Colonial apologies and the problem of the transgressor speaking

Can state apologies help reconciliation between former coloniser and colonised? Much of the literature on political apologies is optimistic regarding their potential to aid reconciliation. Even critical work frequently dispraises particular case studies, while maintaining a normative commitment to apology. Building on a growing postcolonial literature on the subject, this article contributes a more fundamental critique of colonial apology. It argues that its inherent structure entails a format that accords the politician of the transgressor state an elevated speaking position. This results in the ritual being predisposed to problematic representations of the colonised and sanitised narratives of the transgression. The argument is situated within Edward Said’s considerations on representation in the colonial process.     

The Scope of Serious Crime and Preventive Justice

I first offer an account of serious crime that goes beyond victimizing crimes committed by individuals against other individuals. This approach extends the well-known framework offered by von Hirsch and Jareborg to include crimes undermining welfare-producing institutions. I then consider how the seriousness of crime justifies preventive measures, including the criminalization of acts preparatory to the commission of serious crime. I shall defend preventive measures, including highly intrusive ones, for the most serious crimes, such as terrorism in the form of mass killing, but I shall take issue with very expansive conceptions of serious crime that include what are intuitively much less serious offenses than terrorism or murder. In England and Wales, the Serious Crime Act (2007) lists relevant types of serious crime in its Schedule 1. This and other pieces of serious crime legislation in the UK are discussed critically.     

The legitimacy of free trade agreements as tools of EU democracy promotion

This article questions whether the European Union (EU) strategy of using free trade agreements (FTAs) as tools of democracy promotion is, currently, normatively coherent and legitimate. It focuses on FTAs with proximate autocracies and makes four main claims. First, FTAs raise significant legitimacy concerns in that they can ordinarily be expected to generate both economic ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in the target country without democratic processes in place to legitimate these costs. Second, the EU risks empowering autocrats (rather than catalysing democratic transition) in the way it negotiates FTAs. Third, ‘leverage’ strategies of withholding or suspending cooperation as a result of violations of democratic and human rights norms are applied inconsistently by the EU, undermining leverage credibility. Fourth, the best-case impact of regulatory convergence with the EU acquis communautaire on the democratic character of sector-level policymaking is mixed: increased transparency and accountability can improve democratic credentials, while, paradoxically, increased stakeholder participation is normatively suspect in the absence of a democratic framework.     

VACCINES FOR ALL

In a world beset by the novel disease(COVID-19),never has global cooperation been so urgent.The world needs cooperation not only to combat the virus through medical support and assistance,but also in terms of distributing vaccines.     

The European Union in international environmental negotiations: a legal perspective on the internal decision-making process

From an EU point of view, most international environmental agreements are mixed. This means that both the European Community (EC) and its member states are party to the agreement. As the participation of the EC in international negotiations and agreements is properly arranged by the Treaty establishing the European Community, but the EU member states’ participation is not legally organized on the EU level, the internal decision-making process regarding mixed agreements is rather complicated. Insights into this process are needed to understand the representation and the role of the European Union in international environmental negotiations. This article clarifies the legal framework of the EU decision-making process regarding such negotiations.