survivors of crime by helping them face offenders, face themselves and face their community. Restorative justice is not only much more rewarding than punitive retribution, it also provides better ways of communicating personal and public disapproval of crime. |
Editorial |
|
Journal | The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 2 2018 |
Authors | Carolyn Hoyle and Diana Batchelor |
Author's information |
Article |
Measuring the restorativeness of restorative justice: the case of the Mosaica Jerusalem Programme |
Journal | The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 2 2018 |
Keywords | Restorative justice, criminal justice, criminal law taxonomy, victims, offenders |
Authors | Tali Gal, Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg and Guy Enosh |
AbstractAuthor's information |
This study uses a Jerusalem-based restorative justice programme as a case study to characterise community restorative justice (CRJ) conferences. On the basis of the Criminal Law Taxonomy, an analytical instrument that includes seventeen measurable characteristics, it examines the procedural elements of the conferences, their content, goals and the role of participants. The analysis uncovers an unprecedented multiplicity of conference characteristics, including the level of flexibility, the existence of victim-offender dialogue, the involvement of the community and a focus on rehabilitative, future-oriented outcomes. The findings offer new insights regarding the theory and practice of CRJ and the gaps between the two. |
Article |
|
Journal | The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 2 2018 |
Keywords | Peer mentoring, justice-involved youth, formerly incarcerated, secondary desistance, training programmes |
Authors | Mayra Lopez-Humphreys and Barbra Teater |
AbstractAuthor's information |
This article introduces a mentoring programme for justice-involved youth that utilises the unique and often overlooked resources offered by adults with a history of incarceration, and the innovative training model that aims to promote secondary desistance and restorative justice among the mentors. An examination of the generative role of peer mentoring and its overlap with restorative justice as a healing process that provides opportunities for offenders to make indirect amends that contribute to the social rehabilitation of their communities is presented. An overview of the history and anticipated aims of mentoring programmes for justice-involved youth is provided, followed by a discussion of the importance of secondary desistance in peer mentoring programmes and a review of the elements, conceptual underpinnings and anticipated benefits of the training programme for the mentors. The training programme is argued to offer approaches that support the primary and secondary desistance-orientated changes and the reparative work needed within the mentor. |
Article |
Real-Time Challenges for the Registration Regime: Where to? |
Journal | International Institute of Space Law, Issue 9 2018 |
Authors | Georgia-Eleni Exarchou, Yvonne Vastaroucha, Pelagia-Ioanna Ageridou, e.a. |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Registration is the sole basis for “jurisdiction and control” in outer space (Art. VIII OST) and also constitutes the basis for responsibility over a space object. It is therefore evident that ambiguities regarding registration are crucial for the safety of space operations. The discussion about registration has been escalating lately as space is becoming increasingly accessible with the diversification of space subjects. Simultaneously the practice of States indicates reduced diligence in registering their space objects. Initially, the present paper briefly recapitulates the different registries and processes based on the general rule that a launching State shall register a space object set by Art. II of the 1976 Registration Convention. It then turns to current challenges concerning the registration procedure as well as its consequences. Firstly, the term “launching State” is scrutinized, aiming to address several cases of private launches where registration was omitted. Subsequently, the challenges posed by the transfer of ownership of in-orbit space objects are discussed. In this context, it is examined whether there is a rule of international law allowing for the transfer of registration where the registering State has no effective control over an object. Secondly, the paper analyses the notion of “launching State” in light of joint launching and launchings realized by international organizations. It further attempts to answer the relevant question of registration of mega-constellations. The paper concludes by reviewing the possibility of the desirable harmonization and standardization of the registration regime under the Registration Convention, the UNGA Resolution 62/101 and the newly added Guideline 6 of the Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities in light of the aforementioned developments. |
Article |
Global Space Governance: The Need to Adopt De-institutionalized Cooperation Models |
Journal | International Institute of Space Law, Issue 9 2018 |
Authors | Jonathan Percivalle de Andrade |
Author's information |
Article |
Public Investment Law – A Tool to Secure NewSpace Financing? |
Journal | International Institute of Space Law, Issue 9 2018 |
Authors | Erik Pellander |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Currently, the space industry is witnessing a commercialisation wave which, at least in parts, can be considered as disruptive. New technology and market trends associated to this commercialisation wave are circumscribed by the term NewSpace. Along with the NewSpace trend, there is a wave of investment in commercial space activities. Favourable framework conditions supporting commercialisation are key factors for investment decisions and the commercial success of companies along the entire value chain. |
Article |
Which Future for the “Global Commons”? |
Journal | International Institute of Space Law, Issue 9 2018 |
Authors | Kai-Uwe Schrogl |
AbstractAuthor's information |
The three “global commons (GC)” Antarctica, outer space and the high seas/deep seabed, which do not fall under the sovereignty of States (“State-free”), have become a symbol of peaceful cooperation and coordination of the international community. The international treaties which have already been negotiated from the 1950s show an astonishing degree of foresight concerning common public interest. Today, however, each of the three spaces is at risk in at least one of the following areas: peace and arms control, sustainability of use, and just and fair distribution of resources and benefits. This has gone so far that States have begun questioning the concept of nonappropriation. Could this potentially lead to conflicts – even armed conflicts? A new approach to the preservation and fair management of the GC is therefore necessary and requires appropriate political and diplomatic action. This paper intends to tackle the three GC together in order to identify steps for further developing their governance and to investigate, whether joint diplomatic initiatives for the three GC could be more effective than isolated efforts to deal with single hotspots. It will be argued that the future of the GC lies in the establishment of comparable moratoria, thresholds, fees and codes of conduct drawing from best practices in one or more of the three GC. |
Article |
The Proposed Public Procurement for Projects to Enhance Industrial Capabilities through Japanese Lessons Learned |
Journal | International Institute of Space Law, Issue 9 2018 |
Keywords | H-IIA, H3, Ariane 6, COTS, public private partnership, procurement |
Authors | Mizuki Tani-Hatakenaka |
AbstractAuthor's information |
This paper discusses a framework for governmental projects to enhance industrial capabilities through the lessons learned from the Japanese contractual practice of H3 launch vehicle, comparing with the NASA’s Commercial Orbit Transportation Service (COTS). In 1995, the research and development (R&D) of the H-IIA was started by a former body of JAXA, and each manufacturer was responsible for delivery as required. After twelve-times launches, the operation was privatized to Mitsubishi Heavy Industry, Ltd. (MHI). Concerning H3, MHI was selected as a R&D contractor and a launch provider. MHI established the H3 rocket system specification and responsible for delivering the first vehicle to JAXA in 2020, and JAXA is responsible for the total system including its launch base and the H3 flight demonstration. Such a framework gives MHI more creative freedom, but there can be a room for further clarification of the responsibilities. Coincidentally, such a framework between public and private entities is similar to that of the European new flagship launch vehicle, Ariane 6. |