Suchergebnisse

The central theme of the 2011 World Development Report (WDR) is that violent conflict remains a constant threat to human rights, peace and sustainable development. While the nature of violent conflict maybe changing1 its negative impact on poor people in terms of rights violations, public health, forced displacement and diminution of life chances is the same. Critical to establishing peace and the necessary confidence between state and citizen is providing a sense of security, freedom from fear, and the protection of basic rights and entitlements. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship, overlapping and sometimes contradictory, between a range of approaches to security and justice in conflict affected contexts, and to place these efforts within a broader rule of law framework. This, it will be argued, greatly assists in addressing the kind of frictions and blind-spots that commonly exist in making the transition from violence to peace. The paper will then examine some of the instruments and approaches adopted by governments and international partners in addressing the kinds of stresses which result in violent conflict. Finally, it will examine the gaps in the international arena which continue to persist in this area of support. A series of security and justice-themed papers produced for the WDR 2011 outline in more detail the issues, approaches and lessons of the key components including: security, public security in peacekeeping settings, criminal justice, justice and administrative law, and transitional justice.

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.

Strengthening the rule of law is widely regarded among traditional donors, multilateral institutions, and a growing number of middle income and fragile states as a necessary precondition for sustainable peace, poverty alleviation, and development. Crime and violence deter investment and lower employment, undermine social institutions, and divert resources through direct and indirect costs, all of which hinder development. It is likely to disproportionately affect poor and marginalized populations by limiting access to basic services. The formal criminal justice system is seen in many environments as failing to deliver justice. Most states experiencing fragility do not have the capacity to effectively prevent crime, enforce laws, or peacefully resolve disputes across the whole of their territories. There is another powerful deterrent for communities to seek redress through state criminal justice institutions: they are frequently a primary instrument for the government and elites to maintain power and control through the perpetration of injustice. The informal system, however, is alone insufficient to handle the pressing justice requirements of fragile states, not least for preventing and responding to inter-communal conflict, to serious organized and cross-border crime, and to public corruption and other 'white collar' crime.

In late 2013, the Ministry of Finance (MoF) of the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) requested that the World Bank and UNSOM jointly conduct a public expenditure review of the security and justice sectors (SJPER). An SJPER is a tool to assist policy and operational decision-making, analyze tradeoffs, and provide options on critical financially-related issues in defense, as well as criminal justice and policing. Three years later, Somalia is undergoing yet another political transition with the election of a new parliament and ultimately a new president. These steps will augur in a new government in 2017 that will be charged with finalizing some of the key issues around the constitution, including the relationship between the federal state and its federal members, as well as leading the country to democratic elections in 2020. Security and justice issues are hinged to many of these overarching political questions; these are two fundamental 'public goods' that are central to the (re)building of the Somali state and the transition from war to peace. In this context, the SJPER is a technical tool to assist the FGS, the federal members, and their international partners in placing these critical security and justice policy questions within a public finance perspective. As a tool, rather than a one-off report, it should be used by the authorities and partners going forward in terms of testing the critical policy questions against the key dimensions studied here, including affordability, efficiency and effectiveness and accountability.

Exploring the main areas of legal development under the so-called 'Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice' (AFSJ), this book examines the main subject matter of the new AFSJ migration, family reunion, asylum, police co-operation, and cooperation in matters of criminal law and procedure.

The paper explores the connection between the notions of justice and justification, and explains why their full comprehension enhances the legitimacy of the EU's 'Area of Freedom, Security and Justice' (AFSJ) project. The paper argues that the notion of justice, despite its contested nature, offers a helpful lens for viewing the AFSJ as part of the EU constitutional landscape. Nevertheless, we need to go further when investigating its potential as a theoretical device for navigating the future of AFSJ law. This paper contends that we need to analyse the notion of justice in the AFSJ by starting from the position of security as domination. Only by doing so, can we understand the capabilities of the EU for realizing justice and freedom in a largely security driven site. In an attempt to marry these abstract claims with the reality of security regulation in contemporary European law, and as part of the process for establishing democratic credentials within the AFSJ, the paper sets out to link the larger question of justice to one of justification and ultimately that of proportionality in AFSJ law. This discussion paper is part of a series of contributions to the conference "Towards a Grammar of Justice in EU Law', which took place on 6-7 November 2014 at VU University Amsterdam, sponsored by ACCESS EUROPE Amsterdam, VU Centre for European Legal Studies and the Dutch Research Council VENI grant.

The paper explores the connection between the notions of justice and justification, and explains why their full comprehension enhances the legitimacy of the EU's "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice" (AFSJ) project. The paper argues that the notion of justice, despite its contested nature, offers a helpful lens for viewing the AFSJ as part of the EU constitutional landscape. Nevertheless, we need to go further when investigating its potential as a theoretical device for navigating the future of AFSJ law. This paper contends that we need to analyse the notion of justice in the AFSJ by starting from the position of security as domination. Only by doing so, can we understand the capabilities of the EU for realizing justice and freedom in a largely security driven site. In an attempt to marry these abstract claims with the reality of security regulation in contemporary European law, and as part of the process for establishing democratic credentials within the AFSJ, the paper sets out to link the larger question of justice to one of justification and ultimately that of proportionality in AFSJ law. This discussion paper is part of a series of contributions to the conference "Towards a Grammar of Justice in EU Law", which took place on 6-7 November 2014 at VU University Amsterdam, sponsored by ACCESS EUROPE Amsterdam, VU Centre for European Legal Studies and the Dutch Research Council VENI grant. (author's abstract)