Documents received

B.A., University of Pennsylvania 1971; J.D., Rutgers University 1987.     

Impunity and Hope

Is there a duty to prosecute grave international crimes? Many have thought so, even if they recognize the obligation to be defeasible. However, the theoretical literature frequently leaves the grounds for such a duty inadequately specified, or unsystematically amalgamated, leaving it unclear which considerations should drive and shape processes of criminal accountability. Further, the circumstance leaves calls to end impunity vulnerable to skeptical worries concerning the risks and costs of punishing perpetrators. I argue that a qualified duty to prosecute can be substantiated on the basis of a single class of reasons, though also that standard justifications of international criminal law (as currently conceived) are not up to the task. The account exploits the expressive dimension of punishment, but locates the central good of criminal accountability in its capacity to appropriately enable an agential stance on the part of subjects in transitional circumstances. It can legitimate, in a way to be specified, hope. The approach also displays the cynicism of an anti‐impunity ethos in the absence of a robust commitment to securing basic human rights in transitional circumstances.     

All the President's Senators: Presidential Copartisans and the Allocation of Federal Grants

Previous scholarship argues that House members' partisan relationship to the president is among the most important determinants of the share of federal dollars they bring home to their constituents. Do presidential politics also shape distributive outcomes in the Senate? Analyzing the allocation of more than $8.5 trillion of federal grants across the states from 1984 to 2008, we show that presidential copartisan senators are more successful than opposition party members in securing federal dollars for their home states. Moreover, presidents appear to target grants ex post to states that gain presidential copartisans in recent elections.     

The Global Trade in Live Cetaceans: Implications for Conservation

Cetaceans—small whales, dolphins and porpoises—have long been popular performers in oceanaria. Captive cetaceans have also been used for research and employed in military operations. In some jurisdictions cetacean display facilities have been phased out or prohibited, and in the US and Hong Kong a high proportion of the whales and dolphins now in captivity have been captive-bred. A large, growing and increasingly opportunistic trade in dolphins and small toothed whales nevertheless exists, its centres of supply having shifted away from North America, Japan, and Iceland to the Russian Federation and developing nations in Latin America, the Caribbean, West Africa, and Southeast Asia. Demand for live captures is being driven by: a new wave of traditional-type oceanaria and dolphin display facilities, as well as travelling shows, in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean; increasingly popular programs that offer physical contact with cetaceans, including the opportunity to feed, pet, and swim with them; and the proliferation of facilities that offer ‘dolphin assisted therapy’ to treat human illness or disability. Rigorous assessment of source populations is often lacking, and in some instances live capture is adding to the pressure on stocks already at risk from hunting, fishery bycatch, habitat degradation, and other factors. All too often, entrepreneurs appear to be taking advantage of lax (or non-existent) regulations in small island states or less developed or politically unstable countries to supply the growing global demand for dolphins and small whales. The regulation of trade in live cetaceans under CITES is fraught with problems, not least the poor quality of reporting and the lack of a rigorous mechanism for preparation, review, and evaluation of non-detriment findings.     

The Politics of Restitution: The 1964–66 Labour Government’s Policy Towards Ireland

This article analyzes Harold Wilson’s policy towards the Republic of Ireland during the first eighteen months of his government. This article will demonstrate that the Labour government embarked upon a concerted effort to improve Anglo-Irish relations. In particular, the Labour government acceded to the Irish government’s time-honoured request to repatriate the remains of Roger Casement, and returned the flag that had flown over the General Post Office during the 1916 Rising. How successful these gestures were is a moot point. In the short-term it almost certainly did create a climate of goodwill between the British and Irish governments. In the longer-term, however, it could be argued these gestures served to stimulate republican sentiment in Ireland, and perhaps contributed to heightening the tensions within Northern Ireland in the late 1960s.