An Axiom of Military Law : Applicability of National Criminal Law to Military Personnel and Associated Civilians Abroad

States regularly deploy elements of their armed forces abroad. When that happens, the military personnel concerned largely remain governed by the penal law of the State that they serve. This extraterritorial extension of national criminal law, which has been treated as axiomatic in domestic law and ignored by international law scholarship, is the subject of this dissertation. The first part of the study considers the ambit of national criminal law without any special regard to the armed forces. It explores the historical development of the currently prevailing system of territorial law and looks at the ambit that national legal systems claim today. Turning then to international law, the study debunks the oddly persistent belief that States enjoy a freedom to extend their laws to extraterritorial conduct as they please, and that they are in this respect constrained only by some specific prohibitions in international law. Six arguments historical, empirical, ideological, functional, doctrinal and systemic are advanced to support a contrary view: that States are prohibited from extending the reach of their legal systems abroad, unless they can rely on a permissive principle of international law for doing so. The second part of the study deals specifically with State jurisdiction in a military context, that is to say, as applied to military personnel in the strict sense (service members) and various civilians serving with or accompanying the forces (associated civilians). While the status of armed forces on foreign soil has transformed from one encapsulated in the customary concept of extraterritoriality to a modern regulation of immunities granted by treaties, elements of armed forces located abroad usually do enjoy some degree of insulation from the legal system of the host State. As a corollary, they should generally remain covered by the law of their own State. The extent of this extraterritorial extension of national law is revealed in a comparative review of national legislation, paying particular attention to recent legal reforms in the United States and the United Kingdom two states that have sought to extend the scope of their national law to cover the conduct of military contractor personnel. The principal argument of the dissertation is that applying national criminal law to service members and associated civilians abroad is distinct from other extraterritorial claims of jurisdiction (in particular, the nationality principle or the protective principle of jurisdiction). The service jurisdiction over the armed forces has a distinct aim: ensuring the coherence and indivisibility of the forces and maintaining discipline. Furthermore, the exercise of service jurisdiction seeks to reduce the chances of the State itself becoming internationally liable for the conduct of its service members and associated civilians. Critically, the legal system of the troop-deploying State, by extending its reach abroad, seeks to avoid accountability gaps that might result from immunities from host State law.

Constructing and negotiating entrepreneurial agency : A social psychological approach to entrepreneurship discourse in the farm context

Entrepreneurship, understood as the autonomous, effective pursuit of opportunities regardless of resources, is currently subject to a multitude of interests, expectations, and facilitation efforts. On the one hand, such entrepreneurial agency has broad appeal to individuals in Western market democracies and resonates with their longing for an autonomous, personally tailored, meaningful, and materially rewarding way of life. On the other hand, entrepreneurship represents a tempting and increasingly popular means of governance and policy making, and thus a model for the re-organization of a variety of societal sectors. This study focuses on the diffusion and reception of entrepreneurship discourse in the context of farming and agriculture, where pressures to adopt entrepreneurial orientations have been increasingly pronounced while, on the other hand, the context of farming has historically enjoyed state protection and adhered to principles that seem at odds with aspects of individualistic entrepreneurship discourse . The study presents an interpretation of the psychologically and politically appealing uses of the notion of entrepreneurial agency , reviews the historical and political background of the current situation of farming and agriculture with regard to entrepreneurship, and examines their relationships in four empirical studies. The study follows and develops a social psychological, situated relational approach that guides the qualitative analyses and interpretations of the empirical studies. Interviews with agents from the farm sector aim to stimulate evaluative responses and comments on the idea of entrepreneurship on farms. Analysis of the interview talk, in turn, detects the variety of evaluative responses and argumentative contexts with which the interviewees relate themselves to the entrepreneurship discourse and adopt, use, resist, or reject it. The study shows that despite the pressures towards entrepreneurialism, the diffusion of entrepreneurship discourse and the construction of entrepreneurial agency in farm context encounter many obstacles. These obstacles can be variably related to aspects dealing with the individual agent, the action situation, the characteristics of the action itself, or to the broader social, institutional and cultural context. Many aspects of entrepreneurial agency, such as autonomy, personal initiative and achievement orientation, are nevertheless familiar to farmers and are eagerly related to one s own farming activities. The idea of entrepreneurship is thus rarely rejected outright. The findings highlight the relational and situational preconditions for the construction of entrepreneurial agency in the farm context: When agents demonstrate entrepreneurial agency, they do so by drawing on available and accessed relational resources characteristic of their action context. Likewise, when agents fail or are reluctant to demonstrate entrepreneurial agency, they nevertheless actively account for their situation and demonstrate personal agency by drawing on the relational resources available to them.

New Governance and the EU Courts : The Experimentalist Architecture of Judicial Decision-Making

The dissertation examines the role of the EU courts in new governance. New governance has raised unprecedented interest in the EU in recent years. This is manifested in a plethora of instruments and actors at various levels that challenge more traditional forms of command-and-control regulation. New governance and political experimentation more generally is thought to sap the ability of the EU judiciary to monitor and review these experiments. The exclusion of the courts is then seen to add to the legitimacy problem of new governance. The starting point of this dissertation is the observation that the marginalised role of the courts is based on theoretical and empirical assumptions which invite scrutiny. The theoretical framework of the dissertation is deliberative democracy and democratic experimentalism. The analysis of deliberative democracy is sustained by an attempt to apply theoretical concepts to three distinctive examples of governance in the EU. These are the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, the European Chemicals Agency, and the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive. The case studies show numerous disincentives and barriers to judicial review. Among these are questions of the role of courts in shaping governance frameworks, the reviewability of science-based measures, the standing of individuals before the courts, and the justiciability of soft law. The dissertation analyses the conditions of judicial review in each governance environment and proposes improvements. From a more theoretical standpoint it could be said that each case study presents a governance regime which builds on legislation that lays out major (guide)lines but leaves details to be filled out at a later stage. Specification of detailed standards takes place through collaborative networks comprising members from national administrations, NGOs, and the Commission. Viewed this way, deliberative problem-solving is needed to bring people together to clarify, elaborate, and revise largely abstract and general norms in order to resolve concrete and specific problems and to make law applicable and enforceable. The dissertation draws attention to the potential of peer review included there and its profound consequences for judicial accountability structures. It is argued that without this kind of ongoing and dynamic peer review of accountability in governance frameworks, judicial review of new governance is difficult and in some cases impossible. This claim has implications for how we understand the concept of soft law, the role of the courts, participation rights, and the legitimacy of governance measures more generally. The experimentalist architecture of judicial decision-making relies upon a wide variety of actors to provide conditions for legitimate and efficient review.