All in Favour? Attitudes of Stakeholders and Drug Users Towards Judicial Alternatives

Different judicial alternative sanctions and measures exist on the three levels of the criminal justice system. These alternative sanctions and measures can be applied to a specific target group, namely drug users. The current study is a qualitative assessment of the application and execution of alternative measures and sanctions for drug users, based on semi-structured face-to-face interviews in which stakeholders (magistrates, judicial assistants and social workers) and drug users were asked for their attitudes towards these sanctions and the factors that influence them in their convictions and beliefs. In conclusion we can state that the interviews have increased the insight in the attitudes of decision makers, social assistants, judicial assistants and drug users towards alternative sanctioning. From the interviews we learn that there are strong similarities between the three profiles, which provide for a strong basis for the continued functioning of alternative sanctioning.

Of Mines,Mining, and Imagining: Rights without Society?

As a polyvocal discipline that integrates studies of law in society, socio-legal studies should have no problem accommodating civil liberties and human rights. Numerous methodologies and frameworks present themselves as illuminating, troubling, and critiquing conceptions and experiences of rights. Legal analysis of human rights is nevertheless often abstract and highly technical. But what if socio-legal analyses of rights were not available? What would be lacking? Using a personal situated methodological approach, I explore the Journal of Law and Society's back catalogue to reflect on what civil liberties and human rights might be without socio-legal studies.     

The Logics of Supranational Human Rights Litigation,Official Acknowledgment,and Human Rights Reform: The Southeast Turkey Cases before the European Court of Human Rights, 1996–2006

This article examines the domestic impact of supranational human rights litigation on acknowledgment of state violence in the context of macroprocesses of global governance. The article's argument is that the impact of supranational human rights litigation on the process of acknowledgment must be seen through counternarratives on state violence. The article undertakes a detailed textual analysis of the truth claims and denial strategies that emerged from the European Court of Human Rights proceedings on state violence during Turkey's struggle against the armed group the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). It assesses these in the context of the human rights reforms that were created following pressure from European-level governance processes. The article argues that attention must be paid to agency in acknowledgment and truth-telling processes, and points to the limits of technical-bureaucratic forms of human rights reform interventions in the context of state violence.     

Civic Integration,Migrant Women and the Veil: at the Limits of Rights?

Controversies surrounding the wearing of the veil by Muslim women in Europe have coincided with a resurgence of interest in ‘pathways to citizenship’ and integration testing. This article argues that the historical vestiges of discrimination in immigration and citizenship laws persist today in the scrutiny of the cultural affiliations and practices of aspiring immigrants and citizens. Muslim women have been placed at the center of such scrutiny, increasingly defined by the arbiters of belonging as les anormeaux. This article explores recent legislative developments on the wearing of the veil in France and examines these developments in the light of the expansion of integration testing and human rights law's normative commitments to more just multicultural arrangements.     

Who’s Afraid of Property Rights? Rights as Core Concepts,Coherent, Prima Facie,Situated and Specified

Natural property rights are widely viewed as anathema to welfarist taxation, and are pictured as non-contextual, non-relational and resistant to regulation. Here, I argue that many of the major arguments for such views are flawed. Such arguments trade on an ambiguity in the term ‘right’ that makes it possible to conflate the core concept of a right with a situated or specified right from which one can read off people’s actual legal entitlements and duties. I marshal several arguments demonstrating this conflation. In particular, I examine the right to free speech, where contextualization and responsiveness to the requirements of other rights are assumed as a matter of course. I conclude that the existence of one natural right does not foreclose the existence of other natural rights. Arguments for or against welfare rights must be assessed, at least to some extent, independently of the assertion of a natural property right.     

Share and Share Alike? Hedge Funds,Human Rights,and Owning Enterprise in Britain

This article explores the meanings of ownership and shareholding in the context of the 2007 run on Northern Rock, its subsequent nationalization in 2008, and the resulting legal challenge brought by former shareholders. Drawing on evidence from a range of sources outside traditional legal and official doctrine, and from original empirical research, it focuses on the perspective and voices of local small individual shareholders in relation to shareholding, bank failure, and government responses to financial crisis. It tells the story of these individual shareholders against differing conceptions of share ownership rights and responsibilities, and from various angles, to show the many different subjectivities of corporate shareholding and ownership of enterprise of which orthodox legal and economic models take scant account. It concludes on a note of historic persistence in demand for proprietary shares in banking institutions, despite the differing levels of understanding and tolerance of equity risk among shareholders that our research reveals.     

Punishment and Rights in European Union Citizenship: Persons or Criminals?

While European Union (EU) citizenship has traditionally been key to limiting criminalisation at national level, over recent years crime has become a criterion to distinguish between the good and the bad citizen, and to allocate rights according to that distinction. This approach has been upheld by the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) in its case‐law, where crimes show the offender's disregard for the societal values of the host Member States, and deny his/her integration therein. This article argues that citizenship serves to legitimate criminal law. The Court outlines two—counterposing—types of human being: the law‐abiding citizen and the criminal. The article shows the legal unsoundness of the Court's approach. It does so by analysing and locating the case‐law over a crime–citizenship spectrum, marked at its opposing ends by Duff's communitarian approach to criminal law, on the one hand, and Jakobs' criminal law of the enemy, on the other.     

The Portuguese Parliament and Public Opinion: A Case for Reform?

During the past decade, the Portuguese political system has been under close scrutiny. As in other Western democracies, the topic of citizens' dissatisfaction with democratic institutions has been at the centre of a wide debate amongst public opinion and politicians. This debate has focused on parliament and parliamentary reform has often been seen as a way of enhancing parliament's image. However, as this note will show, there is no clear evidence that the Portuguese are dissatisfied with this institution. Indeed, this is still an under-researched area. Why is there an assumption that the Portuguese parliament has a negative image? And why should this have consequences for parliamentary reform? In the context of the creation of a Portuguese Election Study, this note aims to raise questions for future research on this topic. The note will look into the concept of legislative support, assess the evidence available on the Portuguese parliament's popularity and suggest indicators that would help to clarify the Portuguese views on this. It will also explore the connection between legislative support and the role of parliament, to enquire whether popularity indicators can make a case for parliamentary reform.     

Human Rights,Privacy and the Public Interest—Who Draws the Line and Where?

This lecture examines the protection of privacy in the United Kingdom (both at common law and after the incorporation of Human Rights Convention rights) as well as in other European countries and in the European Court of Human Rights. It considers the significance and extent of the margin of appreciation which that Court allows to individual states in respect of the protection of privacy and the balancing of privacy against other interests such as press freedom. It concludes that the margin allowed by the Strasbourg court may not be very large, that the balancing of interests apparently required by that Court is often delicate and difficult, that informal mechanisms of redress such as the Press Complaints Commissions have some benefits, but that further case-law development appears inevitably to be required if any certainty is to be achieved in at least some common situations.