Judges,Conflict, and the Past

Drawing upon interviews with senior judicial figures in Northern Ireland, South Africa and elsewhere, this article considers the role of the judiciary in a political conflict. Using the socio‐legal literature on judicial performance and audience as well as transitional justice scholarship, the article argues that judges in Northern Ireland ‘performed’ to a number of ‘imagined’ audiences including Parliament, ‘the public', and their judicial peers – all of which shaped their view of the judicial role. In light of ongoing efforts to deal with the past in the jurisdiction, and the experiences of other transitional societies, the article argues that the judiciary can and should engage in a mature, reflexive and, where appropriate, self‐critical examination of the good and bad of their own institutional history during the conflict. It also argues that such a review of judicial performance requires an external audience in order to encourage the judiciary to see truth beyond the limits of legalism.     

A Pacifist Approach to Countering Extremism

ABSTRACT

How should a pacifist approach both extremism and counter-extremism? Through exploring definitions of extremism alongside pacifist scholarship, the paper argues that pacifism itself appears to be “extreme”, allowing extremism to be examined from an extreme perspective. But does counter-extremism engender peace? The paper identifies three dominant definitions of counter-extremism: a promotion of nonviolence, of liberal democratic values, and of tolerance. While counter-extremism appears to engender peace, the paper exposes the ways in which countering extremism promotes violence: a “nonviolence” which legitimises state violence; an ethnocentric homogenisation of liberal democratic values which alienates ethnic minorities, and a narrow sphere of tolerated pluralism which transforms non-hegemonic values into threats. The paper argues that to promote peace, pacifists must contribute to the reconceptualisation of extremism. The paper suggests that instead of depicting challenges to hegemonic values as “antagonisms” that threaten, agonistic spaces are required such that “extremism” need not be countered but encountered.     

Reforming regulatory relationships: The impact of medical revalidation on doctors,employers, and the General Medical Council in the United Kingdom

In 2012, medical regulation in the United Kingdom was fundamentally changed by the introduction of revalidation – a process by which all licensed doctors are required to regularly demonstrate that they are up to date and fit to practice in their chosen field and are able to provide a good level of care. This paper examines the implications of revalidation on the structure, governance, and performance management of the medical profession, as well as how it has changed the relationships between the regulator, employer organizations, and the profession. We conducted semi‐structured interviews with clinical and non‐clinical staff from a range of healthcare organizations. Our research suggests that organizations have become intermediaries in the relationship between the General Medical Council and doctors, enacting regulatory processes on its behalf and extending regulatory surveillance and oversight at local level. Doctors’ autonomy has been reduced as they have become more accountable to and reliant on the organizations that employ them.