Search result: 1126 articles

x

    Restorative justice has frequently been presented as a new criminal justice paradigm, and as something that is radically different from punishment. I will argue that this ‘oppositioning’ is problematic for two reasons: first, because some cases of restorative justice constitute de facto punishment from the perspectives of some positions on what punishment is; second, because restorative justice could reasonably be more widely adopted as a new form of de jure punishment, which could potentially increase the use of restorative justice for the benefit of victims, offenders and society at large. In connection with the latter, I want to present some preliminary thoughts on how restorative justice could be incorporated into future criminal justice systems as de jure punishment. Furthermore, I will suggest that by insisting that restorative justice is radically different from punishment, restorative justice advocates may - contrary to their intentions − play into the hands of those who want to preserve the status quo rather than developing future criminal justice systems in the direction of restorative justice.


Christian Gade
Christian Gade is an Associate Professor of Human Security and Anthropology at Aarhus University and a mediator in the Danish victim-offender mediation programme (Konfliktråd). Corresponding author: Christian Gade at gade@cas.au.dk. Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Pernille Reese, head of the Danish Victim-Offender Mediation Secretariat, for our many dialogues about restorative justice and punishment. Furthermore, I am grateful to Søren Rask Bjerre Christensen and Isabelle Sauer for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Last but not least, I would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.
Article

Access_open Retribution, restoration and the public dimension of serious wrongs

Journal The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 1 2022
Keywords public wrongs, R.A. Duff, agent-relative values, criminalisation, punishment
Authors Theo van Willigenburg
AbstractAuthor's information

    Restorative justice has been criticised for not adequately giving serious consideration to the ‘public’ character of crimes. By bringing the ownership of the conflict involved in crime back to the victim and thus ‘privatising’ the conflict, restorative justice would overlook the need for crimes to be treated as public matters that concern all citizens, because crimes violate public values, i.e., values that are the foundation of a political community. Against this I argue that serious wrongs, like murder or rape, are violations of agent-neutral values that are fundamental to our humanity. By criminalising such serious wrongs we show that we take such violations seriously and that we stand in solidarity with victims, not in their capacity as compatriots but as fellow human beings. Such solidarity is better expressed by organising restorative procedures that serve the victim’s interest than by insisting on the kind of public condemnation and penal hardship that retributivists deem necessary ‘because the public has been wronged’. The public nature of crimes depends not on the alleged public character of the violated values but on the fact that crimes are serious wrongs that provoke a (necessarily reticent) response from government officials such as police, judges and official mediators.


Theo van Willigenburg
Theo van Willigenburg is Research Fellow at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Faculteit Religie en Theologie, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Corresponding author: Theo van Willigenburg at t.van.willigenburg@vu.nl.

Marie Keenan
Marie Keenan (PhD) is an Associate Professor at the School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice, University College Dublin, Ireland. Corresponding author: Marie Keenan at Marie.keenan@ucd.ie.
Article

Diversion and restorative justice in the context of juvenile justice reforms in Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam

Journal The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue Online First 2022
Keywords children’s rights, juvenile justice, restorative justice, diversion, implementation challenges, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines
Authors Le Thu Dao, Le Huynh Tan Duy, Ukrit Sornprohm e.a.
AbstractAuthor's information

    Diversion is an important vehicle for delivering an alternative model of youth justice, one that is, hopefully, grounded in principles of children’s rights and restorative justice. Several Asia-Pacific countries, often with international assistance, have sought to develop alternative processes and programmes to which children in conflict with the law can be diverted to. In some instances, these have included restorative justice programmes. This article provides an overview of the implementation of a restorative justice approach, as a youth justice diversion measure, in four South-East Asian countries: Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam. It describes juvenile justice reforms in these countries, particularly as they relate to the implementation of diversion and restorative justice and reflects on the factors that may have affected the success of these reforms. Every one of these countries has achieved a measure of success in implementing diversion and restorative justice, although restorative justice has occupied a different place in these reforms. The article offers a general overview of key challenges and notable successes encountered during that process, as well as an opportunity to consider the role of tradition, culture and public expectations in the implementation of restorative justice principles in the context of juvenile justice.


Le Thu Dao
Le Thu Dao, PhD, is professor at the Comparative Law Institute, Hanoi Law University, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Le Huynh Tan Duy
Le Huynh Tan Duy, LLB, LLM, PhD, is Head of Criminal Procedure Law Division of the Ho Chi Minh City University of Law, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Ukrit Sornprohm
Ukrit Sornprohm, LLB, LLM, LLD (Candidate), Project Manager (Rule of Law and Criminal Justice), Thailand Institute of Justice, Bangkok, Thailand.

Yvon Dandurand
Yvon Dandurand, Professor Emeritus, Criminology, University of the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford, Canada. Fellow, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform. Corresponding author: Yvon Dandurand, Yvon.Dandurand@ufv.ca.
Article

Towards a restorative justice approach to white-collar crime and supra-individual victimisation

Journal The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue Online First 2022
Keywords restorative justice, white-collar crimes, supra-individual victimisation, spokespersons at restorative meetings, eligibility criteria
Authors Daniela Gaddi and María José Rodríguez Puerta
AbstractAuthor's information

    This work examines the feasibility of extending the implementation of restorative justice to the field of white-collar crime for a specific class of victimisation: that which people experience as a group (i.e. supra-individual victimisation). For this purpose, we analyse some key issues and outline a number of criteria for determining who would be able to speak on behalf of supra-individual victims of white-collar crime in restorative meetings. Some initial proposals are offered, based on four types of supra-individual victimisation, which would provide a framework for the selection of spokespersons who could attend restorative meetings in restoratively oriented criminal proceedings.


Daniela Gaddi
Daniela Gaddi is an Adjunct Professor of Criminology and Criminal Law at the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona (UAB), Spain and a community mediator.

María José Rodríguez Puerta
María José Rodríguez Puerta is Professor of Criminal Law at the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona (UAB), Spain. Corresponding author: Daniela Gaddi, daniela.gaddi@uab.cat.
Article

Mediation in Greece: The ‘Formal’ and Various ‘Informal’ Types, Off- and Online

The Architecture of Mediation in Greece – Shifting towards a Culture That Values Consensus-Building

Journal Corporate Mediation Journal, Issue 2 2021
Keywords mediation, Greece, special forms, mandatory, online, informal types
Authors Dimitris Emvalomenos
Author's information

Dimitris Emvalomenos
Dimitris Emvalomenos, Lawyer, LL.M., Accredited Mediator of the Greek Ministry of Justice & the Centre of Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), London, UK, Dep. Managing Partner at the law firm ‘Bahas, Gramatidis & Partners LLP’ (BGP).
Article

Access_open Evaluative Mediation (Part II), Deployment

How to Deploy Evaluative Mediation?

Journal Corporate Mediation Journal, Issue 2 2021
Keywords evaluative mediation, deployment, hybrids
Authors Martin Brink
AbstractAuthor's information

    Part II of this article addresses the question of how evaluative mediation may be used in practice. What guidelines are available to a mediator who considers crossing the line between facilitation and evaluation?


Martin Brink
Martin Brink PhD is Editor in Chief of this Journal, mediator and arbitrator at Utrecht and The Hague, The Netherlands.
Article

The Use of Technology (and Other Measures) to Increase Court Capacity

A View from Australia

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 2 2021
Keywords court capacity, COVID-19, Australia, online dispute resolution, open justice, procedural fairness, access to justice, online courts, justice technology, judicial function
Authors Felicity Bell, Michael Legg, Joe McIntyre e.a.
AbstractAuthor's information

    The COVID-19 pandemic has forced courts around the world to embrace technology and other innovative measures in order to continue functioning. This article explores how Australian courts have approached this challenge. We show how adaptations in response to the pandemic have sometimes been in tension with principles of open justice, procedural fairness and access to justice, and consider how courts have attempted to resolve that tension.


Felicity Bell
Felicity Bell is a Research Fellow for the Law Society of NSW’s Future of Law and Innovation in the Profession (FLIP) research stream at UNSW Law, Sydney.

Michael Legg
Michael Legg is Professor and Director of the FLIP stream at UNSW Law, Sydney.

Joe McIntyre
Joe McIntyre is a Senior Lecturer in Law at UniSA: Justice and Society, University of South Australia.

Anna Olijnyk
Anna Olijnyk is a Senior Lecturer and Director of the Public Law and Policy Research Unit at Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide, South Australia.
Article

Access_open International Perspectives on Online Dispute Resolution in the E-Commerce Landscape

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 2 2021
Keywords online dispute resolution (ODR), e-commerce, international dispute resolution, international law, United States, China, European Union, Australia, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), online platforms
Authors Teresa Ballesteros
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article will examine Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) from several perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of the global efforts to incorporate ODR in the e-commerce scope. Upon examining the nature and growth of both e-commercial activities and ODR, there will be an analysis from an international standpoint, where the article will discuss the relevant bodies and the progression of uniform standards in this regard. This is followed by an analysis of several jurisdictions, namely the United States, China, European Union and Australia. Finally, the essay will provide suggestions andrecommendations for the implementation of ODR.


Teresa Ballesteros
Teresa Ballesteros is a BCom/LLB student at the University of Sydney.
Article

Online Mediation and e-commerce (B2B and B2C) Disputes

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 2 2021
Keywords ODR, online Mediation, e-commerce, business-to business (B2B), business-to consumer (B2C)
Authors Mariam Skhulukhia
AbstractAuthor's information

    Nowadays, electronic commerce plays a significant role in our society as internet transactions continue to grow in the business industry. Electronic commerce mainly refers to commercial transactions, such as business-to-business and business-to-consumer. Disputes are inevitable, part of our lives. Simultaneously by developing technology the need for an effective dispute resolution was obvious. Information communication technology and alternative dispute resolution together created online dispute resolution. Businesses and consumers are actively engaged in online dispute resolution. Therefore, the use of the internet makes business or consumer transactions easier. The online environment is much flexible when it comes to electronic commerce. This article focuses on online mediation, one of the most popular forms of online dispute resolution.


Mariam Skhulukhia
Mariam Skhulukhia has a Bachelor’s degree in law and a Master’s degree in International Business law from the University of Georgia. She participated in the Consensual Dispute Resolution Competition (CDRC VIENNA) in 2018 and the John H. Jackson Moot Court Competition in 2019. Mariam was an intern at Tbilisi City Court in Civil Affairs Board. Also, she worked as a lawyer for residency and citizenship matters at a foreign company. She has successfully passed a Bar Exam (Civil Law Specialization) in 2021. Mariam wrote her Master’s thesis: “Why do we need Online Mediation? Possible Challenges and Perspectives for Online Commercial Mediation in Georgia.” She also submitted her Research Paper titled “Mediating Online: Among the Praises and Diatribes in MediateGuru’s edited book titled “A Pathway to the Future of ADR: Comparative Perspectives around the World.”
Article

AI in the Legal Profession

Teaching Robot Mediators Human Empathy

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 2 2021
Keywords ADR, AI, ML, mediation, digital technology, value alignment
Authors Linda Mochon Senado
AbstractAuthor's information

    What benefits do AI technologies introduce to the law and how can lawyers integrate AI tools into their everyday practice and dispute resolution? Can we teach robot mediators to understand human empathy and values to conduct a successful mediation? While the future of AI in the legal profession remains somewhat unknown, it is evident that it introduces valuable tools that enhance legal practice and support lawyers to better serve their clients. This paper discusses the practical ways in which AI is used in the legal profession, while exploring some of the major concerns and hesitation over value alignment, morality and legal formalism.


Linda Mochon Senado
Linda Mochon Senado is a J.D. student at Osgoode Hall Law School. Research Assistant for the Winkler Institute for Dispute Resolution. Caseworker and Certified Community Mediator with the Osgoode Mediation Clinic.
Article

Access_open Global Solidarity and Collective Intelligence in Times of Pandemics

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2021
Keywords Global solidarity, Pandemics, Global Existential Threats, Collective Intelligence, CrowdLaw
Authors José Luis Martí
AbstractAuthor's information

    Some of the existential threats we currently face are global in the sense that they affect us all, and thus matter of global concern and trigger duties of moral global solidarity. But some of these global threats, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, are global in a second, additional, sense: discharging them requires joint, coordinated global action. For that reason, these twofold global threats trigger political – not merely moral – duties of global solidarity. This article explores the contrast between these two types of global threats with the purpose of clarifying the distinction between moral and political duties of global solidarity. And, in the absence of a fully developed global democratic institutional system, the article also explores some promising ways to fulfill our global political duties, especially those based on mechanisms of collective intelligence such as CrowdLaw, which might provide effective solutions to these global threats while enhancing the democratic legitimacy of public decision-making.


José Luis Martí
José Luis Martí is Associate Professor of Legal and Political Philosophy, Department of Law, Pompeu Fabra University of Barcelona.
Editorial

Access_open Solidarity and COVID-19: An Introduction

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2021
Authors Wouter Veraart, Lukas van den Berge and Antony Duff
Author's information

Wouter Veraart
Wouter Veraart is Professor of Legal Philosophy at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Lukas van den Berge
Lukas van den Berge is Assistant Professor of Legal Theory at Utrecht University.

Antony Duff
Antony Duff is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Stirling and Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota.
Article

Access_open Solidarity and Community

From the Politics of the Clan to Constituent Power

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2021
Keywords Solidarity, Community, COVID-19 pandemic, Humanity, Ethnocentrism
Authors Luigi Corrias
AbstractAuthor's information

    What is at stake in invoking solidarity in legal-political contexts? The guiding hypothesis of this article is that solidarity is always and necessarily linked to the concept of community. A plea for solidarity will, in other words, directly lead one to the question: solidarity with whom? On the one hand, solidarity may be understood as extending only to those who belong to the same community as us. In this reading, solidarity builds upon an already existing community and applies to members only. On the other hand, invoked by those who aim to question the status quo, solidarity also plays a key role in practices of contestation. In these contexts, it focuses on collective action and the reimagination of political community. The article ends by articulating how this second interpretation of solidarity might prove helpful in making sense of our current predicament of a global pandemic.


Luigi Corrias
Luigi Corrias is Assistant Professor of Legal Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
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

Access_open Solidarity and COVID-19

A Foucauldian analysis

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 2 2021
Keywords Solidarity, COVID-19 epidemic, Foucault, Social cohesion, Practicing
Authors Marli Huijer
AbstractAuthor's information

    In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments in Europe have imposed disciplinary and controlling mechanisms on their populations. In the name of solidarity, citizens are pressed to submit to lockdowns, social distancing or corona apps. Building on the historical-philosophical studies of Michel Foucault, this article shows that these mechanisms are spin-offs of health regimes that have evolved since the seventeenth century. In case of COVID-19, these regimes decreased the infection, morbidity and mortality rates. But, as a side-effect, they limited the opportunities to act together and practice solidarity. This negatively affected the social cohesion and public sphere in already highly individualistic societies. To prevent the further disappearing of solidarity – understood as something that is enacted rather than as a moral value or political principle – governments and citizens need to invest in the restoral of the social conditions that enable and facilitate the practicing of solidarity after the epidemic.


Marli Huijer
Marli Huijer is Emeritus Professor of Public Philosophy at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    This comparative study looks into the proposed “vaccine passport” initiative from various human rights aspects. It was undertaken by the Global Digital Human Rights Network, an action started under the EU’s Cooperation in Science and Technology programme. The network currently unites more than 80 scholars and practitioners from 40 countries. The findings are based on responses to questions put to the network members by the authors of this study in February 2021.


Mart Susi
Mart Susi is Professor of Human Rights Law at Tallinn University, Editor-in-Chief, Action Chair of Global Digital Human Rights Network.

Tiina Pajuste
Tiina Pajuste is Professor of International Law and Security at Tallinn University.
Article

Access_open Reflections on Digital Human Rights Practice Research and Human Rights Universality

Journal East European Yearbook on Human Rights, Issue 1 2021
Keywords non-coherence theory of digital human rights, network approach, universality of human rights, transversality effect
Authors Mart Susi
AbstractAuthor's information

    The idea of universality of human rights is under multidimensional challenges entailing the aspects of practice generalization and postmodern social theories with juridical ambitions. Competing theories continue to exist and the elements of choice between theories are determined by practice, convenience and economies and not necessarily by idealistic goals. Among the many arguments raised against the universality of human rights stands the network approach, which is characterized by permeability, its supportive purpose of vertical normative structures, its impact on the rise of social responsibility, obscuring effect on legitimacy and “reliance on trust”. Supportive purpose of vertical normative structures in a network means that private networks can articulate the claim for correctness in self-regulation due to the existence of the vertical normative backbone. One of the main reservations related to digital human rights law and remedies through the network approach is that of distortion of legitimacy. The article approaches these issues through a novel theoretical approach of non-coherence.


Mart Susi
Mart Susi is Professor of human rights law at Tallinn University, Editor-in-Chief, Action Chair of Global Digital Human Rights Network

    This study explores the spread of disinformation relating to the Covid-19 pandemic on the internet, dubbed by some as the pandemic’s accompanying “infodemic”, and the societal reactions to this development across different countries and platforms. The study’s focus is on the role of states and platforms in combatting online disinformation.
    Through synthesizing answers to questions submitted by more than 40 researchers from 20 countries within the GDHR Network, this exploratory study provides a first overview of how states and platforms have dealt with Corona-related disinformation. This can also provide incentives for further rigorous studies of disinformation governance standards and their impact across different socio-cultural environments.
    Regarding the platforms’ willingness and efficacy in removing (presumed) disinformation, a majority of submissions identifies a shift towards more intervention in pandemic times. Most submitters assess that this shift is widely welcomed in their respective countries and more often considered as taking place too slowly (rather than being perceived as entailing dangers for unjustified restrictions of freedom of expression). The picture is less clear when it comes to enforcing non-speech related infection prevention measures.
    While the dominant platforms have been able to defend, or even solidify, their position during the pandemic, communicative practices on those platforms are changing. For officials, this includes an increasing reliance on platforms, especially social networks, for communicating infection prevention rules and recommendations. For civil society, the pandemic has brought an increasing readiness – and perceived need – to intervene against disinformation, especially through fact-checking initiatives.
    National and local contexts show great variance at whether platform-driven disinformation is conceived as a societal problem. In countries where official sources are distrusted and/or seen as disseminating disinformation criticism against private information governance by platforms remains muted. In countries where official sources are trusted disinformation present on platforms is seen more negatively.
    While Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram play important roles in the pandemic communication environment, some replies point towards an increasing importance of messaging apps for the circulation of Covid-19-related disinformation. These apps, like Telegram or WhatsApp, tend to fall under the radar of researchers, because visibility of content is limited and scraping is difficult, and because they are not covered by Network Enforcement Act-type laws that usually exclude one-to-one communication platforms (even if they offer one-to-many channels).
    Vis-à-vis widespread calls for a (re)territorialization of their content governance standards and processes amid the pandemic, platform companies have maintained, by and large, global standards. Standardized, featured sections for national (health) authorities to distribute official information via platforms are exceptions thereto.


Matthias C. Kettemann
Prof. dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) is head of the research programme “Regulatory Structures and the Emergence of Rules in Online Spaces” at the Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut.

Martin Fertmann
Martin Fertmann is a PhD student at the Leibniz-Institut für Medienforschung | Hans-Bredow-Institut’s research programme “Regulatory Structures and the Emergence of Rules in Online Spaces”.

    Terms-of-service based actions against political and state actors as both key subjects and objects of political opinion formation have become a focal point of the ongoing debates over who should set and enforce the rules for speech on online platforms.
    With minor differences depending on national contexts, state regulation of platforms creating obligations to disseminate such actors’ information is considered dangerous for the free and unhindered discursive process that leads to the formation of public opinions.
    Reactions to the suspension of Trump as not the first, but the most widely discussed action of platform companies against a politician (and incumbent president) provide a glimpse on the state of platform governance debates across participating countries.
    Across the countries surveyed politicians tend to see the exercise of content moderation policies of large platform companies very critically
    The majority of politicians in European countries seem to be critical of the deplatforming of Trump, emphasizing fundamental rights and calling for such decisions to be made by states, not private companies
    These political standpoints stand in an unresolved conflict with the constitutional realities of participating countries, where incumbents usually cannot invoke fundamental rights when acting in their official capacities and where laws with “must carry” requirements for official information do not exist for social media and would likely only be constitutional for narrowly defined, special circumstances such as disaster prevention.
    Facebooks’ referral of the Trump-decision to its Oversight Board sparked a larger debate about institutional structures for improving content governance. The majority of participating countries has experience with self- or co-regulatory press-, media- or broadcasting councils to which comparisons can be drawn, foreshadowing the possible (co-regulatory) future of governing online speech.
    Media commentators in participating countries interpreted the deplatforming of Trump as a signal that far-right parties and politicians around the world may face increasing scrutiny, while conservative politicians and governments in multiple participating countries instrumentalized the actions against Trump as supposed proof of platform’s bias against conservative opinions.
    Even without specific legal requirements on content moderation, submissions from several countries refer to a general – often: constitutional – privileging of speech of politicians and office holders. This could potentially support or even compel the decisions of platforms to leave content of political actors up even if it violates their terms of service.


Martin Fertmann
Martin Fertmann is a PhD student at the Leibniz-Institut für Medienforschung | Hans-Bredow-Institut’s research programme “Regulatory Structures and the Emergence of Rules in Online Spaces”

Matthias C. Kettemann
Prof. dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) is head of the research programme “Regulatory Structures and the Emergence of Rules in Online Spaces” at the Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut.
Showing 1 - 20 of 1126 results
« 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 49 50
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.