Statistically-constrained shallow text marking:Techniques, evaluation paradigm and results

We present three natural language marking strategies based on fast and reliable shallow parsing techniques, and on widely available lexical resources: lexical substitution, adjective conjunction swaps, and relativiser switching. We test these techniques on a random sample of the British National Corpus. Individual candidate marks are checked for goodness of structural and semantic fit, using both lexical resources, and the web as a corpus. A representative sample of marks is given to 25 human judges to evaluate for acceptability and preservation of meaning. This establishes a correlation between corpus based felicity measures and perceived quality, and makes qualified predictions. Grammatical acceptability correlates with our automatic measure strongly (Pearson's r = 0.795, p = 0.001), allowing us to account for about two thirds of variability in human judgements. A moderate but statistically insignificant (Pearson's r = 0.422, p = 0.356) correlation is found with judgements of meaning preservation, indicating that the contextual window of five content words used for our automatic measure may need to be extended. © 2007 SPIE-IS&T.

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.

Using extended contact to improve physiological responses and behavior toward people with schizophrenia

Extended contact has been shown to improve explicit and implicit attitudes toward a number of outgroups, but not yet toward people with mental health conditions. Using people with schizophrenia as the target group, this experiment is the first to demonstrate that extended contact can reduce explicit prejudice, buffer stress responses to future interactions, improve non-verbal behavior, and improve the quality of interactions in a manner detectable by the target group member. Participants watched a video of a brief, positive interaction between two strangers, one of whom they were led to believe had schizophrenia. Control participants watched the same video without being told that the person had schizophrenia. They then participated in a social interaction with a confederate whom they were led to believe had the disorder. Participants' cardiovascular and electrodermal activity were monitored immediately before the interaction. The interaction was also secretly recorded to allow independent judges to assess the participants' non-verbal behaviors. The confederate also rated the positivity of each interaction. Participants in the extended contact condition reported more positive attitudes toward people with schizophrenia, displayed more positive non-verbal behaviors, and had a more positive interaction with the confederate. Moreover, just prior to the interaction, participants in the extended contact condition displayed smaller anticipatory stress responses, as reflected in smaller changes in interbeat interval and non-specific skin conductance responses during this phase. Together, these findings support the use of the extended contact as an intervention that could lead to genuine changes in attitudes toward and treatment of people with severe mental health disorders.

Speaking with One Voice?: Ethno-national Division on the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina

The challenge of designing institutions to manage ethno-national conflict is one of the enduring concerns of political science. One important but relatively understudied aspect of this challenge is the design of constitutional courts. Courts are likely to play a key role in the maintenence of a constitutional settlement. But this role can be especially onerous in a deeply divided and post-conflict setting where the rule of law is weak and judges have ethno-national affiliations that may undermine the appearance of judicial neutrality. In such contexts, a court’s authority (including compliance with its decisions) cannot be taken for granted.

With reference the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and using an original dataset of the Court's non-unanimous plenary decisions, we test several hypotheses about the degree to which ethno-national affiliation influences judicial behavior. We find that (1) judges on the Constitutional Court do in fact divide predictably along ethno-national lines, (2) that these patterns are robust to changes in the tenure system, and (3) are independent of party political background.

Meaningful and Effective? Considering Victims’ Interests Through Participation at the International Criminal Court

This article explores the role of victims in the criminal proceedings of the International Criminal Court and the extent to which their interests have impacted upon the ICC judges’ decision making in light of human rights law and victimological theorisation. The article begins by first outlining how victims’ interests can be considered in international criminal proceedings, before contrasting this role with the purpose of international criminal justice. The second part of the article examines victim participation within the ICC and how this has affected judicial decision making to assess its effectiveness. The contest between the rights of victims and the role of Prosecutor in determining the selection of charges and perpetrators is also examined in an effort to add to the current debate on victim participation at the ICC. The author finds that at the ICC, despite innovative victim provisions, victims’ interests have little impact on outcomes of the Court. The author argues that in order to ensure the Court is more responsive to victims understanding of justice it should give greater weight to their interests, which in turn is likely to improve their satisfaction with the ICC, as well as public confidence and legitimacy of the work of the Court.

In Pursuit of Human Dignity

The discussion of human dignity raises such complex issues, and the issues that current scholarship now considers central to its understanding are so daunting, that we are in danger of not being able to see the forest for the trees. This Introduction forms the first chapter of a book of essays (Christopher McCrudden (ed.), UNDERSTANDING HUMAN DIGNITY,
Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press, in press) by a multi-disciplinary group of historians, legal academics, judges, political scientists, theologians, and philosophers, arising from a Conference held in Rhodes House, Oxford In June 2012. The Introduction aims to provide a guide, a map, through the thicket of current dignity scholarship. It situates the subsequent chapters of the book within an overview of the terrain that currently constitutes debates about the use of dignity in these fields. I have not attempted to put forward my own
comprehensive account of dignity. Mostly based on the rich conversations that took place at the Conference, I have sought, rather, to probe the potential strengths and weaknesses of all of the principal positions identified, at least in some contexts taking on the role of a Devil’s Advocate.

Finding Merit in Judicial Appointments: NIJAC and the Search for a New Judiciary in Northern Ireland

The post-Agreement constitutional architecture has produced a new legal space in Northern Ireland. While the court structure has largely endured in a recognisable format there are perhaps now new expectations of how it will function in the next stage of Northern Ireland’s transition from a society in conflict. These expectations come into focus around the nature and role of the judiciary that is to oversee this new legal space. At the same time there are other, wider forces pressing upon the judiciary across the United Kingdom and these are being acted out in the various appointment commissions and regimes that have been created to modernise the judiciary. This all contributes to establishing a dynamic context for considering whether and/or how the judiciary in Northern Ireland is changing, and the forces that may be conditioning any change. This chapter looks at some of the expectations that might arise for the judiciary. It focuses both on some ideas about what might be the role of a judge in a transitional context, and the debate about how judges generally should be appointed across the United Kingdom where the idea of “merit” emerges as governing concept. Next consideration is given to how this idea of merit plays out in the Northern Ireland context and, in particular, how it impacts on the appointment of women to senior judicial roles which has emerged as the central concern in the new dispensation. Here the chapter draws on two pieces of research: the first looking at the issues surrounding judicial appointments and attitudes towards seeking such posts in the Northern Ireland context, and a second project where the idea of “merit” as a governing factor in judicial appointment was further explored in focus groups and interviews. Finally the chapter looks ahead at the challenges around judicial appointment that remain and suggests that notion of ‘merit’ has not provided the robust foundation which its proponents imagined it would.

The Illusions of Post-Feminism, Ghosts of Gender and the Discourses of Law

This article seeks to consider evidence of post-feminist and "post-equality" gender narratives contained in the discourses of law in the UK and European contexts. Analysis of perennial ghosts of gender in the areas of gender-neutrality in policy, legislative regulation of sexual crimes, and the adjudication of gendered issues by judges will be undertaken in order to renew and reinstate the focus of the legal feminist project and advocate for continued scrutiny in these three practical areas.

Commentary on Tonson v. Collins (1762)

Significant case in which the arguments for and against the existence of copyright at common law were extensively debated for the first time before the Court of King's Bench. Both William Blackstone (author of Commentaries Upon the Laws of England, and one of the judges to hold in favour of the common law right in Donaldson v. Becket (uk_1774)) and Joseph Yates (who would later provide the dissenting opinion in Millar v. Taylor (uk_1769)) appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant respectively.

Commentary on Jeffreys v. Boosey (1854)

The second decision of the House of Lords to consider the nature of copyright law. As was the case in Donaldson v. Becket (1774) (uk_1774) the law lords were in disagreement with the majority of common law judges invited to speak to the issue for the consideration of the House. In the course of their opinions, two of the law lords (Lord Brougham and Lord St Leonards) explicitly reject the concept of copyright at common law. Rather than a natural authorial property right, they present copyright as a purely statutory phenomenon specifically grounded in public interest concerns. Ultimately, the Lords decided that a foreign national, resident abroad, but first publishing in Britain, enjoys no protection in his work under British copyright law.

Judicial Impartiality and Independence in Divided Societies: An Empirical Analysis of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina

The role of Constitutional Courts in deeply divided societies is complicated by the danger that the salient societal cleavages may influence judicial decision-making and, consequently, undermine judicial independence and impartiality. With reference to the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, this article investigates the influence of ethno-nationalism on judicial behaviour and the extent to which variation in judicial tenure amplifies or dampens that influence. Based on a statistical analysis of an original dataset of the Court’s decisions, we find that the judges do in fact divide predictably along ethno-national lines, at least in certain types of cases, and that these divisions cannot be reduced to a residual loyalty to their appointing political parties. Contrary to some theoretical expectations, however, we find that long-term tenure does little to dampen the influence of ethno-nationalism on judicial behaviour. Moreover, our findings suggest that the longer a judge serves on the Court the more ethno-national affiliation seems to influence her decision-making. We conclude by considering how alternative arrangements for the selection and tenure of judges might help to ameliorate this problem.

Lawyers & Truth Recovery Mechanisms: South Africa

Focusing on post-apartheid South Africa, the report explores the role of lawyers in truth recovery mechanisms.

The report was prepared by Dr Rachel Killean and draws on a series of interviews conducted in South Africa (with legal academics, ‘struggle’ lawyers, state lawyers, judges and human rights activists) as part of the wider Lawyers, Conflict and Transition project.

Dr Killean begins with an overview of the various roles the legal profession has played in South Africa, both during the apartheid era and post-transition.

The first half of the report then explores the role of lawyers as professional participants – firstly at the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and secondly in the Marikana Commission of Inquiry.

The report then considers the notion of lawyers as subjects of truth recovery, looking in particular at the Special Legal Hearing on the legal profession as part of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In the concluding section Killean reflects on the extent to which lawyers influence the procedures and outcomes of truth recovery mechanisms and offers some concrete suggestions as to how the involvement of lawyers in such processes might be more effectively managed.

With regard to lawyers as subjects of truth recovery, she acknowledges the limitations of the South African model but posits that the endeavour must be applauded, not least because it demonstrated that it is possible to scrutinise the role of the legal profession in past conflict, and that it is worth wrestling with the associated challenges.