Suchergebnisse

This case study focuses on a 2008 incident where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) vans appeared near a K-5 elementary school. It was the first time school personnel experienced the impact of federal immigration agents policing illegality in their school community, and the event set off a chain of decision-making choices as to how personnel would respond. This article specifically explores how educators' roles within a school shaped their access to information and subsequent sensemaking about ICE, asking two questions: (a) How does one's position within a school shape a person's sensemaking if a situation necessitates in-the-moment policy making? and (b) How might prior knowledge and professional position affect the information one accesses, shares, and uses in the policy-making process? Evidence comes from interviews with 14 personnel who reflected on the event, and shows that Aurora staff quickly established a policy and protocol within a few days to keep the school environment a safe space. The findings demonstrate that the school principal was a key "sensemaker" for other personnel. Ultimately, the school created its first school policy and protocol to ensure the school was a safe space for undocumented students, fusing a familiar school policy with new policy.

Now in its third edition, this textbook provides an accessible and up-to-date examination of international humanitarian law, with relevant cases, examples, and discussion questions. It offers students and teachers a comprehensive and logical discussion and analysis of the law, and the developing trends in theory and practice of the law.

AbstractA recent report by the Australian Defence Force arrived at a conclusion that further investigation was not warranted of commanders regarding their responsibility for failing to investigate suspicious behaviour of subordinates in Afghanistan, who were accused of violations of international humanitarian law. This troubling conclusion calls for a better analysis and understanding of command responsibility in international law and gaps in the law of command responsibility. This article identifies the conflicting precedents and scholarship regarding the law of command responsibility, which create uncertainty, and proposes a clarification of that law, with a special focus on the "reason to know" standard that triggers responsibility for failing to prevent or punish war crimes. It refutes the popular claim that commanders must act wilfully, and it rejects the common dichotomy between a commander who orders or otherwise directly participates in the war crimes of subordinates and one who unwittingly fails to prevent or punish such crimes. Using the empirical psychological literature, the article further explains how commanders can insidiously signal toleration of war crimes without giving direct orders. Finally, the article argues that international law, by absolving commanders who fail to properly train their subordinates to respect the law of armed conflict, misses a rare opportunity to deter war crimes, and offers some suggestions to fill this gap in the law.