State crimes and state harms: a tale of two definitional frameworks

Criminologists have long debated the issue of how to define crime, and hence, the scope of criminological inquiry. For years, some critical criminologists have argued for expanded definitions of crime that include harmful behaviors of the state that may not be officially defined as criminal. Other critical criminologists have argued that existing legal frameworks may be used to study varieties of state crime, and that defining the harmful actions of the state as criminal is important to help mobilize public support for their control. In this paper, we first trace the historical development of these two perspectives, and then offer a tentative solution to the seeming tension between these two perspectives.     

Bureaupreneurs in China: we did it our way

This article explores the different and sometimes conflicting explanations of the success of the collective enterprises (town–village-enterprise) in China during the first phase of transition (1979–1995). It is argued that explanations, relying on cultural variables are not sustainable and this for two reasons. First, the importance of the collective enterprise is shrinking while the private sector is clearly on the rise. Second, other factors, referring to characteristics of the local and central political, administrative and economic environment, in which the Chinese enterprise has to (had to?) operate, provide for a sufficient explanation of the peculiar structure of the Chinese collective enterprises. These enterprises are seen as the result of ?bureau-preneurship’ because local bureaucrats were integrated in their management in order to pre-empt predatory behaviour and to facilitate the relationships with the central institutions. The article contributes to the property rights’ theory of the firm as it analyses an empirically very important case in which firms with unclear property rights and structures, apparently not conducive for incentives, might still be the most efficient option.     

Comments on the Comments

Abstract. The paper replies to Bix and Soper ( Bix 2007 ; Soper 2007 ). Bix's paper raises methodological questions, especially whether a form‐theorist merely needs to reflect on form from the arm‐chair so to speak. A variety of methods is called for, including conceptual analysis, study of usage, “education in the obvious,” general reflection on the nature of specific functional legal units, empirical research on their operation and effects, and still more. Further methodological remarks are made in response to Soper's paper. Soper suggests the possibility of substituting “form v. substance” of a unit as the central contrast here rather than form v. complementary material or other components of a unit. Various reasons are given here for not doing this. Among other things, it is also argued here that form does not, contrary to Soper's suggestion, always follow substance.     

Trial and Error – Failing and Learning in Criminal Proceedings

This paper addresses the selective mechanisms by which criminal proceedings produce strong arguments. It does so by focusing on the failing of argument themes (topoi) in the course of criminal proceedings, rather than on their career. In a further step, the notion of failing is bound to learning: different forms of failing point at different ways and places of learning. The study is comparative, relating cases from four different legal regimes (England, USA, Italy and Germany) that are taken from four extensive ethnographic studies in defense lawyer’s firms. We will track down the failures of topoi at three different stages (pre-trial, trial, and deliberation) in our different legal regimes. Failing occurs in all proceedings in various modes and at different stages. We argue that those modes as well as the different stages at which they occur point at the spots in the respective procedures that allow for learning about the inherent conceptions of “good reasons.”     

Examining Sexual Violence in the Military Within the Context of Eritrean Asylum Claims Presented in Norway

Discussion of rape by soldiers as a form of persecution haslargely been directed towards the context of war or actual conflict.Nevertheless, there is a need for attention to be directed towardsthe phenomenon of rape within the military in the post-conflictperiod. This article discusses asylum claims presented in Norwayby Eritrean female soldiers claiming risk of persecution inthe form of sexual violence, rape, or torture within the military.First, presentation is made of the history of Eritrean women'sparticipation in the war of independence and the ensuing politicaland legislative gains won at the end of the war against Ethiopia.Review of Eritrea's report and responses to the Committee onthe Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) reveala state of backlash against women in the post-conflict period.Second, examination of how rape within the military and desertionmay fall under the criteria of the definition of a refugee accordingthe 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees is pursued. Comparisonis drawn to instances of rape of women soldiers in the US andIsrael, as well as sexual violence by United Nations Missionin Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) peacekeepers, revealing commonchallenges affecting prevention and protection strategies. Third,a comparative review is conducted of evidentiary standards inorder to highlight the importance of maintaining a flexibleapproach responsive to the special circumstances of sexual violence.The Norwegian practice indicated a tendency to provide protectionfor compassionate grounds or humanitarian protection, ratherthan asylum. This resulted in non-recognition of the legitimacyof claims based on gender related persecution as requiring legalprotection under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees.