The illicit arms trade: Cold War and Post-Cold War

This article considers the principal changes that haveoccurred in the illicit arms trade across the Cold Warand post-Cold War periods. It discusses the changednature of demand and the sources and means ofillicitly supplying arms to areas of conflict. Througha number of case studies it highlights the declininguse of illicit arms supply as a foreign policy tool,and the extent to which involvement in the trade isnow determined more by profit than policyconsiderations, with all the implications thesechanges have for control initiatives.     

Telling the Refugee Story: The `Ordinary Australian', the State of Australia

By international standards, fewuninvited asylum-seekers arrive in Australia.However, in 2001, a conservative federalgovernment trailing in the opinion pollsreversed its fortunes and won the November 2001election largely, it seems because of its``tough' refugee policy, which the Oppositioncould only feebly endorse, deeming oppositionelectorally suicidal. Using some insights fromLacan and writers in the Lacanian tradition,this paper examines how the refugee story waswritten, and why it was that the intentions ofits authors so successfully shaped itsreception by the majority of the electorate.     

“紧急状态”、“战争状态”概念及辨析

紧急状态和战争状态是我国法律必须明确却而尚未明确的两个概念。紧急状态是相当程度危险下的一国国内的社会状态 ;依据不同的标准 ,可以对其外延作不同划分。战争状态可以从传统国际法和国内法两个层次上理解。紧急状态和战争状态的关系取决于一国法律对紧急状态的界定和在什么意义上阐述战争状态。     

Accidents,Agency and Asylum: Constructing the Refugee Subject

Refugee law demands that the asylum seeker demonstrate an extremely limited and distorted form of agency that is encapsulated within the legal definition of the refugee. Such a framework also denies the role of the accidental in the refugee experience. I argue that the problem lies at the heart of the legal form, as constructed under capitalism. The sans-papiers show us the potential for refugees themselves to reconstruct a subjectivity that transcends the distorted form of agency and the false dichotomy between the accidental and agency found in law, through their rejection of legal definitions and the re-emergence of themselves as political subjects.     

New Frontiers,Old Problems: The War on Terror and the Notion of Anticipating the Enemy

Netherlands International Law Review -     

The "New Russians," the State,and Civil Society

The problem of crime in a transition society in general, and in Russia in particular, is part of a much broader problem of "liberation from the state." The road to such liberation is not necessarily a peaceful one. The emergence of a new view on life, new ideas of what is permissible and what is not, what is morally justified and what is prohibited, may be manifested in the collective and concerted actions of society as a whole or in a significant segment of society, thereby producing a revolution. Also, the adoption of new moral practices and the rejection of older ones may take place at the individual level, and in this case we may speak of a person's "escape" from state and society.     

The Declaration of War in the Dutch Constitution and Models of Legal Communication

Models of communication,frequently used in legal semiotics, offer ananalytic framework for the relationship betweenlegal rules on the one hand and correspondingsocial behaviour on the other. Semiotic modelsseek to clarify (un)successful legalcommunication; they try to reveal the processesof interpretation and sense construction. Inthis paper, these processes are described,taking Article 96 of the Dutch Constitution asan example. Although the text of Article 96 hasremained nearly unchanged, its substantivemeaning has changed fundamentally. Thebackground and development of the `declarationof war', as laid down in Article 96, areanalysed and fully elaborated. It is concludedthat the classical models of communication,largely based upon the idea of the existence ofa linear relationship between rule and conduct,hardly correspond with the complex processes asdescribed in the analysis of Article96 Communication between rule and practice isobviously more than a one-waycausality, in which rule information `flows'from sender (legislator) to receiver (citizen).The institutional model of communication,developed by Ruiter, offers a different approach.The institutional model is based on the notionof law as `institutional landscaping';realisation depends on common beliefs andgeneral acceptance. The influence of the socialpractice on the meaning of legal rules becomesan important factor. The institutional theoryseems to offer a more adequate model for thecomplex reality of legal communication.     

EU Refugee Qualification Directive: a Brave New World?

This article aims to map some of the major implications forasylum–related law in Europe of the Refugee QualificationDirective, which twenty-four EU Member States were requiredto implement by 10 October 2006. It seeks to build on importantstudies of the Directive completed by, among others, Hemme Battjes,in his book European Asylum Law and International Law, Nijhoff2006, and Jane McAdam, in her book Complementary Protectionin International Refugee Law, OUP 2007, albeit it takes a differentview of some key questions. Part 2 deals with the impact of the Directive on the applicationand interpretation of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967Protocol. It is argued that, even read simply as a set of provisionsgiving interpretive guidelines on the application of the RefugeeConvention, it affects many things concerned with refugee eligibility,since these provisions cover key elements of the refugee definition. Part 3 deals with the impact of the Directive on the asylum-relatedhuman rights jurisdiction that currently prevails in Europein one form or another.¹ It is argued that the effect of theDirective is and must be to render Article 3 ECHR protection– or its domestic equivalent – a largely residualcategory, save in exclusion cases. Part 4 addresses to what extent, if at all, the Directive containsmandatory provisions and how, post-implementation, these canbe integrated into the national law of Member States. It isargued that, considered in purely textual terms, the key definitionaland interpretive provisions of the Directive are mostly in mandatoryform. Further, that whilst, by virtue of being a minimum standardsdirective, the Directive allows Member States to introduce orretain more favourable standards (A3), the same article stipulatesthat such standards must be compatible with the Directive. Thatproviso is of some importance given that the Directive’spreamble (at R7) identifies as one objective the avoidance ofsecondary movements. In relation to articles of the Directivewhich specify in mandatory terms how elements of the refugeedefinition are to be applied, Member States cannot be free tointroduce or retain differing standards. Parts 5 and 6 analyse suggested differences, first, betweenthe Directive’s refugee definition and the Refugee Convention(it is argued that the only potential difference of real significanceconcerns the Directive’s rendering of the Article 1F exclusionclauses of the Refugee Convention) and, secondly, between theDirective’s subsidiary protection definition and Article3 ECHR. The extent of symmetry between the new subsidiary protectioncriteria and ECHR protection under Article 3 is explored, inparticular, arguing that, whilst there are three respects inwhich subsidiary protection criteria are narrower (relatingto personal scope; the existence of cessation and exclusionclauses; and limited application to ‘health cases’),there may be limited respects in which it may be broader inscope than Article 3 ECHR. Part 7 examines patterns of implementation in the light of earlyevidence to hand from, for example, the November 2007 UNHCRsurvey of five Member States. The UK is considered as a furtherexample, that of a member state where, despite it being seenas unnecessary to make any substantial changes, the implementingmeasures have required important changes in method of approachand in conceptual language.     

The Challenge of Antisocial Behaviour: New Relationships between the State, Children and Parents

Relationships between children, parents and the state do notremain the same over time and are not necessarily consistentat any one time across policy arenas. These relationships, though,can remain unexamined and individually negotiated until theyare highlighted by major policy change. Such a change has recentlyoccured in Scotland, where the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland)Act 2004 has extended Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) tochildren and introduced Parenting Orders (POs), which can requireparents to attend counselling or guidance sessions. ASBOs shiftstate intervention from focusing on children’s welfareand needs to focusing on their behaviour. The welfare-basedchildren’s hearing system will no longer be the primarydecision-making forum as the court is the decision-maker forboth these new orders. POs emphasize parents’ responsibilityfor controlling their children. POs provide a direct route forparents to receive support, which they did not have before,but only through a compulsory order. Both children and theirparents will be held responsible to their communities’values, in new court-enforced mechanisms.     

金融控股公司责任承担的新机制——美国金融控股公司加重责任制度研究

美国金融控股公司加重责任制度的主要内容是，要求金融控股公司完全或部分地保证其所管理的子公司的清偿能力，要求金融控股公司向其不能清偿债务的子公司重新注入资金，或向政府机构赔偿因子公司经营失败而给公众债权人造成的损失，或赔偿公共保险基金。该制度产生的原因是金融控股公司中特有的道德风险。历史研究和实证研究表明，美国金融控股公司加重责任制度对改善子公司的经营状况具有重要作用。加重责任制度与法人人格否认制度不同，其法理基础是权利与义务的一致性。加重责任制度抑制了金融控股公司中特有的道德风险问题。加重责任制度存在的问题可以采取一定的措施加以解决。     

Framing Henry Ford's War: Representation,Speech, and the New Civil Rights History

Woeste, Victoria Saker. 2012 . Henry Ford's War on Jews and the Legal Battle Against Hate Speech . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. In this essay, I respond to three readers of my book, Henry Ford's War and the Legal Battle Against Hate Speech, by embracing the opportunity to reconsider the book's theoretical and historiographical frames. I synthesize the contributions that Clyde Spillenger, Carroll Seron, and Aviam Soifer make in their deep readings of the book and respond to their criticisms. I then place the book into a new interpretive frame that is emerging in the field of the “new civil rights history,” as it is now being conceptualized in the work of Risa Goluboff, Kenneth Mack, Tomiko Brown‐Nagin, and others writing on civil rights advocacy in the twentieth‐century United States.