Settlement of Disputes Within the World Trade Organisation: A Guide to the Jurisprudence

The Urugauy Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations led to the development of a revised set of procedures on dispute settlement. These procedures dealt with a number of significant problems that had arisen under GATT dispute settlement experience. In spite of these important reforms, there are numerous, complex and contentious questions of legal adjudication that any formal dispute settlement system must face. The article outlines the aims and organs of dispute settlement under the WTO. It addresses some of the key questions as to standing, interpetation, evidence and adjudicatory practices and processes. While ongoing moitoring and reform is necessary, an important thesis is that the inherent nature of legal adjudication forces uncertain determinations that can too easily give rise to unwarranted criticism of the system as a whole.

In search of coherent jurisprudence for international criminal law : correlating universal human responsibilities with universal human rights

I. The Evolution of International Criminal Law International criminal justice concerns breaches of international rules entailing the personal criminal liability of individuals (as opposed to the State for which the individuals may act as agents or organs), and presently includes acts such as genocide, torture, crimes against humanity, aggression and terrorism. ... A rule stating: any act of armed conflict which directly causes the death of a civilian is a war crime unless it can be shown that the military advantage gained by the attack outweighs the harm. ... Thus, so far as international criminal law is concerned any act during armed conflict which results in the death or injury to a person who does not pose a direct threat to the life of the accused should be a war crime. ... Pursuant to the Rome Statute and as a matter of customary international law torture is a war crime when performed in the context of an armed conflict, and a crime against humanity when it is part of systematic criminal conduct. ... Torture can also constitute an individual international crime, even where it does not satisfy the criteria of a war crime or crime against humanity. ...

Tolling for the luckless, the abandoned and forsaked : therapeutic jurisprudence and international human rights law as applied to prisoners and detainees by forensic psychologists

Objectives. There has been an explosion of interest in therapeutic jurisprudence as both a filter and lens for viewing the extent to which the legal system serves therapeutic or anti-therapeutic consequences. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of therapeutic jurisprudence on questions of international human rights law and the role of forensic psychologists. The paper aims to provide an intersection between human rights, therapeutic jurisprudence, and forensic psychology.

Method. Human rights are based on legal, social, and moral rules. Human rights literature generally considers legal rights but such policy statements do not provide principles to guide forensic psychologists in addressing moral or social rights. Therefore, a framework to guide forensic psychologists is required.

Conclusion. As duty-bearers, forensic psychologists need to address the core values of freedom and well-being in rights holders (in this instance, prisoners and detainees with a mental illness). The paper proposes that human rights principles can add to the normative base of a therapeutic jurisprudence framework, and in-turn, therapeutic jurisprudence can assist forensic psychologists to actively address human rights.

Crime-prevention jurisprudence? A response to Andrews and Dowden

Recently Andrews and Dowden (2007) published an article proposing that both offender and victim well-being could be enhanced by utilizing the risk–need–responsivity model to guide the legal and court systems in crime prevention (rather than therapy). Consequently, crime-prevention jurisprudence (defined as a law-and-justice objective reflecting the language of personality and social psychology) was proposed as an alternative to therapeutic jurisprudence (defined as a mental-health objective reflecting the clinical language of forensic mental health). The authors erroneously claim that therapeutic jurisprudence is a mental-health concept whose aim is to provide therapy that improves well-being in offenders rather than to demonstrate concern for victims. In fact, therapeutic jurisprudence is a legal concept that utilizes social-science knowledge to highlight the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic impacts of the law, legal procedures, and legal roles on all individuals, including victims. This article will respond to Andrews and Dowden by challenging three assumptions they make regarding the role of therapeutic jurisprudence. This response concludes that the focus of offender rehabilitation should be on enhancing community protection by balancing offender rights and victim rights. Therapeutic jurisprudence already provides such a framework and, therefore, the promise of crime-prevention jurisprudence fails to add value.

Where the home in valley meets the damp dirty prison : a human rights perspective on therapeutic jurisprudence and the rule of forensic psychologists in correctional settings

The roles of forensic psychologists in coerced environments such as corrections include that of treatment provider (for the offender) and that of organizational consultant (for the community). This dual role raises ethical issues between offender rights and community rights; an imbalance results in the violation of human rights. A timely reminder of a slippery ethical slope that can arise is the failure of the American Psychological Association to manage this balance regarding interrogation and torture of detainees under the Bush administration. To establish a “bright-line position” regarding ethical practice, forensic psychologists need to be cognizant of international human rights law. In this endeavor, international covenants and a universal ethical code ought to guide practice, although seemingly unresolveable conflicts between the law and ethics codes may arise. A solution to this problem is to devise an ethical framework that is based on enforceable universally shared human values regarding dignity and rights. To this end, the legal theory of therapeutic jurisprudence can assist psychologists to understand the law, the legal system, and their role in applying the law therapeutically to support offender dignity, freedom, and well-being. In this way, a moral stance is taken and the forensic role of treatment provider and/or organizational consultant is not expected to trump the prescriptions and the proscriptions of the law.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence, juvenile justice and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child : do they coexist?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child provides children and young people with over 40 substantive rights, the five outcomes of which are living a healthy lifestyle, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution, and economic wellbeing. Moreover, Article 3 dictates that all organizations concerned with children should work towards what is best of each child. It is not clear how these rights translate to the care of children and young people who come before the courts (particularly those who are subsequently incarcerated). A review of the literature suggests that while best practice guidelines for the treatment and rehabilitation of adult offenders has moved forward, there is little consensus about how this might be achieved for young people. Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ) needs to extend beyond its current considerations of the rights of children and young people, and to expand its focus to the extent to which international human rights standards are complied with in the cases of juveniles in the criminal justice system. This presentation will (a) explore the extent to which current practices in juvenile justice are consistent with the UN's Convention and (b) whether the adoption a rehabilitative and treatment approach based on a TJ framework might serve to improve outcomes for young people and ensure their rights are not being violated.

The High Court on crime in 2012 : outcomes and jurisprudence

This article examines the High Court decisions from 2012 which relate to criminal matters. This systematic analysis of all High Court judgments commenced in this Journal in 2010 and is now undertaken annually. The article explains the principles that derive from these cases and identifies jurisprudential themes from the decisions. It also sets out the significance of the cases and the possible wider consequences of the decisions.

The High Court on crime in 2014: Outcomes and jurisprudence

This article examines the Australian High Court decisions in 2014 which relate to criminal matters. This systematic analysis of all High Court judgments commenced in this Journal in 2010 and is now undertaken annually. The article explains the principles that derive from these cases and identifies jurisprudential themes from the decisions. It also sets outthe significance of the cases and the possible wider consequences of the decisions.

An examination of stakeholder attitudes and understanding of therapeutic jurisprudence in a mental health court

Mental health courts represent a key component of contemporary responses to mental illness and disability in the criminal justice system, and yet there is uncertainty about how these courts should balance their punishment and treatment roles. This paper reports an analysis of interviews with court professionals which considers their understanding of the rationale underpinning an Australian mental health court, its effectiveness in achieving its criminal justice and clinical goals, and of broader notions of therapeutic jurisprudence. This reveals considerable support for diversionary mental health court programs of this type and professional confidence that this type of program is effective. However, the analysis also highlights conflict in the practice frameworks of the different professional groups who regularly contribute to the operations of the court. Suggestions to enhance service delivery are offered.

Maximizing desistance: adding therapeutic jurisprudence and human rights to the mix

The law can be a systemically induced decision point for offenders and can act to help or hinder desistance. Desistance can be described as a change process that may be initiated by decisive momentum, supported by intervention, and maintained through re-entry, culminating in a citizen with full rights and responsibilities. Desistance within courts, corrections, and beyond is maximized by applying the law in a therapeutic manner. In common, desistance, therapeutic jurisprudence, and human rights support offender autonomy and well-being. The intersections between the three models have been explored to propose a normative framework that provides principles and offers strategies to address therapeutic legal rules, legal procedures, and the role of psycholegal actors and offenders in initiating, supporting, and maintaining desistance.