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.

Legislation Blocking Antitrust Investigations and the September 2012 Russian Executive Order

This article offers a typology of so-called blocking legislation and analyses its development, functions and legality under international law. It also presents and discusses the new Russian blocking Order, issued in September 2012, focusing on its possible effects on the European Commission's investigation of Gazprom's business practices (in light of EU competition law) as well as, more broadly, on foreign operations of Russian strategic enterprises.

The executive committee of the Greek Professional Association of Social Work in an age of austerity: examining its response

This paper explores the response by the Greek Association of Social Workers (SKLE) to Greece's current economic crisis. Socioeconomic conditions in Greece have deteriorated rapidly since the imposition of a Structural Adjustment Programme as a condition of the loan Troika provided to Greece to address its class-based public debt crisis. Interviews were conducted with SKLE Executive Committee members to examine SKLE's response in the context of newly raised inequalities. Research results show that SKLE recognised the negative consequences to both service users and its members. However, SKLE continues to reformulate its strategy mostly as a social partner. SKLE's previous strategy entailed amongst other things the analysis of policy proposals and participation in welfare related government committees. This strategy is no longer relevant because decision-making powers have been transferred to transnational bodies. This paper elaborates on these findings and discusses the barriers that prohibit SKLE from differentiation of its strategy. Although the research is country specific, it has implications for the broader global debate because professional associations must reformulate their strategies for better serving of both their constituents and the collective good based on the social justice mandate of the profession.

Regulating Services Trade Agreements - A Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Disciplines Included in EU and US Free Trade Agreements

Developed countries, led by the EU and the US, have consistently called for ‘deeper integration’ over the course of the past three decades i.e., the convergence of ‘behind-the-border’ or domestic polices and rules such as services, competition, public procurement, intellectual property (“IP”) and so forth. Following the collapse of the Doha Development Round, the EU and the US have pursued this push for deeper integration by entering into deep and comprehensive free trade agreements (“DCFTAs”) that are comprehensive insofar as they are not limited to tariffs but extend to regulatory trade barriers. More recently, the EU and the US launched negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“TTIP”) and a Trade in Services Agreement (“TISA”), which put tackling barriers resulting from divergences in domestic regulation in the area of services at the very top of the agenda. Should these agreements come to pass, they may well set the template for the rules of international trade and define the core features of domestic services market regulation. This article examines the regulatory disciplines in the area of services included in existing EU and US DCFTAs from a comparative perspective in order to delineate possible similarities and divergences and assess the extent to which these DCFTAs can shed some light into the possible outcome and limitations of future trade negotiations in services. It also discusses the potential impact of such negotiations on developing countries and, more generally, on the multilateral process.