Pub Date : 2005-05-03DOI: 10.4324/9780203790878-10
A. Zahar, Susan Rohol
A commentary on the ICTR's achievements and shortcomings, together with a critical review of the main scholarly writings on the institution.
对卢旺达问题国际法庭的成就和缺点进行评论，并对有关该机构的主要学术著作进行批判性审查。
{"title":"The United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)","authors":"A. Zahar, Susan Rohol","doi":"10.4324/9780203790878-10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203790878-10","url":null,"abstract":"A commentary on the ICTR's achievements and shortcomings, together with a critical review of the main scholarly writings on the institution.","PeriodicalId":202713,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Legal Issues (Topic)","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132732539","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What impact are US policies having on the fabric of international human rights law in the wake of September 11? This paper examines this question from three largely independent angles. First, US policies embody discrimination against non-citizens and between non-citizens, which is pushing international law to clarify the rights of non-citizens and the relationship between such discrimination and discrimination based on race, nationality and religion. Second, in assessing the impact of US policies, we must consider not only the actions of the United States but also the reactions of the rest of the world. When we broaden our focus in this way, interesting divisions emerge both between states and within states, which are relevant to the formation of customary international human rights law. Finally, the premise that the international terrorist threat is `novel` has been used by the United States to justify picking and choosing between existing laws and to claim that there are legal vacuums in international law. This raises questions about the validity of taking an a la carte approach to international law and whether there are ways to protect against similar legal vacuums arising in the future.
{"title":"Righting Wrongs or Wronging Rights? The United States and Human Rights Post-September 11","authors":"Anthea Roberts","doi":"10.1093/EJIL/15.4.721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/EJIL/15.4.721","url":null,"abstract":"What impact are US policies having on the fabric of international human rights law in the wake of September 11? This paper examines this question from three largely independent angles. First, US policies embody discrimination against non-citizens and between non-citizens, which is pushing international law to clarify the rights of non-citizens and the relationship between such discrimination and discrimination based on race, nationality and religion. Second, in assessing the impact of US policies, we must consider not only the actions of the United States but also the reactions of the rest of the world. When we broaden our focus in this way, interesting divisions emerge both between states and within states, which are relevant to the formation of customary international human rights law. Finally, the premise that the international terrorist threat is `novel` has been used by the United States to justify picking and choosing between existing laws and to claim that there are legal vacuums in international law. This raises questions about the validity of taking an a la carte approach to international law and whether there are ways to protect against similar legal vacuums arising in the future.","PeriodicalId":202713,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Legal Issues (Topic)","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116859142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nowhere else is the evolution of pluralism more accelerated than in the legal transformations brought about by assembling and managing empires. Whether Roman, Ottoman or English, Empires have been veritable engines of mixed and plural laws. This essay will suggest that mixed legal systems have been with us since antiquity and have been continually generated in conditions of increased social contact, commerce and communication between peoples. The incubation of mixed systems within empires suggests that legal mixing is unavoidable (and maintaining original purity unsustainable) when there is sufficient social and intellectual connection between peoples who fall under the same imperial sovereign. Different variables affect the speed and thoroughness of integration, for instance the social distance between cultures and civilizations, the prestige and rational appeal of the imperial law, and imperial policies which promote assimilation or seek to maintain separate laws for different peoples. Furthermore empires have distinctive purposes and devise distinctive strategies toward foreign laws. The Roman and Ottoman Empires clearly had different purposes and strategies and such differences have contributed to two forms of pluralism we find in the modern world.
{"title":"Empires as Engines of Mixed Legal Systems","authors":"V. Palmer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3020404","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3020404","url":null,"abstract":"Nowhere else is the evolution of pluralism more accelerated than in the legal transformations brought about by assembling and managing empires. Whether Roman, Ottoman or English, Empires have been veritable engines of mixed and plural laws. This essay will suggest that mixed legal systems have been with us since antiquity and have been continually generated in conditions of increased social contact, commerce and communication between peoples. The incubation of mixed systems within empires suggests that legal mixing is unavoidable (and maintaining original purity unsustainable) when there is sufficient social and intellectual connection between peoples who fall under the same imperial sovereign. Different variables affect the speed and thoroughness of integration, for instance the social distance between cultures and civilizations, the prestige and rational appeal of the imperial law, and imperial policies which promote assimilation or seek to maintain separate laws for different peoples. Furthermore empires have distinctive purposes and devise distinctive strategies toward foreign laws. The Roman and Ottoman Empires clearly had different purposes and strategies and such differences have contributed to two forms of pluralism we find in the modern world.","PeriodicalId":202713,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Legal Issues (Topic)","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124469557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：