Zur kognitiven Konstruktion von (Un-)Gerechtigkeit militärischer Gewalt: Die moralische Beurteilung des Kosovo-Kriegs

With reference to the Kosovo war, we examined how the (un-)justness of military intervention is cognitively constructed. Four types of reinterpretation were hypothesized to relate to positive evaluation of the intervention: minimisation of negative consequences of NATO's intervention, denial of responsibility of the Western countries for the war, blame of Yugoslavia, and justification of the intervention through positive motives. As determinants of evaluation of the war, belief in a just world, militarism-pacifism, authoritarianism, and diffuse political support were taken into account. Hypotheses were tested with 165 university students using structural equation modelling. Consistent with our assumptions, the four types of reinterpretation related strongly to positive evaluation of the intervention, showing their relevance with regard to military intervention. Further, the assessed political attitudes influenced evaluation of the war while, contrary to predictions, belief in a just world did not. The causal status of the reinterpretations and the interplay of belief in a just world and political attitudes are discussed.

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.

Collaborative Planning in an Uncollaborative World

The purpose of this paper is to expose the concept of collaborative planning to the reality of planning, thereby assessing its efficacy for informing and explaining what planners 'really' do and can do. In this systematic appraisal, collaborative planning is disaggregated into four elements that can enlighten such conceptual frameworks: ontology, epistemology, ideology and methodology. These four lenses help delimit and clarify collaborative planning's strengths and weaknesses. The conceptual debate is related to an empirical investigation of planning processes, ranging from region-wide to local and from statutory to visionary in an arena where special care has been invested in participatory deliberation processes. The final analysis provides a systematic gauge of collaborative planning in light of the extensive empirical evidence, deploying the four conceptual dimensions introduced in part one. This exposes a range of problems not only with the concept itself but also regarding its affinity with the uncollaborative world within which it has to operate. The former shed light on those aspects where collaborative planning as a conceptual tool for practitioners needs to be renovated, while the latter highlight inconsistencies in a political framework that struggles to accommodate both global competitiveness and local democratic collaboration.