Right,Crime, and Court: Toward a Unifying Political Conception of International Law

It is widely acknowledged that human rights law (hereafter, HRL) and international criminal law (hereafter, ICL) share core normative features. Yet, the literature has not yet reconstructed this underlying basis in a systematic way. In this contribution, I lay down the basis of such an account. I first identify a similar tension between a “moral” and a “political” approach to the normative foundations of those norms and to the legitimate role of international courts (hereafter, ICs) and tribunals adjudicating those norms. With a view to bring the debate forward, I then turn to the practices of HRL and international criminal law (hereafter, ICL) to examine which of those approaches best illuminates some salient aspects of the adjudication of ICs. Finally, I argue that the political approach best explains the practice. While each preserves a distinct role, HRL and ICL both establish the basic conditions for the primary subject of international law (HRL and ICL, for the purpose of this article), namely the state, to legitimately govern its own subjects constructed as free and equal moral agents.     

The Comfort of International Criminal Law

This paper examines the changing relationship between the disciplines of international criminal law (ICL) and international human rights law; I particularly focus on the associations of the former with comfort and the latter with discomfort. It appears that a shift may be taking place in that ICL is being refashioned from a field enforcing human rights law to one which has assumed an entirely independent status. Indeed, ICL appears to be crowding out international human rights law. The inquiry begins with the question whether ICL is becoming the preferred discursive framework for practitioners, academics, and politicians. A contemporary desire for certainty over contention, action over discourse, and simplicity over complexity is revealed; in short, a preference for comfort over discomfort. The second half of the paper is dedicated to highlighting some of the concerns attached to this preference and suggesting possible techniques for addressing these concerns. Employing the idea of ‘discomfort’, I refer to the relevance of (1) Michel Foucault’s Ethics of Discomfort, (2) Judith Butler’s idea of the Language of Discomfort, and (3) draw on Franz Kafka’s literary exploration of the Comfort in Discomfort. The ideas culminate in a call for relearning the comfort in discomfort of contention, discourse and complexity in international law.     

Crimes Against Humanity and the Limits of International Criminal Law

Crimes against humanity are supposed to have a collective dimension with respect both to their victims and their perpetrators. According to the orthodox view, these crimes can be committed by individuals against individuals, but only in the context of a widespread or systematic attack against the group to which the victims belong. In this paper I offer a new conception of crimes against humanity and a new justification for their international prosecution. This conception has important implications as to which crimes can be justifiably prosecuted and punished by the international community. I contend that the scope of the area of international criminal justice that deals with basic human rights violations should be wider than is currently acknowledged, in that it should include some individual violations of human rights, rather than only violations that have a collective dimension.     

Kant and Habermas on International Law

The purpose of this article is to present a critical assessment of Jürgen Habermas' reformulation of Kant's philosophical project Toward Perpetual Peace. Special attention is paid to how well Habermas' proposed multi‐level institutional model fares in comparison with Kant's proposal—a league of states. I argue that Habermas' critique of the league fails in important respects, and that his proposal faces at least two problems. The first is that it implies a problematic asymmetry between powerful and less powerful states. The second is that it entails creating a global police force that has an obligation to intervene against egregious human rights violations worldwide, and that this seems incompatible with the idea that every person has an innate right to freedom. There are important normative constraints relevant for institutional design in the international domain that Habermas does not take sufficiently into account. However, this does not mean that Kant's league cannot be supplemented with more comprehensive forms of institutional cooperation between states. On the basis of my assessment of the multi‐level model, I propose a hybrid model combining elements from Kant and Habermas.     

The Application of Human Rights Law to Everyday Civilian Life Under Rebel Control

This article draws upon social science literature to offer a new assessment of the normative value of human rights law vis-à-vis international humanitarian law in territory under armed groups’ control. In particular, the article considers how the two bodies of law can be applied in a complementary manner to regulate the everyday life of civilians who are not involved in hostilities. The article demonstrates that while it might be tempting to imagine that concerns relating to rights such as the freedom of movement, the right to work or protection from common crime are completely displaced by considerations of physical security and survival in times of armed conflict, in reality this is often not the case.

     

Habeas Corpus as <Emphasis Type="Italic">Jus Cogens</Emphasis> in International Law

For hundreds of years procedural rights such as habeas corpus have been regarded as fundamental in the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence. In contemporary international law, fundamental norms are called jus cogens. Jus cogens norms are rights or rules that can not be derogated even by treaty. In the list that is often given, jus cogens norms include norms against aggression, apartheid, slavery, and genocide. All of the members of this list are substantive rights. In this paper I will argue that some procedural rights, crucial for the fair functioning of criminal proceedings, such as habeas corpus, should also have the status of jus cogens norms. I will begin by explaining what it means for a right to have jus cogens status. And I will follow this with a defense of having procedural rights like habeas corpus added to the list of jus cogens norms. I will then rehearse some of the debates about the jus cogens status of procedural rights in the European Commission on Human Rights. At the end of this paper, I will look at the attempts to deal with the abuses at Guantanamo by the American Commission on Human Rights, and by the US and Australian courts, as a way to understand why there needs to be a stronger support for habeas corpus than is today provided by regional courts.     

国际人权法的晚近发展及未来趋势

国际人权法的迅速发展对以国家利益为核心的传统国际法和国际秩序提出严峻挑战。从过去单一强调"国家安全"到人本回归;从"保护的责任"概念的提出,强调国家主权更意味着对人民的保护责任。这些有关国家与个人关系的理念上的变化,表明国际社会越来越强调个人的价值和尊严,国家主权受到越来越多的限制。而国际刑事法院的建立和联合国人权理事会的诞生,则彰显了国际社会意欲强化国际人权法的实施监督机制的决心,这是国际人权法未来发展的趋势。     

Self‐Determination and Sovereignty over Natural Resources

This article makes the normative case for a differentiated approach to the sovereignty of states over natural resources. In the first half of the article, drawing on the example of the Yasuní‐ITT‐Initiative, I will argue that countries commit a moral wrong when they exploit natural resources for their own benefit (and to the detriment of the climate), but that they have the moral right to do so given the current structure of the international system. In the second half of the article, I address the question of whether states' rights over natural resources can be justified. Central to my argument will be the distinction between “control rights” and “income rights.” Only control rights, I will argue, can be justified as inherently tied to collective self‐determination.     

A Human Right not to be Punished? Punishment as Derogation of Rights

In this essay, I apply international human rights theory to the domestic discussion of criminalization. The essay takes as its starting point the “right not to be punished” that Douglas Husak posited in his recent book Overcriminalization. By reviewing international human rights norms, I take up Husak’s challenge to imbue this right with further normative content. This process reveals additional relationships between the criminal law and human rights theory, and I discuss one analogy: the derogation by states of an individual’s human rights under specified conditions has certain similarities to the punishment by states of an individual who holds a right not to be punished. Along the way, I highlight the normative implications of defining a human right not to be punished under both generalist and specificationist perspectives on moral rights. Noting the similarities as well as the differences in the concepts of punishment and derogation, this essay aims to contribute to the exchange between theories of human rights and the criminal law.     

跨国公司侵犯人权行为的法律规制简

在当前国际经济秩序中,跨国公司凭借其强大的经济实力愈发扮演起重要的角色.跨国公司在经营活动中,侵犯东道国人权的问题已引起广泛关注.然而,现行法律框架不足以规制跨国公司在东道国侵犯人权的行为.在现行国际法规制模式下,跨国公司不是国际法主体,国际法无法直接规制跨国公司行为.在现行国内法规制模式下,东道国没有实力进行规制,甚至有些侵犯人权行为在东道国法律体系下根本不构成违法;母国没有意愿进行规制,唯一相关的母国立法,即美国ATCA存在诸多缺陷,实际效果有限.通过母国法律规制母公司的行为是一种解决途径,主要基于“企业理论”使母公司对子公司在东道国的侵犯人权行为承担责任,或者母国通过立法给母公司施加规制子公司行为的义务,但是该途径也在法律上及实践中存在障碍.根本的解决途径是促使发展中东道国积极签署并切实履行人权保护相关公约,来规制境内跨国公司侵犯人权的行为,提升本国法治环境.     

The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh and International Law

The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh was re-established in 2010 in order to hold the perpetrators of the 1971 War accountable for international crimes; namely, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Trial has already begum to operate and has been dealing with various challenges. The basis of the trial proceedings is the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. The Parliament of Bangladesh enacted the Act in accordance with international law shortly after the War. This paper assesses the key legal issues that arise from the context of the 1973 Act, and will provide a reflection on trial proceedings in light of international law. It concludes that any initiatives to address the impunity of perpetrators and offer redress to the victims of gross human rights violations should be applauded, while any trial proceedings that do not follow appropriate standards for a fair trial and offer the right of due process should be deprecated.     

Overview of Language Rights in the International Criminal Law Sentencing Models

This paper examines the ‘deep-end’ of the international justice process—the incarceration of persons convicted in specially constituted international criminal tribunals and courts for gross violations of human rights, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes with a focus on language rights of such prisoners who are commonly serving sentences in foreign prisons. The punishment phase of the international justice process and its effects are not easily quantifiable and have been largely hidden from view. Although international criminal law asserts that equal treatment before the law requires that there be no significant disparity in punishment regimes from one sentence-enforcing country to another, comparative penology shows that there are considerable differences in the conditions of confinement and the nature of correctional services in the prison systems of different countries. This has a direct impact on post-sentence procedural and rehabilitation rights of which language rights from a key part. In this specific context, and drawing from existing literature, the paper therefore examines the extent to which enforcement practice conforms to the ideal of equal treatment espoused by the tribunals.     

Non-State Actors in International Law: A Rejoinder to Professor Thirlway

That we consider the state-based system as best representing the individual is the product of a particular world view. A ‘naturalized myth’ renders inevitable the link between the physicality of the observable landscape and the state as a means of organizing a polity. This myth lingers on in international legal scholarship, although it has been debunked in other disciplines, notably in critical political geography. (Public) international lawyers can learn from their brethren in other disciplines and problematize the territorial state as a contingent political concept. Awareness of the social production of space may allow lawyers to imagine practices of resistance to the spatial status quo, in particular rights of non-state actors in the production of international law, alongside states, and obligations and responsibilities of non-state actors, especially where states have proved unable to properly assume roles of protection vis-à-vis individuals under their formal jurisdiction.

     

公私领域划分与国际法中的性别歧视

国际法通过公私领域的划分确定其管辖范围,并避免干涉主权国家的内政。女性主义者指出,这种划分包含着对女性的规范性歧视和结构性歧视。国际法的基本术语如国家、主权等,排除了国际法对国内违反人权事项的管辖,维护了男性在国内的特权地位。在国际人权法领域,在确定是否给予女性以人权保护时,也是以维护男性利益为出发点。女性主义方法揭示了国际法中存在的性别歧视,但该方法也存在许多问题,需要加以注意。     

The Legality of Self‐Constitution

An influential strand in recent action‐theory employs constitutivist arguments in order to present accounts of individual agency and practical identity (and of the normative requirements that are constitutive of these phenomena). I argue for an extension of this framework into the interpersonal realm, and suggest using it to reassess issues in jurisprudence. A legal system is an instantiation of the solution to the inescapable tasks of self‐constituting action and identity‐formation in the presence of other agents. Law's validity and normativity can be enlightened when the constitutivist approach considers the external prerequisites of individuals' self‐conceptions qua agents. More specifically, this argumentative strategy allows a reassessment of Fuller's “internal morality of law.” Whereas, pace Fuller, morally substantive conclusions cannot be derived from formal criteria of legality, there are unconditional normative requirements that constrain law.     

Is Law Unbounded? Property Rights and Control of Social Groupings

This review essay follows up on a suggested model for resolving problems of neighborhood externalities and exclusionary associational patterns in metropolitan areas. The model is based on a property rights regime of “alienable entitlements,” as articulated by Lee Anne Fennell in The Unbounded Home (2009). The essay frames this model as promoting a groundbreaking approach to the fundamental quandary over the role of law as a tool for broad-based social change and asks if legal rules can fully absorb the multiple types of societal effects that influence the nature of contemporary homeownership. It assesses the normative desirability and practical feasibility of controlling social exclusion through property rights.     

Property Offences as Crimes of Injustice

The article provides an outline of the basic principles and conditions of criminalisation of interferences with others’ property rights in the context of a specific context: a liberal, social democratic state, the legitimacy of which depends primarily on its impartiality between moral doctrines and the fair distribution of liberties and resources. I begin by giving a brief outline of the conditions of political legitimacy, the place of property and the conditions of criminalisation in such a state. With that framework in place, I argue that interferences with others’ property rights should be viewed as violations of political duties stemming from institutions of distribution. I then discuss three implications of this view: the bearing of social injustice on the criminal law treatment of acts of distributive injustice; the expansion of criminalisation over the violation of distribution-related duties, which are considered criminally irrelevant under moral conceptions of criminalisation; and, finally, the normative significance of the modus operandi.     

An Immodest Proposal: Hobbes Rather than Locke Provides a Forerunner for Modern Rights Theory

In this paper I argue that we should look to Hobbes rather than to Locke as providing a philosophical forerunner of modern and current rights theories and further, that Hobbes’s theory has relevance to and ‘speaks to’ current philosophical and jurisprudential analysis of the foundations of rights, in a way that Locke’s theory cannot. First, I summarise the argument that Hobbes does have a substantive theory of individual rights. Second, I argue that the project undertaken by A. J. Simmons, to ‘reconstruct’ Locke’s theory of rights without the theological premises, cannot succeed. Locke’s theory of natural rights is thoroughly dependent on its theological premises. Third, I argue that Hobbes’s theory of rights is not dependent on theological premises. Finally, I try to illustrate the ways in which Hobbes’s theory is still relevant and useful for current debates within rights theory.     

State-Organized Crime,International Law and Structural Contradictions

Following the trail blazed by Bill Chambliss in his 1988 Presidential Address to the American Society of Criminology, this article engages two interrelated issues concerning the concept of state-organized crime that he pioneered. First, the article develops Chambliss’s argument that criminologists should define state crime as behavior that violates international agreements and principles established in the courts and treaties of international bodies. Second, although Chambliss effectively argued that international law “on the books” provides a framework of substantive concepts and categories that allows criminologists to define certain state actions as a form of crime, “in action” international laws fail to provide legal accountability for states and protection for victims. This article demonstrates, however, that Chambliss’s structural contradictions theory of law can help to explain this paradox.