The power of international criminal courts: Strategic behavior and accountability networks

International criminal courts are often given mandates without the authority or resources to enforce those directives. Given this, how do they achieve their objectives? We argue that in the case of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the court strategically developed an accountability network comprised of governmental and nongovernmental actors, using its expertise and position to provide information and a framework of accountability. Simultaneously, it reached out to a range of actors to ensure that governments and international organizations would push Balkan states to cooperate with the ICTY, thereby amplifying the court's power. Utilizing correspondence data, we create a unique dataset that traces the development of this accountability network, demonstrating how this institution engaged networks to pursue its goals. In general, we demonstrate that, although institutions may lack compulsory power, they can engage in strategic behavior using networks to project their productive power.     

Social science research and experimentation in Australian criminal proceedings: prejudicial pre-trial publicity and psychological research

Using the decision of Barr J in Attorney-General (NSW) v John Fairfax Publications [1999] NSWSC 318, the authors analyse the need for external validity and relevance in social science evidence adduced in the courts. They argue in favour of the rigour employed within Barr J's judgment and contend that a constructive legacy of the decision should be a greater sensitisation on the part of researchers to the kinds of factors that can distance experimental scenarios from curial contexts to a point where generalisations from the former become strained and even spurious. A number of these considerations have the potential to be addressed to a significant extent by improved methodologies. However, the authors warn against an excess of purist fervour in demanding complete comparability of scenarios, lest the fruits of social science be denied to the courts and decision-making be adversely affected by the absence of expert insights falling short of complete replication of conditions between experiments and forensic reality.     

Police accountability: The situation of complaints in Toronto

Crime, Law and Social Change -     

Will the law come running? The potential role of "brain fingerprinting" in crime investigation and adjudication in Australia

A major feature of the Australian criminal justice system is that jurors assess witness credibility and are the ultimate finders of fact. Recognising the occasional fallibility of humans in detecting truth and deception, the jury's function may be assisted by highly regulated expert evidence about a variety of scientific techniques. A recent scientific development has been the invention of "brain fingerprinting" (BF) by Dr Larry Farwell in the United States. Brain fingerprinting measures brainwave functioning to detect awareness of crime-relevant information in order to distinguish between guilty and innocent suspects. This article considers whether BF could be used for crime investigation and adjudication in Australia. By examining the rules of expert evidence and the principles relating to "novel scientific evidence", the admissibility of BF in the various Australian jurisdictions is evaluated. The utility of BF in criminal investigations and counter-terrorism initiatives is also canvassed. The authors conclude that, at the present time, it is unlikely that expert testimony on BF will be admitted in Australian criminal trials. However, the technique potentially offers other benefits to the criminal justice system, thereby warranting its consideration as a "criminal and investigative tool of the future".