Transitional Justice in Peacebuilding: Dynamics of Contestation in the DRC

ABSTRACT

This article examines the place of transitional justice in peacebuilding by exploring how domestic and international actors frame this relationship and how this, in turn, moulds dynamics of contestation around transitional justice. In the transitional justice literature, contestation is usually framed around an international–domestic dichotomy: transitional justice agendas promoted by external actors confront strategies of instrumental adaptation of transitional justice by domestic elites and the adoption of alternative transitional justice approaches by local actors. Based on an analysis of transitional justice policy-making in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), this paper proposes that a more multifaceted reading of contestation to transitional justice is needed. In the DRC, both external and domestic actors variously acted as transitional justice promoters and resisters, and their positioning on transitional justice was strongly conditioned by their broader understandings of the nature of the conflict and transitional justice’s role in peacebuilding. It is therefore suggested that contestation of transitional justice does not necessarily reflect a rejection of international approaches to justice, but instead more broadly expresses a lack of agreement on what transitional justice is and what its goals are. The article thus contributes to a broader interrogation of how discourses about the meaning of transitional justice are constructed in practice.     

Norm dynamics and international organisations: South Africa in the African Union and International Criminal Court

Over the past two decades, South Africa has sought to perform several roles on the world stage, such as the economic dynamo of Southern Africa, a diplomatic heavyweight representing the African continent, and a norm leader on the world stage as a so-called ‘middle-power’. Although South Africa's evolution and rise as an important player in global affairs has generated a welcome body of critical scholarly literature, comparatively little analysis has been allocated to understanding how norm dynamics and the country's ever-evolving international identities have enabled it to construct and reconstruct its ‘interests’. Social constructivism is best suited for such an analysis because it can operationalise norms, commitments, identities, and interests, and it provides the epistemological tools to map the increasingly multilateral connections between global, regional, and domestic forums. By employing a rationalist approach to constructivism, this paper remedies the aforementioned gap in the literature by illustrating how South Africa constructs and reconstructs its identities and interests in relation to membership in international organisations (IOs). To that end, the paper examines the evolution of South Africa's participation in the African Union (especially ‘peacekeeping’ contributions) and the International Criminal Court. The paper concludes by assessing the theoretical implications and practical ramifications of the norm dynamics involved in South Africa's commitment to these two IOs.     

论打防"两抢"犯罪中的队所协作机制

打防"两抢"犯罪的三个难点以及队所的职责分工,决定了队所之间必须加强协作.公安机关在队所协作机制建设方面已经取得了部分成功经验,但是也还面临着一些问题.公安机关要以打防"两抢"犯罪为契机,以有效遏制"两抢"犯罪发案势头和减少"两抢"犯罪为目标,逐步完善队所协作机制.     

论侦查文书中犯罪事实的写作

犯罪事实的写作作为公安机关侦查文书的重要组成部分,应严格按照犯罪构成要件简明扼要叙述,做到条理清楚,层次分明,语言规范,尽量使用法律术语。     

权利行使与财产罪的辨析

对采取非法手段救济自己权利的行为,究竟应如何予以认定,无论是国外的理论界还是国内的刑法学界都存在不同的观点,而在相异观点的背后,又各自体现了不同的价值取向和选择。基于刑法机能二元论,在对行使权利行为分析考察时,应放在人权保障与社会保护的框架下,既要体现出维护社会秩序、保护国家安全的精神,还要体现出保障公民权利的取向。     

刍议我国罚金刑之完善

为适应和谐社会发展目标和宽严相济刑事政策的需要,我国罚金刑应进行如下完善:适用范围应进一步扩大;适用方式应进一步改变;数额规定应进一步明确;执行方式应进一步拓展。     

“律师辩护全覆盖”背景下限制自行辩护权问题研究——欧洲人权法院的实践及启示

被追诉人自行辩护权并不是绝对的,欧洲人权法院在判例中表明了基于公正审判的需要,应对被追诉人自行辩护权做出限制的立场。限制被追诉人自行辩护权应有相关且充分的理由,需考察案件具体情况以及成员国国内辩护环境。被追诉人自行辩护的,应当保障被追诉人发表辩护意见的自由;律师辩护的,应当为被追诉人保留充分的自主辩护空间。在刑事案件律师辩护全覆盖试点工作的开展中,应对被追诉人自行辩护权进行合理限制。法院履行通知辩护义务应以公正审判利益为决定性因素、以被追诉人个人意愿为重要参考因素,并确保被追诉人选择自行辩护的自愿性和明确性。即使被追诉人要求自行辩护,也应以有律师辩护为原则,以被追诉人自行辩护为例外。     

“排除合理怀疑”与我国刑事诉讼证明标准的完善

《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法修正案(草案)》第16条引入了"排除合理怀疑"的表述,意味着"排除合理怀疑"很可能会成为我国刑事诉讼证明标准的一部分。本文梳理了英美法系国家排除合理怀疑标准的起源与发展,分析了排除合理怀疑的基本特征与内在要求,并结合我国司法实际探讨了排除合理怀疑证明标准的引入与我国刑事诉讼证明标准完善等重要问题。     

Comments on Doug Husak: The Low Cost of Recognizing (and of Ignoring) the Limited Relevance of Intentions to Permissibility

Doug Husak frames a worry that makes sense in the abstract, but in reality, there is not much to worry about. The thesis that intentions are irrelevant to permissibility (IIP) is a straw man. There are reasons to think that the moral significance of intentions is not properly registered in criminal law. But the moral basis for criticism is not nearly as extreme as the IIP, and the fixes are not that hard to make. Lastly, if they are not made, some people may not get the punishments they deserve, and there will be some extra inequities in the criminal law as a result. But these inequities are not so great that change must be made now. The moral categories that are used may be too crude, but they are also familiar and easy to work with, and that counts for something.

Grading Arson

Criminalizing arson is both easy and hard. On the substantive merits, the conduct of damaging property by fire uncontroversially warrants criminal sanction. Indeed, punishment for such conduct is overdetermined, as the conduct threatens multiple harms of concern to the criminal law: both damage to property and injury to people. Yet the same multiplicity of harms or threats that makes it easy to criminalize “arson” (in the sense of deciding to proscribe the underlying behavior) also makes it hard to criminalize “arson” (in the sense of formulating the offense(s) that will address that behavior). This article asks whether adopting one or more arson offenses is the best way for criminal law to address the conduct in question, or whether that conduct is more properly conceptualized, criminalized, and punished as multiple distinct offenses.