Climate justice and bargaining coalitions: a discourse analysis

This article adopts a perspective of climate justice as an object of discourse and takes the bargaining coalitions at the Conference of the Parties as the relevant units to map the heterogeneous discourse on climate justice at the Cancun COP16. Based on the statements of nine coalitions, the analysis identifies three discourses on climate justice. The conflict discourse articulates the North–South duality over issues of historical responsibility for climate change. The transition discourse points to solving the problem of sharing the cost of mitigating climate change through a process of global low-carbon growth. The vulnerability discourse focuses on the urgency of ambitious actions by all parties. These three discourses, and their appropriation by the bargaining coalitions, are inherent of new alignments among developed and developing countries alliances and blocs that simultaneously reproduce and surpass the North–South ideological divide.     

Habermas on Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism

After drawing a distinction between a cosmopolitan attitude and institutional cosmopolitanism, this paper reconstructs Habermas's account of the relationship between morality and law in order to argue that this account can be the basis of a cosmopolitan attitude which, although insufficient, on its own, to ground cosmopolitan institutions, can, nonetheless, motivate interest in institutional cosmopolitanism. The paper then examines Habermas's proposal for institutionalizing a system of cosmopolitan governance. It distinguishes and explores the reach and limitations of three arguments in favor of institutional cosmopolitanism not always adequately differentiated in Habermas's work: (a) an argument from the weakness of the nation state, (b) an argument from the democratic deficit of nationalism, and (c) an argument from the state's incapacity to guarantee human rights.     

On Law and Morality. A Dialogue

Abstract. The dialogue focusses on the distinctions and connections between law and morality. Morality is seen as axiological in character, whereas law is deontological. The possibility of a conceptual tie between goodness (axiology) and duty (deontology) is firmly disputed. Habermas's discursive foundation of ethics is criticized because it seems to confer on moral principles the status of a priori synthetic truths. Every moral idea has a cultural relativity which is not taken into account by Habermasian dialogue ethics. The moral and the legal points of view are kept separate: A law which does not satisfy the requirements of a "minimum content" of natural law is not said to be "law," but simply falling short of moral criteria. The possibility of introducing rational guarantees into moral discourse is not denied, but doubt remains as to whether there are "right answers" to moral questions.     

Democracy and Discourse in an Integrating Europe and a Globalising World

Globalisation and Europeanisation represent challenges not only to national economies and institutions but also to national legitimating discourses. This paper first outlines the theoretical requirements for such discourse, by considering it along two dimensions: ideational, which encompasses cognitive and normative functions, and interactive, which encompasses co-ordinative and communicative functions. The paper illustrates these through empirical discussions of the post-war construction of discourses in France, Britain and Germany. It then examines how the discourses have responded to the challenges to traditional conceptions of economic organisation, social welfare, and political democracy from European and globally-related economic and institutional changes. The paper concludes that while France remains in search of a legitimating discourse, Britain is in the process of renewing its Thatcherite discourse, and Germany is in the process of recasting its post-war liberal social-democratic discourse.     

‘Legislative frame representation’: towards an empirical account of the deliberative systems approach

The systemic approach to deliberative democracy is an empirically underexplored topic. Since ‘classic’ micro indicators for deliberation are at loggerheads with the idea of distributed deliberation, appropriate assessment techniques for large-scale public deliberation are few and far between. This paper aims at exploring a novel pathway into the empirical translations of the deliberative systems approach, using discourse content and the representation of policy frames in the legislature. I argue that legislative frame representation (LFR) is a crucial indicator for the level of sub-systemic deliberative uptake and policy responsiveness. Next to the necessary theoretical and methodological work, the results of an explorative case study for the immigration discourse in the US and Canada are presented. The results indicate that there are considerable differences in the systems’ capacities to take up discourses from civil society and that LFR can be an important tool to explore deliberative systems empirically.     

The Multiple Meanings of Familialism

The notion that families should care for their own seems straightforward in its meaning. I suggest that it may not be. Building on the argument advanced in Sandra Levitsky's Caring for Our Own, and especially its focus on the discursive shaping of rights consciousness, I draw attention to three discourses that may be responsible for how the caregivers quoted in the book understand family responsibility. One is an American discourse about the limits of government; one is a therapeutic discourse that is enacted in the support groups from which the book's respondents mainly come; and one is a nativist discourse that pits the American‐born against newcomers. I argue that these discourses inflect the meaning of family responsibility in distinctive ways.     

Buried voices: Mexican migrants’ views on the question of illegality

How do immigrant Mexican workers perceive the policies and social discourses that regulate their insertion into American society as noncitizens and illegals? Using ethnographic fieldwork and in-depth interviews, evidence is presented that unauthorized Mexican migrants do not consider themselves lawbreakers but rather moral actors responding to difficult socioeconomic conditions. Informed by a keen understanding of the social forces oppressing them, these migrants articulate a discourse of social justice that works as a powerful counterpoint to the hegemonic ideas of citizenship, belonging, and illegality. A careful analysis of migrant social reflexivity offers a much-needed corrective to the prevailing top-down perspective typically offered among contemporary scholars. By looking at the ways in which migrants make sense of immigration policies and articulate their right to have rights, this examination departs from the widespread tendency among scholars and policy makers of analyzing the migrant’s social and civic status as a matter of assimilation and immigration control.     

Prelapsarian State: Forgiveness and Reconciliation in Transitional Justice

Since South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), 'reconciliation' is now an authoritative discourse governing political transition. Reconciliation governs the 'moral reordering' of national communities in the wake of conflict and transition to more democratic regimes by enquiring into, and attempting to address, past gross violations of human rights perpetrated, in the main, against civilian populations by the state and its agents. Reconciliation eschews retributive justice in favour of 'restorative' modes of 'dealing with the past', and has come, broadly, to be institutionalised by the truth commission. South Africa's TRC animated theological discourses of forgiveness and Christian reconciliation in order to legitimise and endow with moral resonance the project of transitional justice. This article enquires into the political effects of such an animation, and investigates the performance of forgiveness and reconciliation as metaphor and narrative.     

The Frontiers of Legal Analysis: Reframing the Transition in Northern Ireland

British constitutional legal discourse is structurally limited in its capacity to capture the complexity of the Good Friday Agreement. Rather than assessing the Agreement in narrow devolutionary terms, it should be seen as a hybrid domestic and international law instrument, making an important contribution to accepted international law norms in relation to self-determination. The Agreement transforms and partly transcends the Northern Ireland conflict by substituting political contestation for violent conflict, and by defining the modalities of conducting that contestation. This analysis complements classical international law perspectives, and opens up the application of legal discourses associated with 'transitional justice' to the legal and political transformation in Northern Ireland. These discourses focus on the problem of reconciling the demands of peace with the imperatives of justice. The Agreement sits squarely in this terrain with its provisions on 'dealing with the past' and 'institutional legacies'. The insights gained here challenge orthodox thinking about conflict-management and the ongoing political process.     

Scarcity,Discourses of Implementation,and Habermasian Law and Democracy

This paper contains a critique of Habermas' discourse theory of law and democracy from an economic perspective. An example drawn from Klaus Günther's work on discourses of application suggests the failure of discourse ethics to adequately account for the problem of scarcity. This blindpoint is reflected in Habermas' legal theory through the latter's inadequate recognition of the internal connection between markets and law. Discourses of implementation are introduced as a discourse‐relevant procedure to account for the problem of scarcity. Consensus, as defined by Habermas, cannot be the agreement mode applicable to discourses of implementation.     

道德话语系统与压力型司法的路径选择

面对道德困境案件的日趋增多,司法之道德话语系统的社会意义得以凸现,法官往往需要将目光往返于法律话语系统与道德话语系统,充分反映民众的共同道德观,并自觉拒斥虚妄的民意诉求对司法的消极影响。当然,也使难办案件意义上的司法裁判被简缩为"冲击—回应"的被动过程,从而形成了一种基于外在压力影响但又需要慎重对待的压力型司法。如果现代司法放弃建立纯而又纯的法条主义之梦,而将道德话语系统融入司法的价值判断,那么压力型司法将在以道德论证弥补法律之确定性的裂缝以及以判决书说理制度增加司法判决的可接受性之方法选择中走出困境。     

Restorative Justice and “Empowerment”: Producing and Governing Active Subjects through “Empowering” Practices

During the last quarter-century, restorative justice has emerged as a widely-utilised response to crime in Western nations. This article, which stems from a Foucauldian genealogy of restorative justice, argues that its embeddedness within the discourse of “empowerment” renders restorative justice a politically acceptable response to crime. “Empowerment”, it is argued, is one of many conditions of emergence of restorative justice. The discourse of “empowerment” underpins restorative justice in tangible ways, and has informed legislation and policy in Western jurisdictions. This article seeks to problematise the taken-for-granted nature of this discourse. It argues that the discourse of “empowerment” produces restorative justice subjects who are increasingly governed and governable. As “empowering” restorative practices are targeted towards “disempowered” individuals and communities, concerns are raised about the potential of restorative justice to disproportionately impact upon socially marginalised populations and to increase social exclusion.     

Mismatched Discourses in the Petition Offices of Chinese Courts

Based on participation observations and interviews with petitioners and petition officials in Chinese courts, this article analyzes how the petitioning discourse is organized and how it influences the dispute resolution process. It finds that the discourses between the petitioners and the petition officials are mismatched. The petitioners fight to frame their disputes in legal terms, while the petition officials use a “channeling discourse” to divert the petitioners to legal or extralegal institutions. The two types of discourse barely confront each other; nor are the substantive issues seriously debated. Since being channeled into other institutions does not resolve their disputes, petitioners start calling their petitioning experiences as injurious, blaming officials, and making new claims. Disputes are thus reproduced. The research sheds light on the petitioners’ legal consciousness and the operation of the petition system in China, and explores the contextual reasons why the phenomenon of mismatched discourses occurs in China.     

Expanding a traditional criminal justice curriculum into an innovative social control curriculum

Most criminal justice curricula are limited to crime and the criminal justice system. Such programs could profit from evolution into a curriculum covering all means by which behavior is controlled in society. Subject areas of such a social control curriculum would include: sources and nature of behavior; selection of behaviors for social control; criminal justice systems; non-criminal justice, legal, social control systems; and nonlegal, social control systems. Crime and criminal justice would remain major topics, but would be complemented by and blended with the topics of noncriminal behavior and non-criminal justice system controls on behavior. However, the focus would remain on social control of behavior and would not be expanded to include all community interaction.     

Of Athenians and Spartans: Profiles of freedom and enlightenment in the leadership styles of criminal justice academic administrators: An essay

This essay examines the dubious relationship between the quality of criminal justice education and the kind of treatment faculty members and students receive from their academic administrators. It is based on three premises: criminal justice colleges and departments should be held to higher rational and moral standards not because they are qualitatively different from other liberal arts departments, but because they teach justice; if the virtues of criminal justice are worth teaching, then criminal justice faculty members and students should be treated in a manner consistent with these virtues; and treating criminal justice faculty members and students unfairly, disrespectfully, or irresponsibly makes them unable or disinterested in endorsing the noble nature of criminal justice. This article categorizes academic administrators as either Athenians or Spartans. The former are best suited intellectually and temperamentally to administer because they possess a talent for reasoning and act in good faith. The latter are unsuited because, regardless of how well they mask it, they practice domination, deception, favoritism, and indignity.This essay is a theoretical discourse based on the contiguity of modalities, experiences, and impressions generally shared by criminal justice educators and graduate students. Its logic is Humeian and its method is broadly ethnographic.     

Discursive Illusions in Legislative Discourse: A Socio-Pragmatic Study

This paper takes the position that interpretations of legal discourse are invariably taken in the context of socio-pragmatic realities to which a particular instance of discourse applies. What makes this process even more complicated is the fact that social realities themselves are often negotiated within the mould of one’s subjective conceptualisations of reality. Institutions and organisations, including people in power, often represent socio-political realities from an ideologically fuelled perspective, engendering many ‘illusory’ categories often a result of contested versions of reality. To substantiate this view, we discuss interpretations of a number of interesting contemporary and controversial laws, including America’s Patriot Act and Hong Kong’s proposed Article 23 of the Basic Law. Both laws can be seen as illustrative of the definitional conflict that abstract concepts such as democracy and human rights are subjected to in their own specific socio-political contexts. While America crowns itself with democracy and Hong Kong struggles to achieve it in effective synthesis with its unique political arrangement, the laws produced by both contrasting political systems are unexpectedly similar, aiming for the moderation of basic rights. The actions of both governments set against their beliefs and discourses, and furthermore set against one another and other media voices, particularly those of non-governmental organisations, political activists, and other socio-political groups, demonstrate contestation of realities, giving rise to ‘discursive illusions’, which seem to be interpreted not so much on the basis of their linguistic construction but more on the basis of socio-pragmatic factors, such as trust, belief, transparency, control and power.     

Assumptions about children's best interests

The family justice system operates with a set of presumptions and assumptions about the welfare of the child which are assumed to be based on 'scientific' knowledge and which, therefore, are further assumed to carry the authority of both science and law. In practice, the result is that those working within the family justice system use powerful 'legal'notions whose provenance is often taken for granted and whose authority is unchallenged. Drawing on the different sets of assumptions operating in the family justice system and the youth justice system, this article explains, however, that law responds to messages originating in external discourses, notably science and politics, only in so far as its functions require and only in ways which 'fit'into legal communications. Viewed in this light, the presumptions are seen as working guidelines which should only be used with great care when dealing with the lives of children and young people. Whilst acknowledging that a full investigation of all children's cases would not be feasible, this article therefore argues for greater attention to the applicability and validity of prevailing presumptions.     

Virtually Criminal: Discourse,Deviance and Anxiety Within Virtual Communities

While it would be appropriate to state that criminologists and those in legal disciplines have recently discovered that new technologies are worthy of research, they have yet to tap into growing concerns over sub-criminal activity within increasing populated virtual environments. As a result we find new forms of sociopathic behaviour, which present themselves in abundance, being disregarded due to their 'virtual status', while similar crimes in the real world are subject to intensive investigation. This study considers forms of 'virtual deviance' that manifest themselves within online communities as viable forms of inquiry. Through a multi-method approach, including ethnographic methods, linguistic, case source and discourse analysis, this research project aims to unravel the link between the aetiology of online deviance and the discourses of surveillance, regulation and mediation. It is hoped that the analysis will provide for a virtual regulatory model that curtails disruptive behaviour within online environments while simultaneously maintaining relevant justice models and forms of human/ avatar rights.     

Deconstructing Transitional Justice

Transitional justice as a field of inquiry is a relatively new one. Referring to the range of mechanisms used to assist the transition of a state or society from one form of (usually repressive) rule to a more democratic order, transitional justice has become the dominant language in which the move from war to peace is discussed in the early twenty-first century. Applying a deconstructive analysis to the question of transitional justice, the paper seeks to interrogate the core assumptions that underlie transitional justice literature in relation to the relationship between law, politics and justice. As a discourse, transitional justice is replete with antinomies or binary oppositions, that of war and peace being the most obvious. Therefore the essentially deconstructible structure of differánce already exists within the concept. By examining the ways in which legal and political narratives are framed and reproduced, the paper seeks to deconstruct the opposition between law and politics on which much of the transitional justice literature rests. The article does not purport to provide a definitive critical analysis of transitional justice but aims to provoke debate and to prompt critical scholars to engage with the themes raised by providing an introductory analysis of some of the core features of a field of inquiry which seems ripe for deconstruction.