Criminal Law, Twelfth Edition, a classic introduction to criminal law for criminal justice students, combines the best features of a casebook and a textbook. Its success over numerous editions, both at community colleges as well as in four-year college criminal justice programs, is proof this text works as an authoritative source on criminal law, as well as a teaching text that communicates with students. The book covers substantive criminal law and explores its principles, sources, distinctions, and limitations. Definitions and elements of crimes are explained, and defenses to crimes are thoroughly analyzed. Each chapter offers guidance to help students understand what is important, including chapter outlines, key terms, learning objectives, Legal News boxes that highlight current criminal law issues, and Quick Checks that cue the reader to stop and answer a question or two concerning the material just covered. Unique Exploring Case Law boxes offer guidance in using the accompanying cases, which are provided on the book's website and in Part II of this textbook. A robust collection of instructor support materials addresses teaching and learning issues. Updated with all the newest relevant law, this book is appropriate for undergraduate students in criminal law and related courses.

In recent decades, international courts have increasingly started investigating armed conflicts. However, the impact of this remains under-researched. Patrick S. Wegner closes this gap via a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the International Criminal Court in the Darfur and Lord's Resistance Army conflicts. He offers a fresh approach to peace and conflict studies, while avoiding the current quantitative focus of the literature and polarisation between critics and supporters of applying justice in conflicts. This is the first time that the impact of an international criminal court has been analysed in all its facets in two conflicts. The consequences of these investigations are much more complex and difficult to predict than most of the existing literature suggests. Recurrent claims, such as the deterrent effect of trials and the danger of blocking negotiations by the issuing of arrest warrants, are put to the test here with some surprising results.

Between Fragmentation and Democracy explores the phenomenon of the fragmentation of international law and global governance following the proliferation of international institutions with overlapping jurisdictions and ambiguous boundaries. The authors argue that this problem has the potential to sabotage the evolution of a more democratic and egalitarian system and identify the structural reasons for the failure of global institutions to protect the interests of politically weaker constituencies. This book offers a comprehensive understanding of how new global sources of democratic deficits increasingly deprive individuals and collectives of the capacity to protect their interests and shape their opportunities. It also considers the role of the courts in mitigating the effects of globalization and the struggle to define and redefine institutions and entitlements. This book is an important resource for scholars of international law and international politics, as well as for public lawyers, political scientists, and those interested in judicial reform.

Failings of the International Court of Justice critically examines the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. Even though the legal instrument that establishes the Court provides that its judgments have no formal precedential value, those judgments are treated as authoritative by international lawyers throughout the world. In this book, A. Mark Weisburd argues that the Court's decisions are, in a large minority of cases, poorly reasoned and doubtful as a matter of law, and therefore ought not to be accorded the deference they receive. The book seeks to demonstrate its thesis by a careful review of the Court's errors. It begins with an examination of the law that created and empowered the Court. It then describes the body of law upon which the Court was intended to base its decisions, and the mistakes in the arguments supporting the Court's drawing legal rules from other sources. The book goes on to analyze in detail cases in which the Court has made serious legal errors, first addressing procedural errors, then turning to mistakes in the application of substantive international law. The book closes with a quantitative summing up of the Court's performance, and a tentative explanation for its relatively disappointing record.

Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice examines a number of significant recent criticisms of the way in which the ICJ deals with facts. The book takes the position that such criticisms are warranted and that the ICJ's current approach to fact-finding falls short of adequacy, both in cases involving abundant, particularly complex or technical facts, and in those involving a scarcity of facts. The author skilfully examines how other courts such as the WTO and inter-State arbitrations conduct fact-finding and makes a number of select proposals for reform, enabling the ICJ to address some of the current weaknesses in its approach. The proposals include, but are not limited to, the development of a power to compel the disclosure of information, greater use of provisional measures, and a clear strategy for the use of expert evidence.

International courts and tribunals now operate globally and in several world regions, playing significant roles in international law and global governance. However, these courts vary significantly in terms of their practices, procedures, and the outcomes they produce. Why do some international courts perform better than others? Which factors affect the outcome of these courts and tribunals? The Performance of International Courts and Tribunals is an interdisciplinary study featuring approaches, methods and authorship from law and political science, which proposes the concept of performance to describe the processes and outcomes of international courts. It develops a framework for evaluating and explaining performance by offering a broad comparative analysis of international courts, covering several world regions and the areas of trade, investment, the environment, human rights and criminal law, and offers interdisciplinary accounts to explain how and why international court performance varies.

The Balkan Wars, the Rwanda genocide, and the crimes against humanity in Cambodia and Sierra Leone spurred the creation of international criminal tribunals to bring the perpetrators of unimaginable atrocities to justice. When Richard Goldstone, David Crane, Robert Petit, and Luis Moreno-Ocampo received the call - each set out on a unique quest to build an international criminal tribunal and launch its first prosecutions. Never before have the founding International Prosecutors told the behind-the-scenes stories of their historic journey. With no blueprint and little precedent, each was a path-breaker. This book contains the first-hand accounts of the challenges they faced, the obstacles they overcame, and the successes they achieved in obtaining justice for millions of victims.

Judicial independence, integrity and impartiality are crucial to public trust in the judiciary. Justice must also be seen to be dispensed fairly and without fear or favour. In the context of themes and perspectives as well as comparative theories of independence, this book provides a contemporary analysis of the role and independence of judges in fifteen countries in the Asia-Pacific. Expert analyses include countries that are governed by authoritarian governments or are beset by dramatic government changes, which undermine judges by attacking and preventing their independence, to more democratic countries where there are strides towards judicial independence. The problems confronting judges and courts are explained and analysed, with the aim of establishing a commonality of standards which can be developed to strengthen and promote the important values of judicial independence, impartiality and integrity. Solutions for the Asia-Pacific region are also proposed.

Between Fragmentation and Democracy explores the phenomenon of the fragmentation of international law and global governance following the proliferation of international institutions with overlapping jurisdictions and ambiguous boundaries. The authors argue that this problem has the potential to sabotage the evolution of a more democratic and egalitarian system and identify the structural reasons for the failure of global institutions to protect the interests of politically weaker constituencies. This book offers a comprehensive understanding of how new global sources of democratic deficits increasingly deprive individuals and collectives of the capacity to protect their interests and shape their opportunities. It also considers the role of the courts in mitigating the effects of globalization and the struggle to define and redefine institutions and entitlements. This book is an important resource for scholars of international law and international politics, as well as for public lawyers, political scientists, and those interested in judicial reform.

Nations often turn to international courts to help with overcoming collective-action problems associated with international relations. However, these courts generally cannot enforce their rulings, which begs the question: how effective are international courts? This book proposes a general theory of international courts that assumes a court has no direct power over national governments. Member states are free to ignore both the international agreement and the rulings by the court created to enforce that agreement. The theory demonstrates that such a court can, in fact, facilitate cooperation with international law, but only within important political constraints. The authors examine the theoretical argument in the context of the European Union. Using an original data set of rulings by the European Court of Justice, they find that the disposition of court rulings and government compliance with those rulings comport with the theory's predictions.

In order to be effective, international tribunals should be perceived as legitimate adjudicators. European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights provides in-depth analyses on whether European consensus is capable of enhancing the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Focusing on the method and value of European consensus, it examines the practicalities of consensus identification and application and discusses whether State-counting is appropriate in human rights adjudication. With over 30 interviews from judges of the ECtHR and qualitative analyses of the case law, this book gives readers access to firsthand and up-to-date information, and provides an understanding of how the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg interprets the European Convention on Human Rights.

This book argues that national and international courts seek to enhance their reputations through the strategic exercise of judicial power. Courts often cannot enforce their judgments and must rely on reputational sanctions to ensure compliance. One way to do this is for courts to improve their reputation for generating compliance with their judgments. When the court's reputation is increased, parties will be expected to comply with its judgments and the reputational sanction on a party that fails to comply will be higher. This strategy allows national and international courts, which cannot enforce their judgments against states and executives, to improve the likelihood that their judgments will be complied with over time. This book describes the judicial tactics that courts use to shape their judgments in ways that maximize their reputational gains.

What would United States Supreme Court opinions look like if key decisions on gender issues were written with a feminist perspective? Feminist Judgments brings together a group of scholars and lawyers to rewrite, using feminist reasoning, the most significant US Supreme Court cases on gender from the 1800s to the present day. The twenty-five opinions in this volume demonstrate that judges with feminist viewpoints could have changed the course of the law. The rewritten decisions reveal that previously accepted judicial outcomes were not necessary or inevitable and demonstrate that feminist reasoning increases the judicial capacity for justice. Feminist Judgments opens a path for a long overdue discussion of the real impact of judicial diversity on the law as well as the influence of perspective on judging.

What would United States Supreme Court opinions look like if key decisions on gender issues were written with a feminist perspective? Feminist Judgments brings together a group of scholars and lawyers to rewrite, using feminist reasoning, the most significant US Supreme Court cases on gender from the 1800s to the present day. The twenty-five opinions in this volume demonstrate that judges with feminist viewpoints could have changed the course of the law. The rewritten decisions reveal that previously accepted judicial outcomes were not necessary or inevitable and demonstrate that feminist reasoning increases the judicial capacity for justice. Feminist Judgments opens a path for a long overdue discussion of the real impact of judicial diversity on the law as well as the influence of perspective on judging.

Women and the LGBT community in Russia and Turkey face pervasive discrimination. Only a small percentage dare to challenge their mistreatment in court. Facing domestic police and judges who often refuse to recognize discrimination, a small minority of activists have exhausted their domestic appeals and then turned to their last hope: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The ECtHR, located in Strasbourg, France, is widely regarded as the most effective international human rights court in existence. Russian citizens whose rights have been violated at home have brought tens of thousands of cases to the ECtHR over the past two decades. But only one of these cases resulted in a finding of gender discrimination by the ECtHR-and that case was brought by a man. By comparison, the Court has found gender discrimination more frequently in decisions on Turkish cases. Courting Gender Justice explores the obstacles that confront citizens, activists, and lawyers who try to bring gender discrimination cases to court. To shed light on the factors that make rare victories possible in discrimination cases, the book draws comparisons among forms of discrimination faced by women and LGBT people in Russia and Turkey. Based on interviews with human rights and feminist activists and lawyers in Russia and Turkey, this engaging book grounds the law in the personal experiences of individual people fighting to defend their rights.

The International Criminal Court emerged in the early twenty-first century as an ambitious and permanent institution with a mandate to address mass atrocity crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity. Although designed to exercise jurisdiction only in instances where states do not pursue these crimes themselves (and are unwilling or unable to do so), the Court's interventions, particularly in African states, have raised questions about the social value of its work and its political dimensions and effects. Bringing together scholars and practitioners who specialise on the ICC, this collection offers a diverse account of its interventions: from investigations to trials and from the Court's Hague-based centre to the networks of actors who sustain its activities. Exploring connections with transitional justice and international relations, and drawing upon critical insights from the interpretive social sciences, it offers a novel perspective on the ICC's work. This title is also available as Open Access.

In fundamental rights adjudication, a court first has to determine whether the interest at stake falls within the scope of the fundamental right invoked. Whether or not an individual interest falls within the scope or ambit of one of the fundamental rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights determines whether or not the European Court of Human Rights can decide on the merits of a case. This volume brings together a variety of legal scholars in order to examine the scope of fundamental rights. Topics range from the nature of human rights and the real or imagined risk of rights inflation to theories of positive obligations and social and economic rights. It contains contributions of a theoretical nature as well as analytical overviews of the ECtHR's approach. In addition, comparisons are made with domestic, EU and international law.

Nations often turn to international courts to help with overcoming collective-action problems associated with international relations. However, these courts generally cannot enforce their rulings, which begs the question: how effective are international courts? This book proposes a general theory of international courts that assumes a court has no direct power over national governments. Member states are free to ignore both the international agreement and the rulings by the court created to enforce that agreement. The theory demonstrates that such a court can, in fact, facilitate cooperation with international law, but only within important political constraints. The authors examine the theoretical argument in the context of the European Union. Using an original data set of rulings by the European Court of Justice, they find that the disposition of court rulings and government compliance with those rulings comport with the theory's predictions.

This is the authoritative introduction to the International Criminal Court, fully updated in this sixth edition. The book covers the legal framework of the Court, the cases that it has heard and that are still to come, and the political debates surrounding its operation. It is written by one of the major authorities on the subject, in language accessible to non-specialists. The sixth edition brings legal references fully up to date in light of the Court's case law. Several trials have now been completed, with four convictions and a number of controversial acquittals. The book also discusses the situations that the Court is currently investigating, including Palestine, Georgia, Ukraine, Venezuela and the UK in Iraq. It also looks into the crisis with African states and the hostility of the United States to the institution.

Since ancient times, terror tactics have been used to achieve political ends and likely will continue into the foreseeable future. Preserving national security and the safety of civilian populations while maintaining democratic principles and respecting human rights requires a delicate balancing act. In democracies, monitoring that balance typically falls to the courts. Courts and Terrorism examines how judiciaries in nine separate nations have responded, not just to the current wave of Al Qaeda threats, but also to narco-trafficking, domestic terrorism and organized crime syndicates. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, and even though the reactions have varied significantly, common themes emerge. This volume discusses eleven case studies and analyzes the experiences of these various nations in their battles with terrorism to reveal the judicial quandary for democratic governance and the rule of law in the twenty-first century.

Past cases are the European Court of Justice's most prominent tool in making and justifying the rulings and decisions which affect the everyday lives of more than half a billion people. Marc Jacob's detailed analysis of the use of precedents and case-based reasoning in the Court uses methods such as doctrinal scholarship, empirical research, institutional analysis, comparative law and legal theory in order to unravel and critique the how and why of the Court's precedent technique. In doing so, he moves the wider debate beyond received 'common law' versus 'civil law' figments and 'Eurosceptic' versus 'Euromantic' battle lines, and also provides a useful blueprint for assessing and comparing the case law practices of other dispute resolution bodies.

The European Union's (EU) powerful legal framework drives the process of European integration. The Court of Justice (ECJ) has established a uniquely effective supranational legal order, beyond the original wording of the Treaty of Rome and transforming our traditional understanding of international law. This work investigates how these fundamental transformations in the European legal system were received in one of the most important member states, Germany. On the one hand, Germany has been highly supportive of political and economic integration; yet on the other, a fundamental pillar of the post-war German identity was the integrity of its constitutional order. How did a state whose constitution was so essential to its self-understanding subscribe to the constitutional practice of EU law? How did a country who could not say 'no' to Europe become the member state most reluctant to accept the new power of the ECJ?

The vast majority of all international judicial decisions have been issued since 1990. This increasing activity of international courts over the past two decades is one of the most significant developments within the international law. It has repercussions on all levels of governance and has challenged received understandings of the nature and legitimacy of international courts. It was previously held that international courts are simply instruments of dispute settlement, whose activities are justified by the consent of the states that created them, and in whose name they decide. However, this understanding ignores other important judicial functions, underrates problems of legitimacy, and prevents a full assessment of how international adjudication functions, and the impact that it has demonstrably had. This book proposes a public law theory of international adjudication, which argues that international courts are multifunctional actors who exercise public authority and therefore require democratic legitimacy. It establishes this theory on the basis of three main building blocks: multifunctionality, the notion of an international public authority, and democracy. The book aims to answer the core question of the legitimacy of international adjudication: in whose name do international courts decide? It lays out the specific problem of the legitimacy of international adjudication, and reconstructs the common critiques of international courts. It develops a concept of democracy for international courts that makes it possible to constructively show how their legitimacy is derived. It argues that ultimately international courts make their decisions, even if they do not know it, in the name of the peoples and the citizens of the international community.

The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) is the third modern international criminal tribunal supported by the United Nations and the first to be situated where the crimes were committed. This timely, important, and comprehensive book is the first to critically assess the impact and legacy of the SCSL for Africa and international criminal law. The collection, containing 37 original chapters from leading scholars and respected practitioners with inside knowledge of the tribunal, analyzes cutting-edge and controversial issues with significant implications for international criminal law and transitional justice. These include joint criminal enterprise; the novel crime against humanity of forced marriage; the war crime prohibiting enlisting and using child soldiers in the first court to prosecute that offense; the prosecution of the war crime of attacks against United Nations peacekeepers in the first tribunal where this offense was prosecuted; the tension between truth commissions and criminal trials in the first country to simultaneously have the two; and the questions of whether it is permissible under international law for states to unilaterally confer blanket amnesties to local perpetrators of universally condemned international crimes, whether the immunities enjoyed by an incumbent head of a third state bars his prosecution before an ad hoc treaty-based international criminal court, and whether such courts may be funded by donations from states without compromising judicial independence.

Of the many expectations attending the creation of the first permanent International Criminal Court, the greatest has been that the principle of complementarity would catalyse national investigations and prosecutions of conflict-related crimes and lead to the reform of domestic justice systems. Sarah Nouwen explores whether complementarity has had such an effect in two states subject to ICC intervention: Uganda and Sudan. Drawing on extensive empirical research and combining law, legal anthropology and political economy, she unveils several effects and outlines the catalysts for them. However, she also reveals that one widely anticipated effect - an increase in domestic proceedings for conflict-related crimes - has barely occurred. This finding leads to the unravelling of paradoxes that go right to the heart of the functioning of an idealistic Court in a world of real constraints.