Genocide and the International Court of Justice: Finally, a Duty to Prevent the Crime of Crimes

The International Court of Justice has issued its long-awaited decision in the suit filed by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro with respect to the 1992–1995 war. The decision confirms the factual and legal determinations of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ruling that genocide was committed during the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995 but that the conflict as a whole was not genocidal in nature. The Court held that Serbia had failed in its duty to prevent genocide in Srebrenica, although—because, the Court said, there was no certainty that it could have succeeded in preventing the genocide—no damages were awarded. The judgment provides a strong and authoritative statement of the general duty upon states to prevent genocide that dovetails well with the doctrine of the responsibility to protect.

Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech

This is a study of free speech and hate speech with reference to the international standards and to the United States jurisprudence. The study, in a comparative and critical fashion, depicts the historical evolution and the application of the concept of ‘free speech,’ within the context of ‘hate speech.’ The main question of this article is how free speech can be discerned from hate speech, and whether the latter should be restricted. To this end, it examines the regulation of free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in light of the international standards, particularly under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The study not only illustrates how elusive the endeavour of striking a balance between free speech and other vital interests could be, but also discusses whether and how hate speech should be eliminated within the ‘marketplace of ideas.’

Punishment, blame and stigma after conflict: the experience of politically motivated former prisoners in Northern Ireland

This paper examines the relationship between the politics of blame in post-conflict Northern Ireland and the treatment of politically motivated former prisoners. Using the examples of direct and indirect discrimination in the areas of employment and access to mental health services, the paper considers how the discursive operation of blaming produces evasions and attributions of guilt. It argues that such blaming practices have very real material consequences for the allocation or withholding of goods and burdens in the community. The paper notes also that the ‘cause of victims’ is often appropriated by the press and other political actors for their own purposes, frequently to block the provision of public goods to one particular group of ex-combatants: ex-politically motivated prisoners. It concludes by posing a series of questions about blaming, justice and the moral authority of the victim in a transitional justice context. The claim of the paper is simply to offer some starting points for understanding the relationship between processes of blame, stigma and social exclusion.

The Role of Self-Help Efforts in the Reintegration of ‘Politically Motivated’ Former Prisoners: Implications from the Northern Irish experience

Self-help (or mutual aid) processes play a substantial role in the reintegration of stigmatized individuals, in particular, a substantial self-help movement has developed around addiction recovery. Prisoners and ex-prisoners have also established self-help groups around the world. This paper focuses in particular on the role of self-help principles and practices among “politically motivated” former prisoners from all sides of the Northern Irish conflict. The concept of self-help and its application to former prisoners are analysed theoretically, then applied to the Northern Irish case study through a series of interviews with ex-prisoners whose incarceration has been related to the conflict in Northern Ireland. We draw on the implications of this case study for wider issues of reintegration for politically motivated and ordinary prisoners.

Resistance, transition and exclusion: Politically motivated ex-prisoners and conflict transformation in Northern Ireland

The landscape of political imprisonment in Northern Ireland was changed due to the general release and reintegration of politically motivated prisoners as part of the Belfast Agreement. This article reflects upon the post-prison experiences of former prisoners and their families, and in particular how the move from a resistant to a transitional framework has facilitated a greater openness and willingness amongs ex-prisoners to acknowledge the personal and familial problems related to incarceration. We also explore the ways in which ex-prisoners have attempted to deal with the continued social, political and civic exclusion which arises as a result of their conflict-related 'criminal' convictions. In the final section of the article, the authors further develop the move from a resistant to a transitional characterization of incarceration and its consequences.

A Human Rights Triumph? Dictatorship-Era Crimes and the Chilean Supreme Court

This article assesses the dramatic shift in Chilean Supreme Court jurisprudence toward accountability for crimes committed during the dictatorship and sets it within the context of judicial reform and political change. Chile's experience has been identified as emblematic of delayed justice, but an examination of key case law identifies the narrow scope and instability of Supreme Court decision-making. The Court has been uncharacteristically assertive in its application of human rights norms yet vulnerable to external influences. The Chilean example underscores the need for political leadership to address past violations in post-conflict societies. Political inertia impeded justice claims and, as a result, change required significant judicial innovation.