Justice as Fairness in Planning Policy-Making

This paper considers a moral basis for planning theory and endeavours to establish principles of justice which might be relevant to the regulation of development. Whilst the investigation recognises that there is a need for a deeper understanding of the dynamics of governance, it suggests that many of the inefficiencies, inequities and public disquiet concerns relating to planning centre on a drift from a perception that the system is both fair and just, and that practice needs to be anchored on founding values concerned with redistribution and equality. In this context, John Rawls’ theory of justice is employed as a vehicle to capture moral ideas of equality and liberty within a constitutional democracy and as a basis for scrutinising emerging justice based issues which impact upon planning. Using National Policy Statements as a case study, the paper concludes that, whilst there are serious concerns over current policymaking practices, the principles of justice offer a foundation for practical critique which can help overcome problems of mistrust.

How (In)Consistent is the Court of Justice in the Application of the Market Access Test?”

Invited panel speaker at a Jean Monnet Chair funded research workshop organised by the Europa Institute, School of Law, University of Edinburgh (9 December 2011), http://www.pol.ed.ac.uk/research_themes/index/jean_monnet_centre_of_excellence/principles_of_market_access_workshop

Considering Just-World Thinking in Counter-Terrorism Cases: Miscarriages of Justice in Northern Ireland

Recent literature has drawn a parallel between the discriminatory application of counterterrorism legislation to the Irish population in the United Kingdom during the Northern Ireland conflict and the targeting of Muslims after September 2001. Less attention has been paid to lessons that can be drawn from judicial decision making in terrorism-related cases stemming from the Northern Ireland conflict. This Article examines Northern Ireland Court of Appeal (“NICA”) jurisprudence on miscarriages of justice in cases regarding counterterrorism offenses. In particular, the Article focuses on cases referred after the 1998 peace agreements in Northern Ireland from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”), a relatively new entity that investigates potential wrongful convictions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Although the NICA’s human rights jurisprudence has developed significantly in recent years, the study of CCRC-referred cases finds that judges have retained confidence in the integrity of the conflict-era counterterrorism system even while acknowledging abuses and procedural irregularities that occurred. This study partially contradicts contentions that judicial deference to the executive recedes in a post-conflict or post-emergency period. Despite a high rate of quashed convictions, the NICA’s decisions suggest that it seeks to limit a large number of referrals and demonstrate a judicial predisposition to defend the justness of the past system’s laws and procedure. This perspective is consistent with what social psychologists have studied as “just-world thinking,” in which objective observers, although motivated by a concern with justice, believe—as a result of cognitive bias—that individuals “got what they deserved.” The Article considers other potential interpretations of the jurisprudence and contends that conservative decision making is particularly dangerous in the politicized realm of counterterrorism and in light of the criminalization of members of suspect communities.

Principles of the performance-based approach for concrete durability

In general, design approaches for durability can be divided into prescriptive design concepts and performance-based design concepts.