Differences in female and male victims and perpetrators of partner violence with respect to WEB scores

Measurements of intimate partner violence (IPV) based on acts of violence have repeatedly found substantial bilateral violence between intimates. However, the context of this violence is not well defined by acts alone. The objective of this research was to compare differences in women and men within each IPV status category (victim, perpetrator, and both) with respect to levels of battering as defined by their scores on the Women's Experience With Battering Scale (WEB), which asks gender-neutral questions about the abuse of power and control and fear in an intimate relationship. In our study, women disclosed higher levels of battering on the WEB, despite IPV status (victimization or both victimization and perpetration). In addition, female IPV victims were 5 times more likely than their male counterparts to disclose high rates of battering on the WEB. Depressive symptoms, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, African American race, and IPV victimization were independently associated with higher WEB scores.     

Explaining the Disparity in Results Across Studies Assessing Racial Disparity in Police Use of Force: A Research Note

In the spring and summer of 2016, seven studies that examined the impact of subject race on police use of force were announced in the media and the paraphrased headlines ranged from “there is bias in the use of force,” “there is no bias in the use of force,” and “there is bias in some types of force, but not others.” The purpose of this research note is to examine these disparate findings and the methods that might explain them, with attention to sample characteristics, the types of analyses, the number and character of agencies studied, and how concepts are operationalized. This analysis will help research consumers analyze critically the results from race-and-force studies and, hopefully, add to our understanding of this important national issue.     

Evaluating the Child Abuse and Neglect Institute: Does Training Affect Decision‐Making?

Traditionally, training evaluations have focused on participants' satisfaction and self‐reported knowledge gain. The current study uses a different approach to evaluate the Child Abuse and Neglect Institute (CANI), a training program designed to educate judicial officers on best practices in child abuse and neglect cases. CANI participants were asked to review a case scenario and render decisions about the case before and after the trainings. Findings suggest CANI has several positive impacts on judicial decision‐making, including an increased willingness to engage the father, an increased focus on the child, and increased motivation to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act.     

Fair trade slippages and Vietnam gaps: the ideological fantasies of fair trade coffee

Fair trade coffee sales have boomed since the late 1980s, making it one of the most recognised forms of ‘ethical consumerism’ in the world. Around the same time exports of lower quality coffee beans from Vietnam also boomed, launching Vietnam from an insignificant coffee exporter to the world’s second largest with historically unprecedented speed. These disparate projects have had significant impacts on thousands of farmers – with Vietnam’s new class of coffee producers representing three and a half times the number of coffee families certified by fair trade. Northern actors, however, have given far more public and positive attention to fair trade. This article will argue that this difference does not stem from a strictly objective appraisal of the relative merits and shortcomings of each project, but from the compatibility of fair trade with ‘free trade’ and its emotionally charged ideological fantasies. This includes unconscious beliefs and desires around individualism, voluntarism, democracy and the affirmation of the exaggerated power of Northern consumers – as opposed to the Southern agency and complicated collective action implied by Vietnamese coffee statecraft.     

Prosecuting and Defending Diplomats as War Criminals: Ribbentrop at the Nuremberg Trials

This article considers the question of holding foreign ministers responsible for war crimes. A recent decision by the International Court of Justice, the Arrest Warrant case, Congo v Belgium, appears to have diluted the developing international customary rule that suspends immunity when a grave international crime has been committed. This article suggests that the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal decision in the Ribbentrop Case constitutes a precedent for how international criminal law should interpret the nature and scope of the immunity for foreign ministers. As a successful prosecution of Hitler’s former foreign minister, it is remarkable how little attention has been paid to this aspect of the Ribbentrop Case given that it was a path-breaking decision. For that reason, the present article is a case study of this example where prosecutors at an international criminal tribunal were able to successfully prosecute a foreign minister in a manner that may, therefore, still prove instructive given the existing legal position following the Arrest Warrant Case. The article considers in detail how Ribbentrop’s defence lawyers constructed a series of arguments that the prosecution were, however, largely able to demolish through resort to a variety of strategies. Dr Michael Salter is Professor of Law at the Lancashire Law School, University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom; Dr Lorie Charlesworth is Senior Lecturer at the Law School, Liverpool John Moores University, United Kingdom.     

Liverpool Law Review

Liverpool Law Review -