Search result: 23 articles

x
Article

Access_open Justice and Coercion in the Pandemic

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2021
Keywords Justice as impartiality, Justice as mutual advantage, Solidarity, Coercion, Moral motivation
Authors Matt Matravers
AbstractAuthor's information

    Coercion plays two essential roles in theories of justice. First, in assuring those who comply with the demands of justice that they are not being exploited by others who do not do so. Second, in responding to, and managing, those who are unreasonable. With respect to the first, responses to the pandemic have potentially undermined this assurance. This is true in the distributions of vaccines internationally, and in some domestic contexts in which the rich and powerful have avoided public health guidance not to travel, to isolate, and so on. With respect to the second, the article considers whether those who refuse to be vaccinated are unreasonable, and if so, what follows for how they ought to be treated.


Matt Matravers
Matt Matravers is Professor of Law, University of York, York, UK.
Article

Does the Fight Against the Pandemic Risk Centralizing Power in Pakistan?

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 4 2020
Keywords PTI government, 18th amendment, 1973 Constitution, lockdown, economic impact
Authors David A. Thirlby
AbstractAuthor's information

    When the pandemic struck Pakistan, there was a high-profile divergence between how the federal government and the provincial government of Sindh responded. This points to a tension between the need for a national approach to tackle the pandemic and the prerogative of the provinces to deal with health issues under its devolved powers. These powers were the result of the 18th amendment, which restored a parliamentary federal democracy. Power has also been decentralized from executive presidents to parliamentary forms of government. However, parliamentary systems centralize power within the executive: a trend which the pandemic has reinforced. The article will explore the various interplays although it is the economic landscape which will prove most challenging. Although the emergence of a national centralized approach to combat the pandemic points to a weakening of the devolution process and therefore the reasoning behind the 18th amendment, the situation is more complex which this article seeks to explore.


David A. Thirlby
David A. Thirlby is Senior Programme Manager Asia, Westminster Foundation for Democracy
Article

Online Dispute Resolution in a Traditional Justice System

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2020
Keywords ODR, traditional justice system, insecure areas, Afghanistan
Authors Fathudin Yazdani
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article examines the applicability of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in Afghanistan. It evaluates whether ODR can resolve disputes in a traditional justice system, like Jirga, where the formal justice system is weak. This analysis questions whether ODR can complement the traditional jurisdiction system, where the public relies on customary practices to solve disputes. Further, the analysis focuses on the applicability of ODR in insecure areas, where access to formal judicial processes is limited. The findings from this study suggest the development of effective dispute resolution mechanisms in Afghanistan, mainly using ODR.


Fathudin Yazdani
Yazdani Fathudin completed his Post Graduation in Master of Science in Law (MSL) from The University of The Pacific McGeorge School of Law in 2020. He served as a legal advisor and assistant to the deputy minister ministry of interior in Afghanistan. Also, he worked as investigator and security associate in the United Nation Offices for Project Services (UNOPS) in Afghanistan.
Article

Access_open African Union and the Politics of Selective Prosecutions at the International Criminal Court

Journal African Journal of International Criminal Justice, Issue 1 2020
Keywords African Union (AU), United Nations Security Council (UNSC), International Criminal Court (ICC), immunity, impunity
Authors Fabrice Tambe Endoh
AbstractAuthor's information

    The African Union (AU) claims that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is selective against African leaders. The issue therefore arises concerning the validity of the allegations of selectivity. Partly because of such concerns, African Heads of States adopted the Malabo Protocol during their annual summit held in June 2014. Article 46A bis of the Protocol provides immunity for sitting Heads of States. This provision contradicts Article 27 of the Rome Statute and, consequently, arguably reverses the progress made so far in international criminal law by giving priority to immunity in the face of impunity. This article considers the validity of some of the allegations of selective application of criminal sanctions by the ICC and the likely consequence of the Malabo Protocol for regional and international criminal justice. The article argues that the Malabo Protocol should not be ratified by African states until the shield of immunity granted to sitting Heads of States is lifted to better advance the interests of justice for the victims of international crimes in Africa. In addition, the complementarity clause stated in the Malabo Protocol should have a nexus with the ICC such that the Court would be allowed to prosecute the perpetrators of international crimes in circumstances where the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJHR) prove reluctant to do so.


Fabrice Tambe Endoh
Dr. Fabrice Tambe Endoh holds a PhD in International Criminal Law from the North-West University, South-Africa.

Ali Gohar
Ali Gohar is the founder of Just Peace Initiatives, UK and Pakistan (http://www.justpeaceintl.org).

Vesna Nikolić-Ristanović
Vesna Nikolić-Ristanović is a Full Professor of Criminology, Faculty of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Belgrade University and director of the Victimology Society of Serbia, Belgrade Serbia.

Clifford Shearing
Clifford Shearing is Professor, Universities of Griffith, Australia, Cape Town, South Africa and Montreal, Canada.
Article

The Balochistan Ombudsman and Online Dispute Resolution

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2016
Keywords Pakistan, Balochistan, Ombudsman, capacity building, Online Dispute Resolution
Authors Frank Fowlie and Sher Shah Khan
AbstractAuthor's information

    In August 2015 Dr. Frank Fowlie, a Fellow with the National Centre for Technology and Dispute Resolution at the University of Massachusetts – Amherst, acted as an external evaluator to review the Ombudsman of Balochistan. Part of his evaluation concerned the use of Online Dispute Resolution as a mechanism to increase citizen engagement with the Ombudsman.


Frank Fowlie
Dr. Frank Fowlie is the Independent Mediator with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. He previously served as the Ombudsman at the International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2012-2015). Dr. Fowlie also serves as a Capacity Building Consultant with the World Bank in Pakistan, specifically working with the Ombudsman of the Province of Balochistan (2015). He holds a Doctor of Conflict Resolution from La Trobe University, Melbourne, and is a Fellow with the Centre for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution at the University of Massachusetts – Amherst.

Sher Shah Khan
Sher Shah Khan holds a Master in Public Sector Management from London School of Economics and Political Sciences and a Master in Political Science from Government College Lahore, Pakistan. He carries over 15 year international civil services expertise in governance and public administration institutional development, while working with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations. Currently, Mr. Khan serves as Senior Public Sector Specialist with the World Bank Group, working on governance reforms in the provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab, and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) region.

    This article demonstrates how international policy frameworks provide space for iterative engagement between peacebuilding scholars and practitioners. I focus on United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325, which prioritized gender mainstreaming in all stages of peacebuilding. This analysis is based on a review of documents and literature that trace the trajectory of UNSCR 1325 from a variety of perspectives, and informal field interviews with practitioners working at the nexus of gender and peacebuilding. UNSCR 1325 was the product of practitioners who felt that gender was central to peace and security in practice and supported their views with theory. The process of drafting and implementing UNSCR 1325 simultaneously legitimized practitioner projects to incorporate women in peacebuilding and narrowed their scope, prompting critique and research from scholars and scholar-practitioners. The ensuing debates reveal how international policy frameworks can provide a space for iterative and productive discourse between scholars and practitioners by reaffirming shared normative objectives and making the contributions and limitations of both theory and practice visible. Scholar-practitioners can expand the frequency, quality and impact of interactions in this space by acting as intermediaries who circulate between and bridge the worlds of scholarship, policy and practice.


Danielle Fulmer
Danielle Fulmer is a former PhD student in the joint programme in Sociology and Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame. Her research interests include local–global collaborations to transform gender norms and the role of intermediary actors in grassroots social movements.
Article

Indigenous Cultural Resources for Peacebuilding

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s Philosophy and Conflict in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan

Journal International Journal of Conflict Engagement and Resolution, Issue 2 2015
Keywords Islam, Khudai Khidmatghar, Taliban, Pakhtuns, liberal peacebuilding
Authors Saira Bano Orakzai
AbstractAuthor's information

    Indigenous peacebuilding has introduced numerous challenges to the approach of liberal peacebuilding that is well advocated around the world. The conflict in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan presents one such challenge for the local peacebuilders – whereas the implementation of the liberal peacebuilding has failed. Adopting a subaltern perspective, this article examines indigenous cultural peacebuilding resources for this conflict. Prominent among these resources is the philosophy of non-violence and self-restraint of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his Khudai Khidmatgar non-violent movement. The article discusses Khan’s philosophy and the movement it inspired, while making a case for the value of such indigenous resources in the development of culturally appropriate responses for countering militancy and violence in FATA. The article uses the writings of Ghaffar Khan together with secondary resources to suggest measures to counter the contemporary violent extremism by the Taliban and draw upon indigenous approaches to make peacebuilding more effective in FATA.


Saira Bano Orakzai
Postdoctoral Fellow, Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice, University of Free State, South Africa.
Article

Access_open Freedom of Religion, Inc.: Whose Sovereignty?

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 3 2015
Keywords accommodation, freedom of religion, political theology, liberalism, liberty of conscience
Authors Jean L. Cohen
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article focuses on an expansive conception of religious freedom propagated by a vocal group of American legal scholars – jurisdictional pluralists – often working with well-funded conservative foundations and influencing accommodation decisions throughout the US. I show that the proliferation of ‘accommodation’ claims in the name of church autonomy and religious conscience entailing exemption from civil regulation and anti-discrimination laws required by justice have a deep structure that has little to do with fairness or inclusion or liberal pluralism. Instead they are tantamount to sovereignty claims, involving powers and immunities for the religious, implicitly referring to another, higher law and sovereign than the constitution or the people. The twenty-first century version of older pluralist ‘freedom of religion’ discourses also rejects the comprehensive jurisdiction and scope of public, civil law – this time challenging the ‘monistic sovereignty’ of the democratic constitutional state. I argue that the jurisdictional pluralist approach to religious freedom challenges liberal democratic constitutionalism at its core and should be resisted wherever it arises.


Jean L. Cohen
Jean L. Cohen is the Nell and Herbert M. Singer Professor of Political Thought and Contemporary Civilization at the Department of Political Science of Columbia University (New York) and will be the Emile Noel Fellow at the Jean Monet Center of the NYU Law School from January till June 2016.
Article

The Rule of Law Reform and Judicial Education in Pakistan

Search for a Model

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 1 2015
Keywords judicial education, rule of law reform, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, militancy, Pakistan
Authors Khurshid Iqbal
AbstractAuthor's information

    The article investigates the intrinsic and instrumental roles of judicial education in broader contours of the rule of law theory and reform practice in a developing country. It focuses on: firstly, the relationship between judicial education and the rule of law theory and reform practice; secondly, whether and how judicial education can promote the rule of law; and third, the challenges to a successful judicial education in strengthening the rule of law. Examining Pakistan as a case study, the article explores challenges to judicial education in Pakistan and critically assesses Pakistan’s rule of law reform efforts to overcome those challenges. Evidence shows that key challenges to judicial education in Pakistan are lack of a national judicial educational vision and a well thought out policy, coordinated efforts to training needs assessment, curriculum and faculty, research and learning best practices, as means of development and innovation. Of special concern is the role of judicial education in promoting the rule of law to address security issues embedded in (bad) governance. The article finds that in view of its initial limited success, the judicial academy of Pakistan’s terrorism-hit Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province may play a role model to improve judicial services and thereby help promote the rule of law in a post-conflict society.


Khurshid Iqbal
PhD (Ulster, UK), LLM (Hull, UK), MA Political Science & LLB (Peshawar, Pakistan); Dean of Faculty, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Academy (KPJA); District & Sessions Judge; Adjunct Faculty Member Department of Law, the International Islamic University, Islamabad.
Article

Avoiding Legal Black Holes

International Humanitarian Law Applied to Conflicts in Outer Space

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 2 2015
Authors Cassandra Steer
Author's information

Cassandra Steer
McGill Institute of Air and Space Law, Canada

Fabio Tronchetti
Associate Professor of Law, School of Law, Harbin Institute of Technology, China; Adjunct Professor of Comparative National Space Law, School of Law, University of Mississippi, United States
Article

Access_open A Turn to Legal Pluralism in Rule of Law Promotion?

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 3/4 2013
Keywords legal pluralism, rule of law promotion, legal reform, customary law, non-state legal systems, donor policy
Authors Dr.mr Ronald Janse
AbstractAuthor's information

    Over the past 25 years, international organizations, NGOs and (mostly Western) states have spent considerable energy and resources on strengthening and reforming legal systems in developing countries. The results of these efforts have generally been disappointing, despite occasional successes. Among donors, one of most popular explanations of this failure in recent years is that rule of law promotion has wrongly focused almost exclusively on strengthening the formal legal system. Donors have therefore decided to 'engage' with informal justice systems. The turn to legal plu‍ra‍lism is to be welcomed for various reasons. But it is also surprising and worrisome. It is surprising because legal pluralism in developing countries was a fact of life before rule of law promotion began. What made donors pursuing legal reform blind to this reality for so long? It is worrisome because it is not self-evident that the factors which have contributed to such cognitive blindness have disappeared overnight. Are donors really ready to refocus their efforts on legal pluralism and 'engage' with informal justice systems? This paper, which is based on a review of the literature on donor engamenet with legal pluralism in so-called conflict affected and fragile states, is about these questions. It argues that 7 factors have been responsible for donor blindness regarding legal pluralism. It questions whether these factors have been addressed.


Dr.mr Ronald Janse
Ronald Janse is Associate Professor of Law, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Eva Nanopoulos
Bob Alexander Fellow and Lecturer in Law at King’s College, Cambridge, where she is also acting as Director of Studies in Law and Equal Opportunities Tutor.
Article

Access_open International Criminal Law and Constitutionalisation

On Hegemonic Narratives in Progress

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 1 2013
Keywords hegemony, constitutionalism, constitutionalisation, international criminal law
Authors Marjan Ajevski
AbstractAuthor's information

    As we move towards constructing narratives regarding the future outlook of global governance, constitutionalisation among them, the hope is that whatever shape this world order takes it will, somehow, forestall or hinder the possibility of a hegemonic order. This article tries to deconstruct the notion of hegemony and claims that as it currently stands it is useless in doing its critical work since every successful narrative will end up being hegemonic because it will employ the ‘hegemonic technique’ of presenting a particular value (or value system), a particular viewpoint, as universal or at least applying to those who do not share it. The only way for a narrative in this discourse not to be hegemonic would be for it to be either truly universal and find a perspective that stems from nowhere and everywhere – a divine perspective – or purely descriptive; the first being an impossibility for fallible beings and the other not worth engaging with since it has nothing to say about how things should be structured or decided in a specific situation.


Marjan Ajevski
Post-Doctoral research fellow part of the MultiRights project – an ERC Advanced Grant on the Legitimacy of Multi-Level Human Rights Judiciary – <www.MultiRights.net>; and PluriCourts, a Research Council of Norway Centre of Excellence – <www.PluriCourts.net>, Norwegian Centre of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo. I can be contacted at marjan.ajevski@nchr.uio.no.

Michael Levi
Professor of Criminology, Cardiff University, Wales. Address for correspondence: Professor Michael Levi, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WT, UK, Levi@Cardiff.ac.uk. The research on which this article is based was funded by the UK Economic & Social Research Council's Future Governance Research Initiative.

William Gilmore
Professor of International Criminal Law, University of Edinburgh

Timothy Sir Garden
Professor Sir Timothy Garden is a former British 3 star air force officer, who is now at the Centre for Defence Studies in London. He has been teaching at Indiana University, Bloomington, as the 2004 Wells Professor.
Article

Access_open Autonomie als voorwaarde tot legaliteit

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2009
Keywords autonomie, legaliteit, Brouwer, Fuller, certificering
Authors Pauline Westerman
AbstractAuthor's information

    Brouwer defended the view that the autonomy of the individual citizen is furthered by articulated, precise and clear legislation. The question arises whether all kinds of rules can be said to enhance such autonomy. It is argued that a distinction should be drawn between rules that dictate desirable outcomes, on the one hand, and rules that determine the way the game is played, on the other. Rules of the game often reflect the way they were drafted and can be seen as the embodiment of power relations between rule-makers. Rules that dictate outcomes, on the other hand, are often drafted by experts who analyse the goals to be reached. The view is defended that only rules of the game – potentially – enhance the autonomy of the citizen, whereas outcome-rules are potentially manipulative, tending to exclude those who are ill-equipped to realize the prescribed outcomes. The virtues of rules therefore do not merely reside in their clear and precise nature, but are largely derived from their capacity to regulate the relations amongst citizens who were included in the process of rulemaking.


Pauline Westerman
Pauline Westerman is hoogleraar Rechtsfilosofie aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Showing 1 - 20 of 23 results
« 1
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.