skip to Main Content

Book Review: Cipriani’s Children’s Rights and the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

This install­ment in our ongo­ing series of book reviews looks at Children’s Rights and the Min­i­mum Age of Crim­i­nal Respon­si­bil­i­ty by Don Cipri­ani. Michael Gigante’s review takes a crit­i­cal eye towards the argu­ments Cipri­ani advances in favor of requir­ing all nations to estab­lish a min­i­mum age of crim­i­nal responsibility.

By Michael V. Gigante

Children’s Rights and the Minimum Age of Criminal ResponsibilityIdeas about the prop­er role of crim­i­nal respon­si­bil­i­ty in juve­nile jus­tice tend to fall along a wel­fare-jus­tice con­tin­u­um. The wel­fare approach, promi­nent at the birth of the mod­ern notion of a juve­nile jus­tice sys­tem, essen­tial­ly dis­missed the notions of com­pe­tence and crim­i­nal respon­si­bil­i­ty for chil­dren. State author­i­ties inter­vened to make benev­o­lent deci­sions on behalf of chil­dren, who were por­trayed as objects with­out lib­er­ty rights. On the oth­er end of the con­tin­u­um, the jus­tice approach—towards which clear shifts have occurred in recent decades—places crim­i­nal respon­si­bil­i­ty and children’s alleged com­pe­tence at the cen­ter of juve­nile jus­tice. Account­abil­i­ty, due process, and pun­ish­ment are the foun­da­tions of this approach. In Children’s Rights and the Min­i­mum Age of Crim­i­nal Respon­si­bil­i­ty: A Glob­al Per­spec­tive, Don Cipri­ani points out the flaws of both these approach­es and describes the mer­its of a children’s rights approach as a way to medi­ate between the ten­sions of the wel­fare and jus­tice approaches.

Read More

The International Relations Value of Criminal Tribunals

By Gra­ham Dumas, (J.D. Can­di­date 2011)

Much has been made in recent(ish) lit­er­a­ture about the defects of crim­i­nal tri­bunals in post-con­flict soci­eties. Mul­ti­ple authors over the past decade have right­ly not­ed that such fora have dubi­ous pos­i­tive effects on the tran­si­tion­al jus­tice process when viewed inter­nal­ly: tri­bunals fail to deter war crim­i­nals either because the chances of pros­e­cu­tion are very low, or because offend­ers act with­in the con­text of over­whelm­ing social stress, often believ­ing they are work­ing for the greater good of soci­ety; as a mea­sure of ret­ribu­tive jus­tice, tri­bunals fail because the vast major­i­ty of per­pe­tra­tors go unpun­ished; tri­als may upset the del­i­cate bal­ance of peace and con­cil­i­a­tion, which in the end is the bedrock of ongo­ing sta­bil­i­ty in post-con­flict soci­eties. The list is long, and the points are large­ly valid.

Read More

Book Review: Clarke’s Fictions of Justice

This edi­tion of our ongo­ing series of book reviews offers a crit­i­cal but ulti­mate­ly pos­i­tive take on Kamari Max­ine Clarke’s Fic­tions of Jus­tice: The Inter­na­tion­al Crim­i­nal Court and the  Chal­lenge of Legal Plu­ral­ism in Sub-Saha­ran Africa. This book review is par­tic­u­lar­ly time­ly, as the recent ECCC ver­dict in the “Duch” tri­al reminds us of that court’s land­mark deci­sion ear­li­er this sum­mer, which reject­ed one con­tro­ver­sial form of “joint crim­i­nal enter­prise” lia­bil­i­ty.  Kel­ly Geoghegan’s review, pub­lished in issue no. 42:3 of JILP, takes the oppor­tu­ni­ty to lev­el her own crit­i­cism, or skep­ti­cism, at JCE theory.

By Kel­ly Geoghegan

Fic­tions of Jus­tice is Kamari Max­ine Clarke’s search­ing anthro­po­log­i­cal cri­tique of both the inter­na­tion­al rule of law move­ment and its flag­ship tri­bunal, the Inter­na­tion­al Crim­i­nal Court (ICC). Clarke explores the unspo­ken assump­tions, or “fic­tions,” that under­lie this move­ment, show­ing that these assump­tions priv­i­lege West­ern ideas of jus­tice over African ones and obscure the post-colo­nial eco­nom­ic forces behind Africa’s tur­moil. Ulti­mate­ly, Fic­tions of Jus­tice is an anthro­po­log­i­cal work, not a legal text. Still, the book has potent insights to offer legal prac­ti­tion­ers, par­tic­u­lar­ly activists work­ing “on behalf of vic­tims” to achieve “uni­ver­sal” ideals of justice.

Read More

Announcing Jerome A. Cohen Prize in International Law & East Asia

Sub­mis­sion Dead­line: 24 Sep­tem­ber 2010

In hon­or of Pro­fes­sor Jerome A. Cohen, who turns 80 on July 1, the New York Uni­ver­si­ty Jour­nal of Inter­na­tion­al Law and Pol­i­tics is seek­ing papers address­ing the inter­ac­tion between the inter­na­tion­al legal sys­tem and Chi­nese and East Asian law and legal thought.   East Asia’s dis­tinc­tive insti­tu­tions and legal sys­tems con­tin­ue to engage in a thought-pro­vok­ing con­ver­sa­tion with the glob­al legal order, one that chal­lenges tra­di­tion­al assump­tions about inter­na­tion­al law.  Such inter­ac­tion shows signs of effect­ing trans­for­ma­tive changes both with­in domes­tic sys­tems and at the inter­na­tion­al lev­el.  With the Jerome A. Cohen Prize, the Jour­nal of Inter­na­tion­al Law and Pol­i­tics will hon­or a nov­el con­tri­bu­tion to this grow­ing body of schol­ar­ship.  Papers may focus on any sub­stan­tive dis­ci­pline, although spe­cial con­sid­er­a­tion will be giv­en to work relat­ing to the sub­ject areas cur­rent­ly taught by Pro­fes­sor Cohen: crim­i­nal jus­tice, for­eign invest­ment law, and the role of Chi­nese legal thought in inter­na­tion­al law.

Read More
Back To Top
Search

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 67108864 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 262135 bytes) in /home/content/96/9094696/html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 435