Complicity in International Criminal Law and Canadian Refugee Law: A Comparison

International criminal law is normally seen as the purview ofcriminal prosecutions, either internationally or domestically.However, international criminal law is also increasingly beingapplied in refugee law. This is because the 1951 Refugee Conventioncontains an exclusion clause prohibiting asylum seekers fromobtaining refugee status if they have committed a crime againstpeace, a war crime or a crime against humanity. Thus, refugeelaw refers back to international criminal law; however, whileinternational criminal tribunals deal with persons who bearthe greatest responsibility, in actual practice persons whohave been excluded from refugee protection have been mostlyfrom the lower echelons of organizations involved in atrocities.This article, based on Canadian case law, examines the conceptsof complicity, aiding and abetting and joint criminal enterprisefrom both an international criminal law point of view and froma Canadian refugee law angle, in order to determine whetherthese notions have similar contents in the two jurisdictions.     

Intimate Violence in Canada and the United States: A Cross-National Comparison

Using data from the 1985 U.S. National Family Violence Resurvey and the 1986 Canadian National Family Life Survey, this paper compares incidence of intimate violence or “common couple violence” (Johnson, 1995) in both countries. As expected, gender symmetry characterizes common couple violence, which is a product of the privatized setting of many American and Canadian households. Although the United States exhibits significantly higher rates of societal violent crime than Canada, Canadian women and men were more likely than their American counterparts to use severe intimate violence and to inflict it, as well as minor violence, more often, which is contrary to the culture of violence theory that guided the study. Similarly, the higher rates of wife-to-husband severe violence across the life course in both countries are inconsistent with the theory. Several ad hoc explanations are presented to account for these unexpected findings.     

International Law and Detention of US Asylum Seekers: Contrasting Matter of D-J- with the United Nations Refugee Convention

US refugee law reflects an ever-increasing conception that theapplication of international standards would constitute an unacceptablerisk to national security. CSR Article 31(2)’s requirementthat refugees ‘shall not’ be detained unless ‘necessary’appears among the chief casualties of such suspicions. US jurisprudenceremains strikingly devoid of reference to Article 31, and 2003’sMatter of D-J- is a prime example. D-J- was an administrativedecision in which the US Attorney General held that nationalsecurity required all US asylum seekers who successfully arrivevia boat must be subject to mandatory detention throughout thecourse of removal proceedings. Despite US accession to the Protocol,Article 31(2) was not mentioned. This article explores what might have happened to D-J- if theRefugee Convention had indeed been applied to his case. Utilizingthe international methodology for treaty interpretation, itapplies Article 31(2) to various aspects of the Attorney General'sdecision. Part 2 argues that under the Supreme Court's CharmingBetsy rule, statutory discretion to detain must be interpretedconsistently with US international obligations. Part 3 concludesthat Article 31(2) of the Refugee Convention grants asylum seekersa right to release whenever their detention is not ‘necessary’.Part 4 proposes a three-part ‘pyramid’ approachto explain the elemental phases of the decision to detain anasylum seeker and examines necessity at each stage. Finally,Part 5 discusses Article 31(2)’s implications regardingevidence and proportion. The premise throughout is that, hadit been applied, the Refugee Convention could have protectedthe interests of both D-J- and ‘national security’.     

European Law and International Regimes: The Features of Law Beyond the Nation State

Different forms of law are perceived of as possessing differing degrees of legal quality. A quality continuum suggests itself, running from 'high quality' national law, through to 'lesser quality' European law and to 'low quality' international law. This article seeks to explain the perceived differences in the quality of these laws with reference to legal theoretical perceptions of what it is that constitutes the law's quality. It argues that only a theory of law which identifies the core of the law's integrity as lying in its ability to act as a fulcrum between spheres of social and public discourse and the exercise of power can fully explain the divergence in legal quality between national, European and international law. With specific regard to the quality of European law, it concludes by arguing that it is weakened by its relative lack of social internalisation—in comparison with a higher degree of legal and political internalisation—within the European public.     

论美国行政法上说明理由即时性原则

说明理由制度是行政法上的基本制度,是现代国家规范行政权、促进行政法治及保障公共参与的重要方式。我国以单行法的形式规定了特定类别行政行为的说明理由义务,但由于规定粗略、标准不一及法律后果不明确等原因,使说明理由要求难以发挥其制度功能。美国行政法上的说明理由即时性原则奠定了说明理由制度在行政法上的基础地位,在制约行政裁量滥用的同时极大地促进了形式法治,但同时对规则制定造成了些许负面影响。有条件地接受事后说理,将即时性原则视为司法审查的一般指导性规则,统一发回不撤销判决方式的适用情形,将促进行政法治与实现行政管理目标并重,是修正即时性原则的基本方向。深入探究即时性原则的分析框架和发展方向对完善我国说明理由制度极具借鉴意义。     

Co-offending in Canada,England and the United States: a cross-national comparison

This article compares the characteristics of police-reported co-offending groups and solo offenders in Canada, England and the United States. Comparative analysis of crime in these three countries is fostered by the relative similarity of their substantive criminal codes (all originating in English common law), their approaches to law enforcement, and their crime recording procedures. The data include over 100,000 incidents cleared by a large UK police force, 2.5 million incidents in Canada, and 1.3 million incidents in 36 states in the United States, in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Comparative analyses include the prevalence of co-offending, the size and composition of co-offending groups, and key correlates of group crime, such as offence type and the age and sex of participants. Substantial similarities are observed across the three data sets, although there are also intriguing differences. These findings are discussed in relation to ongoing attempts to draw general conclusions regarding the nature and extent of group crime and co-offending networks.     

Goodbye to All That? The Rule of Law,International Law,the United States,and the Use of Force

The attitude of past United States administrations to public international law, particularly but not exclusively governing the use of force, has often seemed ambivalent, or sometimes decidedly hostile (where the conduct of the United States itself was called in to question). This paper considers the attitude of many of those with power or influence in the Bush administration (particularly that of the 'neo-conservatives'), and the implications of their often thinly disguised contempt for public international law which might seek to constrain the exercise of United States power. The conclusion is that while the academic arguments which seek to justify this American 'exceptionalism' are worthy of serious examination, they are ultimately inadequate and in the interests of neither the rest of the world, nor, finally, the United States itself.     

美国加征关税的国内法与国际法规则运用冲突研究

在全球经济增长放缓的背景下,加征关税已经成为国家间贸易摩擦的重要形式。自2016年以来,美国不断增加对中国加征关税的额度,加征关税的法律依据也更加多样化。美国加征关税的法律依据主要分为针对不公平贸易行为、保障措施和国家安全例外三大类型。美国加征关税的国内法与国际法规则运用存在长期冲突,根源在于美国加征关税立法上确立的美国法优先原则,这将对今后国际贸易体系的改革和发展产生重大阻力。