The book is dedicated to the theoretical problems concerning ratio legis. In the contexts of legal interpretation and legal reasoning, the two most important intellectual tools employed by lawyers, ratio legis would seem to offer an extremely powerful argument. Declaring the ratio legis of a statute can lead to a u-turn argumentation throughout the lifespan of the statute itself - in parliament, or in practice during court sessions, when it is tested against the constitution. Though the ratio legis argument is widely used, much about it warrants further investigation. On the general philosophical map there are many overlapping areas that concern different approaches to human rationality and to the problems of practical reasoning. Particular problems with ratio legis arise in connection with different perspectives on legal philosophy and theory, especially in terms of the methods that lawyers use for legal interpretation and argumentation. These problems can be further subdivided into particular aspects of activities undertaken by lawyers and officials who use the ratio legis in their work, and the underlying theories. In short, this book examines what ratio legis is, what it could be, and its practical implications.

Donald Lively brings a perspective upon constitutional fundamentals and racial reality that is both historical and forward-looking. It reflects a convergence of understandings and insights from a range of experience as a legal academic, historian, business developer, and community service organizer. He is the author of 12 books and over 50 articles, many of which relate to the interaction between the Constitution and political and social factors and circumstances. He has lectured both domestically and internationally. Three of his books have won national book awards. Lively writes in a style that captures complex and sophisticated subject matter and reduces it to accessible and understandable terms. It is extensively annotated to authoritative sources, transcends any ideological agenda, and introduces principles that make original constitutional premises relevant to evolving conditions. Among other things, he demonstrates how the nation's founding premises that were compromised by racism and its incidents have become relevant to reckoning with their legacy. This publication is particularly relevant at a time when racial dynamics are in flux and the law, particularly interpretation of the law, has become largely static. Accounting for the nation's legacy of discrimination has been sporadic and uneven. Reparations have been provided for the forced relocation of Japanese-Americans during World War II, but denied for African-Americans whose experience for most of the nation's history was defined by slavery and pervasive discrimination. Although the Supreme Court has acknowledged this legacy of societal discrimination, it has precluded generalized remediation pursuant to concern with negative collateral consequences. This book provides significant insights that increasingly will reflect understanding of racial reality in the twenty-first century. It demonstrates first a legacy of constitutional outcomes that, at their best, have been promising and profound in their symbolism but ultimately underachieving. The book also evidences that, for the first time in the nation's history, market forces are aligning in favor of diversity and multicultural competence. Along with changing demographics and globalization, these factors provide a powerful new force for reckoning with the nation's legacy of racial discrimination. Modern constitutional doctrine, which largely precludes raceconscious reckoning with this reality, constrain the market (both the public and private sector) from generating innovative and effective solutions. Lively maintains that by allowing more flexibility and being more deferential to innovation and experimentation, the Court can facilitate reckoning with historical reality and square the law in a way that is consistent with and even restores founding principles and also reflects how the future is evolving. Based upon its fidelity to original intent and responsiveness to changing societal conditions, this model offers a rare convergence of appeal to those who respectively advocate a more restrained and more active judiciary. This book is relevant to a variety of audiences including academics, students, and persons in both the public and private sector who seek a comprehensive yet accessible narrative and analysis upon the historical interaction between law and race and its likely evolution.

This peer-reviewed book features essays on the Armenian massacres of 1915-1916. It aims to cast light upon the various questions of international law raised by the matter. The answers may help improve international relations in the region. In 1915-1916, roughly a million and a half Armenians were murdered in the territory of the Ottoman Empire, which had been home to them for centuries. Ever since, a dispute between Armenians and Turkey has been ongoing over the qualification of the massacres. The contributors to this volume examine the legal nature and consequences of this event. Their investigation strives to be completely neutral and technical. The essays also look at the broader issue of denial. For instance, in Turkey, public speech on the matter can still trigger criminal prosecution whereas in other European States denial of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity is criminalized. However, the European Court of Human Rights views criminal prosecution of denial of the Armenian massacres as unlawful. In addition, one essay considers a state's obligation to remember by looking at lessons learnt from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Another contributor looks at a collective right to remember and some ideas to move forward towards a solution. Moreover, the book explores the way the Armenian massacres have affected the relationship between Turkey and the European Union.

This book represents the first multi-disciplinary introduction to the study of war crimes trials and investigations. It introduces readers to the numerous disciplines engaged with this complex subject, including: Forensic Anthropology, Economics and Anthropometrics, Legal History, Violence Studies, International Criminal Justice, International Relations, and Moral Philosophy. The contributors are experts in their respective fields and the chapters highlight each discipline's major trends, debates, methods and approaches to mass atrocity, genocide, and crimes against humanity, as well as their interactions with adjacent disciplines. Case studies illustrate how the respective disciplines work in practice, including examples from the Allied Hunger Blockade, WWII, the Guatemalan and Spanish Civil Wars, the Former Yugoslavia, and Uganda. Including bibliographical essays to offer readers crucial orientation when approaching the specialist literature in each case, this edited collection equips readers with what they need to know in order to navigate a complex, and until now, deeply fragmented field. A diverse and interdisciplinary body of research, this book will be indispensable reading for scholars of war crimes.

There are moments in American history when all eyes are focused on a federal court: when its bench speaks for millions of Americans, and when its decision changes the course of history. More often, the story of the federal judiciary is simply a tale of hard work: of finding order in the chaotic system of state and federal law, local custom, and contentious lawyering. The Federal Courts is a story of all of these courts and the judges and justices who served on them, of the case law they made, and of the acts of Congress and the administrative organs that shaped the courts. But, even more importantly, this is a story of the courts' development and their vital part in America's history. Peter Charles Hoffer, Williamjames Hull Hoffer, and N. E. H. Hull's retelling of that history is framed the three key features that shape the federal courts' narrative: the separation of powers; the federal system, in which both the national and state governments are sovereign; and the widest circle: the democratic-republican framework of American self-government. The federal judiciary is not elective and its principal judges serve during good behavior rather than at the pleasure of Congress, the President, or the electorate. But the independence that lifetime tenure theoretically confers did not and does not isolate the judiciary from political currents, partisan quarrels, and public opinion. Many vital political issues came to the federal courts, and the courts' decisions in turn shaped American politics. The federal courts, while the least democratic branch in theory, have proved in some ways and at various times to be the most democratic: open to ordinary people seeking redress, for example. Litigation in the federal courts reflects the changing aspirations and values of America's many peoples. The Federal Courts is an essential account of the branch that provides what Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Judge Oliver Wendell Homes Jr. called "a magic mirror, wherein we see reflected our own lives."