How Violence Breeds Violence: Some Utilitarian Considerations

Recent philosophical writing about war has focused upon just war theory, especially how best to construe the ius ad bellum and ius in bello tenets, and whether the distinction between combatants and non-combatants can be made in the modern world. Historically and politically, calls to war have often appealed to utilitarian considerations. In this article, I discuss important long-range consequences rarely mentioned in utilitarian defences of particular decisions to engage states in war. When consequences are weighed fully not only in the short term but with an eye to the future, bearing the destiny of all people in mind, it emerges that belligerent approaches to international conflict resolution will not maximise utility.     

A snapshot of legal developments and industry issues relevant to information technology, media and telecommunications law in key jurisdictions across the Asia Pacific – Co-ordinated by Lovells and contributed to by other leading law firms in the region

This column provides a country by country snapshot of the latest legal developments, cases and issues relevant to the IT, media and telecommunications industries in key jurisdictions across the Asia Pacific region. The articles appearing in this column are intended to serve as ‘alerts’ and are not submitted as detailed analyses of cases or legal developments.     

The lack of experimental research in criminology—evidence from Criminology and Justice Quarterly

Journal of Experimental Criminology - Despite experiments being termed the “gold standard,” criminology has been slow to adopt experimentation as a methodology. The goal of this...     

The AFSP Standard - a lesson for law enforcement agencies

Compliance with the AFSP (Association of Forensic Science Providers) Standard [1] which concerns the formulation of an evaluative opinion requires consideration of the defence case. This can be problematic for forensic scientists working with or for law enforcement agencies. Among the aims of law enforcement agencies is to secure a conviction while in many jurisdictions the forensic scientist owes an overriding duty to the Court. This casework report demonstrates that early consideration of the defence case by a forensic scientist complying with the AFSP Standard may help rather than hinder the prosecution. The dichotomy as to a conflict of interest for the scientist between supporting the police/prosecutors and being scientifically objective is shown to be a false dichotomy. Compliance with the Standard ensures that science is a better servant of justice.