Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil: the unsightly Milosevic case

To ignore evil is to cause it to cease to exist, thought the ancients, and so, perhaps, think those who accuse former leaders of now dismembered countries, no longer in existence, of war crimes, and who would prevent those they accuse of raising the aggression which was committed against their country. Can the evil of aggression be willed out of existence if it goes unmentioned, and if international ad hoc bodies do not consider it a crime within their jurisdiction? And if the defendant is gagged, if judgments permit him to be removed from the courtroom altogether, will we be free from having to see and hear the evil he persistently identifies, and for which he points out there will be no justice? The Milosevic trial has been underreported to the point where “speaking evil” – that is, expressing criticism of the persistent procedural irregularities that have plagued the proceedings, and indeed the outright erosion of fair trial rights (heralded as “progress” in some quarters) – has become a demanding exercise. It is one we attempt here.     

Coping with ultimate evil through the criminal law

Editor in Chief,Criminal Law Forum: An International Journal; Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University School of Law, Camden, New Jersey, United States; B.A., Victoria University of Wellington 1964; LL.B., Victoria University of Wellington 1964; LL.M., Victoria University of Wellington 1967; LL.M., Columbia University 1968; J.S.D., Columbia University 1972.     

Beyond Otonomy, or Beyond the Law of Law's Ear

Can the relationship between law and literature be thought in terms of conversation? Can the law still ‘hear’ the voice of a writing that has come before it, yet outside the frame of the ‘hearing’ and the rules of ‘standing’? And when literature speaks, what does it say? Perhaps what the law has always known …     

Beyond ‘Constitutionalism Beyond the State’

For contemporary constitutional theory, the key challenge posed by globalization undermines the traditional link between constitutionalism and the state: in response to multi‐level governance, theories of constitutionalism beyond the state have been advanced. This focus on levels obscures more fundamental epistemological questions raised by globalization about the nature of constitutionalism itself. Critical analysis of three leading schools of constitutionalism beyond the state – supranational, societal, and new constitutionalism – highlights their shared assumptions with state‐based thought regarding the separation between economics and politics, and the necessarily hegemonic character of constitutionalism. However, globalization intensifies critique of these assumptions, and questions their translation to the transnational context. An alternative scholarly fault line to the state/non‐state cleavage emerges between working within and transcending the politics of constitutional knowledge produced during the nation‐state era. A broader globalization perspective reveals the extent to which such processes of constitutional rethinking are under way through developments in the global South.     

Theoretical Unification in Justice and Beyond

The goal of scientific work is to understand more and more by less and less. In this effort, theoretical unification plays a large part. There are two main types of theoretical unification—unification of different theories of the same field of phenomena and unification of theories of different fields of phenomena. Both types are usually a surprise; even when vigorously pursued, their form, when they finally appear, may differ radically from preconceptions. This paper examines a series of 21 unification surprises in the study of justice and beyond, 16 in the study of justice and 5 in the unification of 3 fundamental sociobehavioral forces—justice, status, and power—and the subsequent unification of the three sociobehavioral forces with identity and with happiness.

Beyond Anomie: Alienation and Crime

This paper argues that anomie theories are aspects of the more comprehensive, but neglected theory of alienation. The dominant dimension of anomie theories (particularly Durkheim’s version) is normlessness, which is only one of five dimensions of alienation theory. A practical implication of this insight is that anomie theory relies heavily on a Durkheimian focus on the role of normlessness in guiding criminal justice policy, while the other dimensions of alienation theory-powerlessness, meaninglessness, isolation and self-estrangement—have been deemphasized or ignored. By including all dimensions of the alienation concept, an integrated theory of crime and more effective crime control strategies can be formulated.