Canada's criminal justice system (CJS) is plagued with issues from the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples to annual expenditures totalling billions of dollars. To alleviate these problems, there has been a push to reform the CJS to better suit its objective to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders, such as diversionary courts, increased use of community supervision, and culturally-specific programming. However, reformist movements are not doing enough to push the boundaries of criminal justice reform. Crafting policy solutions, which remain within the scope of the current carceral landscape, stifles all discourse that calls for fundamental change. Incrementally reforming the CJS forces public policy to tweak problematic aspects of the model but does not challenge the overall societal and political purpose of the justice system. Ultimately, the reformist approach to the CJS maintains the status quo, which disproportionally harms Inuit, Métis and First Nations people who have historically been over-represented in the CJS. This is because the CJS is deeply rooted in colonialism and serves as a mechanism for the continued subjugation and oppression of Indigenous peoples. Reforming the justice system to become more culturally competent for Indigenous peoples is merely a façade to prevent questions of state sovereignty, legitimacy, and Canada's colonial origins. True reform calls for the decolonization of the CJS. In this paper, to achieve the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Call to Action No. 42 (i.e., the recognition and implementation of Indigenous justice systems), it will require both analysis and discussion of Canada's past, present and future.
Reparations are often held up in transitional justice as a 'victim-centred' means of dealing with the past. Yet transitional justice has often been criticised for side-lining victims in peace negotiations or for other actors appropriating their voices for their own political ends. As a result, reparations in transitional societies can often be 'transactional', an exchange for concessions made to perpetrators, such as amnesties, or as 'blood money' for victims to forego pursuing accountability. This article explores how the political construction of reparations in transitional justice can come into conflict with more international law understandings of reparations as justice. As such this article argues that reparations in transitional justice have to be better conceptualised as in balancing competing political and legal claims, as well as engage with emerging debates on transformative justice
The richest compilation to date of essays in the political theory of European integration has just landed with a thud, and is bound to reverberate for some time in the sleek corridors of Brussels and the wood-paneled seminar rooms of Bruges. Edited by Kochenov, de Búrca, and Williams, Europe's Justice Deficit? is more than an attempt to initiate a discussion about the questions of justice prompted by European integration. With thirty contributions by leading scholars of law, history, political science and philosophy, not much worth noting on this seemingly boundless subject is left unsaid. .
Keynote of the publications is an expression of the British politician, William Ewart Gladstone, (1809-1898) "Justice delayed is justice denied". Effectiveness of fair legal process in Latvia is rather questionable, because the number of suspen- ded hearings in comparison with the number of designated hearings is still high, thereby the court proceedings may continue for years. Settlement of this question often lies not so much in the impro- vement of legislative and normative acts or in adjustment of procedural issues, as in the attitude and legal consciousness of all involved parties. Moreover, the prestige of judiciary and courts in the society depend not only how well- considered and fairly are their decisions, rulings, judgements etc., but also how effective is the work of courts at all. By significant reducing of length of court proceedings, it is necessary to achieve confidence for the people that courts are independent and work to judge a fair justice in a reasonable time. In the publication are expressed opinions on the necessity to adjust the existing legislation with the purpose to minimize the time required for adjudication of various categories of cases.
Studie se zabývá vztahy legalismu (zákona) a justice (práva) v teoretické i aplikativní rovině. Autor navazuje na text analyzující terminologickou disparátnost relace v anglojazyčné oblasti (viz POSPÍŠIL, L. "Law" equals "ius" and "lex": The Major Problem of Anglo-Saxon Theories of Law, Studia Ethnologica Pragensia, 2012, 1, pp. 21–28.) a pojednává o problematice v širších kulturních souvislostech. L. Pospíšil soudí, že právo reflektuje sociální strukturu každé společnosti, která prostřednictvím příslušných pravidel (zákonů) realizuje sociální kontrolu. Právní pravidla byla (jsou) v obecné rovině vnímána jako doporučení ovliňující právní rozhodování příslušných orgánů, vykonavatelů státní moci (viz právní systémy Číny, Mezopotamie, Egypta, Řecka, Atétů, Inků atd.). Ve společnostech budovaných na demokratických principech se zohledňovala (zohledňuje) zásada "rovnosti před zákonem", zatímco v autokratických (diktátorských) politických systémech byla (jsou) právní rozhodnutí činěna především v souladů se zájmy reprezentantů moci.
Studie se zabývá vztahy legalismu (zákona) a justice (práva) v teoretické i aplikativní rovině. Autor navazuje na text analyzující terminologickou disparátnost relace v anglojazyčné oblasti (viz POSPÍŠIL, L. "Law" equals "ius" and "lex": The Major Problem of Anglo-Saxon Theories of Law, Studia Ethnologica Pragensia, 2012, 1, pp. 21–28.) a pojednává o problematice v širších kulturních souvislostech. L. Pospíšil soudí, že právo reflektuje sociální strukturu každé společnosti, která prostřednictvím příslušných pravidel (zákonů) realizuje sociální kontrolu. Právní pravidla byla (jsou) v obecné rovině vnímána jako doporučení ovliňující právní rozhodování příslušných orgánů, vykonavatelů státní moci (viz právní systémy Číny, Mezopotamie, Egypta, Řecka, Atétů, Inků atd.). Ve společnostech budovaných na demokratických principech se zohledňovala (zohledňuje) zásada "rovnosti před zákonem", zatímco v autokratických (diktátorských) politických systémech byla (jsou) právní rozhodnutí činěna především v souladů se zájmy reprezentantů moci. ; 11 ; 26
International audience ; Today, the apparent consensual notion of « proximity justice » (neighbourhood justice) covers many meanings. This paper aims to specify its scope,through the analysis of the activities of the « houses of justice » located in the Rhône department. The survey of the usages and practices of both thetreatment of petty crime and access to law leads to the acknowledgement of the relatively limited scope of geographical proximity. In the same way,human proximity tends to give way to the rise of temporal proximity. Interestingly, the effect of the identity concerns of the judicial institution in fact meets the expectations of the various local actors. The latter seem justice which has been developed to deal with the spécifie problems of some neighbourhoods —, the moving closer of a non-specific judicial institution faithful to its true nature, with its conséquences on both the instrumental and symbolic level. ; Sous des dehors très consensuels, la notion de « justice de proximité » recouvre aujourd'hui des contenus multiples. L'article se donne pour objectif de contribuer à en préciser la portée, à partir de l'analyse de l'activité des maisons de justice du Rhône. Qu'il s'agisse du traitement de la petitedélinquance ou de l'accès au droit, l'observation des pratiques conduit à relativiser l'ampleur d'une proximité géographique. De même, la proximité humaine a tendance à s'effacer, au profit de l'avènement d'une proximité temporelle. Cet effet des préoccupations identitaires de l'institutionjudiciaire rencontre en réalité — et c'est ce qui apparaît intéressant — les attentes des différents acteurs locaux. Ceux-ci semblent en effet valoriser, au moins autant que la justice de proximité, justice différente venue traiter les problèmes spécifiques de certains quartiers, la proximité de la justice,rapprochement d'une justice identique à elle-même, avec ses conséquences sur le plan tant symbolique qu'instrumental.
There is broad recognition, across the political spectrum and in both 'northern' and 'southern' countries, that justice reform, and more generally the promotion of the 'rule of law', are central to development policy, particularly in conflict-affected, fragile and violent contexts. More recently an increased focus on global security and the interaction between security and development as put a renewed emphasis on such efforts. However, while legal, regulatory and 'justice' institutions are now seen as key part of the 'solution' to problems of conflict, fragility and development, this recognition is not matched by a correspondingly clear sense of what should be done, how it should be done, by whom, in what order, or how 'success' may be determined. There often tends to be a clear misunderstanding of both the nature of the problem and (thus) of the solution. In this paper, the author seek to provide some insight into these questions and sketch out a practical conception of effective justice reform in situations of conflict and fragility that may provide the basis for effective programming.
International audience Today, the apparent consensual notion of « proximity justice » (neighbourhood justice) covers many meanings. This paper aims to specify its scope,through the analysis of the activities of the « houses of justice » located in the Rhône department. The survey of the usages and practices of both thetreatment of petty crime and access to law leads to the acknowledgement of the relatively limited scope of geographical proximity. In the same way,human proximity tends to give way to the rise of temporal proximity. Interestingly, the effect of the identity concerns of the judicial institution in fact meets the expectations of the various local actors. The latter seem justice which has been developed to deal with the spécifie problems of some neighbourhoods —, the moving closer of a non-specific judicial institution faithful to its true nature, with its conséquences on both the instrumental and symbolic level. ; Sous des dehors très consensuels, la notion de « justice de proximité » recouvre aujourd'hui des contenus multiples. L'article se donne pour objectif de contribuer à en préciser la portée, à partir de l'analyse de l'activité des maisons de justice du Rhône. Qu'il s'agisse du traitement de la petitedélinquance ou de l'accès au droit, l'observation des pratiques conduit à relativiser l'ampleur d'une proximité géographique. De même, la proximité humaine a tendance à s'effacer, au profit de l'avènement d'une proximité temporelle. Cet effet des préoccupations identitaires de l'institutionjudiciaire rencontre en réalité — et c'est ce qui apparaît intéressant — les attentes des différents acteurs locaux. Ceux-ci semblent en effet valoriser, au moins autant que la justice de proximité, justice différente venue traiter les problèmes spécifiques de certains quartiers, la proximité de la justice,rapprochement d'une justice identique à elle-même, avec ses conséquences sur le plan tant symbolique qu'instrumental.
I would like the thank R. Sefton-Green, H. Muir Watt, N. Reich, T. Roethe, C. Torp, G. Miller, K. Purnhagen for extremely helpful comments and B. Schüller not only for his support in my research, but also for interesting discussions over a couple of months. The responsibility for all errors and misconceptions, however, remains mine. ; During the C20th, the Member States of the European Union developed their own models of social justice in private law. Each model is inherently linked to national culture and tradition. However, all models have a common thread, which is the use of the law by the (social welfare) state as a means to protect the weaker party against the stronger party. Since the adoption of the Single European Act in 1986, the European Union has assumed a social outlook which has gradually developed over time eventually taking shape in the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Since the adoption of the SEA, more particularly the White Paper on the Completion of the Internal Market,[1] the European Union adopted a huge set of secondary law means which influence either directly (consumer, labour, anti-discrimination and business law directives) or indirectly (directives meant to liberalise markets, e.g. telecommunication, postal services, energy - electricity and gas, transport, health care) private law matters. This new regulatory private law is governed by a different philosophy, one which cannot be brought into line with the understanding of social justice as enshrined in labour or later the consumer movement and one which is challenging national models of social justice in private law. I call the EU model of justice access justice/Zugangsgerechtigkeit (justice through access, not access to justice), i.e. that it is for the European Union to grant access justice to those who are excluded from the market or to those who face difficulties in making use of the market freedoms. European private law rules have to make sure that the weaker parties have and maintain access to the market - and to the European society insofar as this exists. ; 1. How the Argument Goes . 1 2. The Socio-Economic and Political Background of Social Justice (in Private Law) in France, Germany and England . 3 2.1. The English Model – A Liberal and Pragmatic Design Fit for Commercial Use . 4 2.1.1. English Pragmatism and Two Explanatory Hypotheses . 4 2.1.2. The Gradual Intrusion of Social Justice into Labour and Consumer Law . 7 2.2. The French Model – A Forward Looking Political Design of a (Just) Society. 8 2.2.1. The Political Conception – A Tentative Explanation. 9 2.2.2. Politicising Private Law as Social Law. 9 3.3. The German Model – An Authoritarian Paternalistic-Ideological though Market Orientated Design . 11 3.3.1. Ideological Paternalism and Market Pragmatism. 11 3.3.2. Authoritarian Liberalism and the Rise of Labour Law and Consumer Law . 12 4. The European Integration Process and the European Model of Justice. 13 4.1. The Evolving Character of the European Legal Order and the Rise of 'The Social'. 14 4.2. The Impact of the European Integration Process on Labour and Anti-Discrimination Law. 15 4.2.1. Labour Law and Anti-Discrimination Law . 15 4.2.2. Consumer Law . 19 5. The European Model on Access Justice . 21 5.1. Social Distribute, Access Justice and Allocative Libertarian Justice. 21 5.2. The Two Constitute Elements: Access Rights and Anti-Discrimination Rights. 23 5.2.1. Specific Access Rights in Labour, Anti-Discrimination and Consumer Law. 24 5.2.2. The Horizontal Dimension of Anti-Discrimination . 26 Bibliography. 28
The movement of people across borders is one of the most pressing issues of our time. Yet it is still unclear how migration should be regulated to be fair to the sending societies, the host societies and the individual migrant. What is at issue? Are we discussing migration from an ethical or from a political philosophical perspective, or both? Are we discussing migration from a global justice perspective or social justice perspective? Do we consider political legitimacy and democratic self-determination as part of our analysis? How should we balance demands of justice in immigration compared to those of emigration?
« La première règle de la politique ? C'est d'être juste. La seconde ? C'est d'être juste. Et la troisième ? C'est encore d'être juste. » Voilà ce qu'écrivait le Marquis de Condorcet en 1777. Mais qu'est-ce qu'une politique juste, une société juste ? Qu'est-ce que la justice sociale ? Ces questions habitent la philosophie politique depuis des siècles. Le terme « justice » recouvre, dans le monde occidental au moins, deux concepts liés mais néanmoins très différents que sont la justice légale, d'une part, et la justice sociale, d'autre part. Le premier désigne une institution concrète – le pouvoir judiciaire – et des normes positives. Le second renvoie à un idéal normatif pour la société (nationale ou internationale). C'est à ce second sens du terme « justice » que s'intéresse cet article, à cette idée de justice qui réside au cœur de nombreuses luttes sociales et débats démocratiques. Tantôt invoquée pour lutter contre les discriminations, tantôt pour condamner les inégalités, tantôt pour s'opposer à des taux d'imposition jugés confiscatoires, la notion de justice (ou d'équité) est à la fois incontournable et susceptible des interprétations les plus diverses. Cet article propose un parcours entre différentes grandes familles de théories de la justice (libertarisme, marxisme, utilitarisme, égalitarisme, suffisantisme, féminisme, communautarisme) et aborde quelques-unes des principales questions qui ont animé les débats récents sur le sujet, comme la tension entre reconnaissance et redistribution, la nature des principes de justice, ou encore l'articulation entre justice sociale et éthique personnelle.
« La première règle de la politique ? C'est d'être juste. La seconde ? C'est d'être juste. Et la troisième ? C'est encore d'être juste. » Voilà ce qu'écrivait le Marquis de Condorcet en 1777. Mais qu'est-ce qu'une politique juste, une société juste ? Qu'est-ce que la justice sociale ? Ces questions habitent la philosophie politique depuis des siècles. Le terme « justice » recouvre, dans le monde occidental au moins, deux concepts liés mais néanmoins très différents que sont la justice légale, d'une part, et la justice sociale, d'autre part. Le premier désigne une institution concrète – le pouvoir judiciaire – et des normes positives. Le second renvoie à un idéal normatif pour la société (nationale ou internationale). C'est à ce second sens du terme « justice » que s'intéresse cet article, à cette idée de justice qui réside au cœur de nombreuses luttes sociales et débats démocratiques. Tantôt invoquée pour lutter contre les discriminations, tantôt pour condamner les inégalités, tantôt pour s'opposer à des taux d'imposition jugés confiscatoires, la notion de justice (ou d'équité) est à la fois incontournable et susceptible des interprétations les plus diverses. Cet article propose un parcours entre différentes grandes familles de théories de la justice (libertarisme, marxisme, utilitarisme, égalitarisme, suffisantisme, féminisme, communautarisme) et aborde quelques-unes des principales questions qui ont animé les débats récents sur le sujet, comme la tension entre reconnaissance et redistribution, la nature des principes de justice, ou encore l'articulation entre justice sociale et éthique personnelle.
International audience ; Post-civil war justice processes are quite controversial. Some think that transitional justice is a political justice led by the perpetrators. These observers request the intervention of an impartial third party, the defense of the accused as well as the protection of the victim. Many others welcome a new restorative justice that is deemed to give a central role to the victims, to promote the healing of people and the reconstruction of war-torn societies. Civil conflicts undoubtedly turn standard judicial practices upside down. Often, criminal offenses cannot be qualified as such under the criminal code, perpetrators cannot be prosecuted and victims face suspicion. But ad hoc transitional justice institutions should be approached from a more nuanced, empirically grounded position. They are evidently political, but are neither handled by the perpetrators or victims, nor governed by their traumatic emotions. Transitional justice welcomes victims but simultaneously imposes constraints on them. Victims can often express themselves, for example through truth commission hearings, but must speak a consensual, apolitical, language. Many third parties interfere in the so-called duel or dialogue between perpetrators and victims. ; La justice mise en place aux lendemains des conflits civils suscite des inquiétudes ou des enthou-siasmes. Les uns voient dans cette justice dite transitionnelle, une justice politique. Ils plaident en faveur du retour d'un tiers désintéressé susceptible d'équilibrer le processus judiciaire, pour pro-téger l'accusé ou la victime. Les autres, nombreux aujourd'hui, y voient des efforts pour faire une place centrale aux victimes, en promouvant la réparation et la reconstruction des personnes et des sociétés. Les conflits civils bousculent il est vrai les termes habituels de la justice : les crimes ne peuvent parfois être qualifiés comme tels, les criminels politiques peuvent rarement être pour-suivis, les victimes apparaissent à beaucoup suspectes. Mais les institutions ...
International audience ; Post-civil war justice processes are quite controversial. Some think that transitional justice is a political justice led by the perpetrators. These observers request the intervention of an impartial third party, the defense of the accused as well as the protection of the victim. Many others welcome a new restorative justice that is deemed to give a central role to the victims, to promote the healing of people and the reconstruction of war-torn societies. Civil conflicts undoubtedly turn standard judicial practices upside down. Often, criminal offenses cannot be qualified as such under the criminal code, perpetrators cannot be prosecuted and victims face suspicion. But ad hoc transitional justice institutions should be approached from a more nuanced, empirically grounded position. They are evidently political, but are neither handled by the perpetrators or victims, nor governed by their traumatic emotions. Transitional justice welcomes victims but simultaneously imposes constraints on them. Victims can often express themselves, for example through truth commission hearings, but must speak a consensual, apolitical, language. Many third parties interfere in the so-called duel or dialogue between perpetrators and victims. ; La justice mise en place aux lendemains des conflits civils suscite des inquiétudes ou des enthou-siasmes. Les uns voient dans cette justice dite transitionnelle, une justice politique. Ils plaident en faveur du retour d'un tiers désintéressé susceptible d'équilibrer le processus judiciaire, pour pro-téger l'accusé ou la victime. Les autres, nombreux aujourd'hui, y voient des efforts pour faire une place centrale aux victimes, en promouvant la réparation et la reconstruction des personnes et des sociétés. Les conflits civils bousculent il est vrai les termes habituels de la justice : les crimes ne peuvent parfois être qualifiés comme tels, les criminels politiques peuvent rarement être pour-suivis, les victimes apparaissent à beaucoup suspectes. Mais les institutions ...
