Mediating punitiveness: understanding public attitudes towards work-related fatality cases

This paper concerns an empirical investigation into public attitudes towards work-related fatality cases, where organizational offenders cause the death of workers or members of the public. This issue is particularly relevant following the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 into UK law. Here, as elsewhere, the use of criminal law against companies reflects governmental concerns over public confidence in the law’s ability to regulate risk. The empirical findings demonstrate that high levels of public concern over these cases do not translate into punitive attitudes. Such cases are viewed rationally and constructively, and lead to instrumental rather than purely expressive enforcement preferences.

The EU, counter-terrorism and the protection of Muslims as European minorities

This article examines the EU’s promotion of the religious identity of Muslims within the context of European counter-terrorism measures. Counter-terrorism laws of the EU and its Member States impact on the religious identity of Muslims. They have an arguably disproportionate effect on the civil rights of individuals in the quest to combat terrorism and can be seen to increase Islamophobia in two ways: a rise in general discrimination against Muslims and a requirement on Muslims to distance their connection to Islamic practice and traditions. EU law dealing with terrorist offences speak little of this backlash that Muslims face in European countries. Although the EU has somewhat of a framework in place which concerns the protection of Islamic identity, the reluctance of the EU to take a determined stance on the issue of the protection of religious identity is illustrated through the ambiguous nature of its legislation.

Do soldiers' lives matter? A view from proportionality

A military operation is about to take place during an ongoing international armed conflict; it can be carried out either by aerial attack, which is expected to cause the deaths of enemy civilians, or by using ground troops, which is expected to cause the deaths of fewer enemy civilians but is expected to result in more deaths of compatriot soldiers. Does the principle of proportionality in international humanitarian law impose a duty on an attacker to expose its soldiers to life-threatening risks in order to minimise or avert risks of incidental damage to enemy civilians? If such a duty exists, is it absolute or qualified? And if it is a qualified duty, what considerations may be taken into account in determining its character and scope? This article presents an analytic framework under the current international humanitarian law (IHL) legal structure, following a proportionality analysis. The proposed framework identifies five main positions for addressing the above queries. The five positions are arranged along two ‘axes’: a value ‘axis’, which identifies the value assigned to the lives of compatriot soldiers in relation to lives of enemy civilians; and a justification ‘axis’, which outlines the justificatory bases for assigning certain values to lives of compatriot soldiers and enemy civilians: intrinsic, instrumental or a combination thereof. The article critically assesses these positions, and favours a position which attributes a value to compatriot soldiers’ lives, premised on a justificatory basis which marries intrinsic considerations with circumscribed instrumental considerations, avoiding the indeterminacy and normative questionability entailed by more expansive instrumental considerations.