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.

Realising Justice for victims before the International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been celebrated for its innovative victim provisions, which enable victims to participate in proceedings, avail of protection measures and assistance, and to claim reparations. The impetus for incorporating victim provisions within the ICC, came from victims’ dissatisfaction with the ad hoc tribunals in providing them with more meaningful and tangible justice.1 The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY/R) only included victim protection measures, with no provisions for victims to participate in proceedings nor to claim reparations at them. Developments in domestic and international law, in particular human rights such as the 1985 UN Declaration on Justice for Victims and the UN Guidelines on Remedy and Reparations, and transitional justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions and reparations bodies, have helped to expand the notion of justice for international crimes to be more attuned to victims as key stakeholders in dealing with such crimes.

With the first convictions secured at the ICC and the victim participation and reparation regime taking form, it is worth evaluating the extent to which these innovative provisions have translated into justice for victims. The first part of this paper outlines what justice for victims of international crimes entails, drawing from victimology and human rights. The second section surveys the extent to which the ICC has incorporated justice for victims, in procedural and substantive terms, before concluding in looking beyond the Court to how state parties can complement the ICC in achieving justice for victims. This paper argues that while much progress has been made to institutionalise justice for victims within the Court, there is much more progress needed to evolve and develop justice for victims within the ICC to avoid dissatisfaction of past tribunals.

Sporting Justice: An Arbitrator's Perspective

Drawing on my experience of a number of sports dispute resolution tribunals in the UK and Ireland (such as Sports Resolutions UK; Just Sport Ireland; the Football Association of Ireland’s Disciplinary Panel and the Gaelic Athletic Association’s Dispute Resolution Authority) I intend to use this paper to review the legal arguments typically made in sports-related arbitrations. These points of interest can be summarised as a series of three questions: the fairness question; the liability question; the penalty question.

In answer to the fairness question, the aim is to give a brief outline on best practice in establishing a "fair" sports disciplinary tribunal. The answer, I believe, is always twofold in nature: first, and to paraphrase Lord Steyn in R v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Daly [2001] UKHL 26 at [28] "in law, context is everything" – translated into the present matter, this means that in sports disciplinary cases, the more serious the charges against the individual (in terms of reputational damage, economic impact and/or length of sanction); the more tightly wrapped the procedural safeguards surrounding any subsequent disciplinary hearing must be. A fair disciplinary system will be discussed in the context of the principles laid down in Article 8 of the World Anti-Doping Code which, in effect, acts as sport’s Article 6 of the ECHR on a right to a fair trial.

Following on from the above, in the 60 or so sports arbitrations that I have heard, there are two further points of interest. First, the claim before the arbitral panel will often be framed in an argument that, for various reasons of substantive and procedural irregularity, the sanction imposed on the appellant should be quashed ("the liability"). Second, and in alternative, that the sanction imposed was wholly disproportionate ("the penalty").

The liability issue usually breaks down into two further questions. First, what is the nature of the legal duty upon a sports body in exercising its disciplinary remit? Second, to what extent does a de novo hearing on appeal cure any apparent defects in a hearing of first instance? The first issue often results in an arbitral panel debating the contra preferentum approach to the interpretation of a contested rule i.e., the sports body’s rules in question are so ambiguous that they should be interpreted in a manner to the detriment of the rule maker and in favour of the appellant. On the second matter, it now appears to be a general principle of sports law, administrative law and even human rights law that even if a violation of the principles of natural justice takes place at the first instance stage of a disciplinary process, they may be cured on de novo appeal. Authority for this approach can be found at the Court of Arbitration for Sport and in particular in CAS 2009/A/1920 FK Pobeda, Aleksandar Zabrcanec, Nikolce Zdraveski v UEFA at para 87.

The question on proportionality asks what, aside from precedent found within the decisions of the sports body in question, are the general legal principles against which a sanction by a sports disciplinary body can be benchmarked in order to ascertain whether it is disproportionate in length or even irrational in nature?

On the matter of (dis)proportionality of sanction, the debate is usually guided by the authority in Bradley v the Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 (QB) and affirmed at [2005] EWCA Civ 1056. The Bradley principles on proportionality of sports-specific sanctions, recently cited with approval at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, will be examined in this presentation.

Finally, an interesting application of many of the above principles (and others such as the appropriate standard of proof in sports disciplinary procedures) can be made to recent match-fixing or corruption related hearings held by the British Horse Racing Authority, the integrity units of snooker and tennis, and at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Doing Justice to Recognition

The traditional role of justice is to arbitrate where the good will of people is not enough, if even present, to settle a dispute between the concerned parties. It is a procedural approach that assumes a fractured relationship between those involved. Recognition, at first glance, would not seem to mirror these aspects of justice. Yet recognition is very much a subject of justice these days. The aim of this paper is to question the applicability of justice to the practice of recognition. The methodological orientation of this paper is a Kantian-style critique of the institution of justice, highlighting the limits of its reach and the dangers of overextension. The critique unfolds in the following three steps: 1) There is an immediate appeal to justice as a practice of recognition through its commitment to universality. This allure is shown to be deceptive in providing no prescription for the actual practice of this universality. 2) The interventionist character of justice is designed to address divided relationships. If recognition is only given expression through this channel, then we can only assume division as our starting ground. 3) The outcome of justice in respect to recognition is identification. This identification is left vulnerable to misrecognition itself, creating a cycle of injustice that demands recognition from anew. It seems to be well accepted that recognition is essentjustice, but less clear how to do justice to recognition. This paper is an effort in clarification.

Extradition et non-refoulement : la justice fondamentale en péril? Analyse du cas Németh c. Canada (Justice)

Dans Németh c. Canada (Justice) (2010), la Cour suprême vient à la conclusion qu’il est possible, pour le ministre de la Justice, d’autoriser l’extradition d’un réfugié dans la mesure où cette dernière n’est pas injuste ou tyrannique, et qu’elle ne vise pas à punir la personne pour des motifs de persécution. Le juge Cromwell précise qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de révoquer le statut de réfugié avant le processus d’extradition ; le ministre n’a qu’à démontrer que les clauses de cessation se trouvant dans la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés s’appliquent. Cela implique qu’il doit faire la preuve, selon la balance des probabilités, que les réfugiés n’ont plus de raison de craindre la persécution dans leur pays d’origine, en établissant qu’il y a un changement stable de circonstances. Toutefois, le processus actuel d’extradition n’assure pas pleinement les protections procédurales auxquelles ont droit les réfugiés, dans la mesure où la Loi sur l’extradition accorde un pouvoir discrétionnaire au ministre de décider, au cas par cas, qui devrait avoir droit à une audition orale pour étayer sa cause. Puisque la possibilité de persécution au retour reste une question empreinte de subjectivité et fait appel à la crédibilité, il est du devoir du ministre d’accorder une forme d'audition aux réfugiés afin d’offrir de solides garanties procédurales. Or, la Cour n’est pas allée jusqu’à prescrire un tel devoir. Dans ce mémoire, nous nous interrogeons sur l’étendue des protections procédurales qui devraient être accordées à un réfugié menacé d’extradition.

L’émission des comportements inadaptés au travail : adaptation ou explication quant à la relation entre la perception de la justice organisationnelle et la santé psychologique des individus au travail

La présente thèse de doctorat porte sur la relation entre la perception de la justice organisationnelle, l’émission de comportements inadaptés au travail et la santé psychologique des individus au travail. En plus de développer un outil de mesure des comportements inadaptés au travail et d’entreprendre un processus de validation de celui-ci, le présent travail propose que les comportements inadaptés au travail puissent occuper un rôle soit protecteur ou explicatif dans la relation qui unit la perception de la justice organisationnelle avec la santé psychologique des individus au travail. Au sein de cette thèse, le premier article recense la documentation scientifique quant aux variables de la perception de la justice organisationnelle, de l’émission des comportements inadaptés au travail et de la santé psychologique des individus au travail, ainsi que les liens qui unissent ces variables. Aussi, les modèles conceptuels des rôles modérateur et médiateur des comportements inadaptés au travail sont proposés au sein de la relation entre la perception de la justice organisationnelle et la santé psychologique des individus au travail. Le deuxième article a pour objectif de développer un outil de mesure des comportements inadaptés au travail et de tester ses propriétés psychométriques. Ainsi, des analyses statistiques exploratoires et confirmatoires ont été effectuées. Afin d’appuyer la valeur critériée de l’outil proposé, une analyse corrélationnelle a été réalisée avec le critère de l’adaptation. Certaines valeurs psychométriques de l’outil sont validées par les résultats obtenus. Le troisième article examine empiriquement les modèles conceptuels des rôles anticipés des comportements inadaptés au travail dans la relation entre la perception de la justice organisationnelle et la santé psychologique des individus au travail. La perception de la justice organisationnelle a été vue sous les composantes distributive, procédurale, informationnelle et interpersonnelle. De son côté, la santé psychologique des individus a été observée par le biais des éléments du bien-être et de la détresse psychologique au travail. Les différentes analyses de régressions multiples hiérarchiques ont permis d’observer l’absence du rôle modérateur des comportements inadaptés au travail. Pour sa part, l’utilisation du test de Sobel a démontré la présence du rôle médiateur des comportements inadaptés au travail dans certaines relations. Plus exactement, celles-ci sont la relation entre la justice interpersonnelle et le bien-être psychologique au travail, la relation entre la justice interpersonnelle et la détresse psychologique au travail, ainsi que la relation entre la justice distributive et la détresse psychologique au travail. Finalement, la conclusion de la thèse présente une synthèse des résultats et expose les limites et pistes de recherches futures.

The European Court of Justice and process-oriented review. Research Paper in Law, 01/2012

Structuralism is a theory of U.S. constitutional adjudication according to which courts should seek to improve the decision-making process of the political branches of government so as to render it more democratic.1 In words of John Hart Ely, courts should exercise their judicial-review powers as a ‘representation-reinforcing’ mechanism.2 Structuralism advocates that courts must eliminate the elements of the political decision-making process that are at odds with the structure set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. The advantage of this approach, U.S. scholars posit, lies in the fact that it does not require courts to second-guess the policy decisions adopted by the political branches of government. Instead, they limit themselves to enforcing the constitutional structure within which those decisions must be adopted. Of course, this theory of constitutional adjudication, like all theories, has its shortcomings. For example, detractors of structuralism argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw the dividing line between ‘substantive’ and ‘structural’ matters.3 In particular, they claim that, when identifying the ‘structure’ set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, courts necessarily base their determinations not on purely structural principles, but on a set of substantive values, evaluating concepts such as democracy, liberty and equality. 4 Without claiming that structuralism should be embraced by the ECJ as the leading theory of judicial review, the purpose of my contribution is to explore how recent case-law reveals that the ECJ has also striven to develop guiding principles which aim to improve the way in which the political institutions of the EU adopt their decisions. In those cases, the ECJ decided not to second-guess the appropriateness of the policy choices made by the EU legislator. Instead, it preferred to examine whether, in reaching an outcome, the EU political institutions had followed the procedural steps mandated by the authors of the Treaties. Stated simply, I argue that judicial deference in relation to ‘substantive outcomes’ has been counterbalanced by a strict ‘process review’. To that effect, I would like to discuss three recent rulings of the ECJ, delivered after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, where an EU policy measure was challenged indirectly, i.e. via the preliminary reference procedure, namely Vodafone, Volker und Markus Schecke and Test-Achats.5 Whilst in the former case the ECJ ruled that the questions raised by the referring court disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the challenged act, in the latter cases the challenged provisions of an EU act were declared invalid.

The End of the Transitional Period for Police and Criminal Justice Measures Adopted before the Lisbon Treaty: Who monitors trust in the European Criminal Justice area? CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 74, December 2014

This study examines the legal and political implications of the forthcoming end of the transitional period for the measures in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, as set out in Protocol 36 to the EU Treaties. This Protocol limits some of the most far-reaching innovations introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon over EU cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs for a period of five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (until 1 December 2014), and provides the UK with special ‘opt out/opt-in’ possibilities. The study focuses on the meaning of the transitional period for the wider European Criminal Justice area. The most far-reaching change emerging from the end of this transition will be the expansion of the European Commission and Luxembourg Court of Justice scrutiny powers over Member States’ implementation of EU criminal justice law. The possibility offered by Protocol 36 for the UK to opt out and opt back in to pre-Lisbon Treaty instruments poses serious challenges to a common EU area of justice by further institutionalising ‘over-flexible’ participation in criminal justice instruments. The study argues that in light of Article 82 TFEU the rights of the defence are now inextricably linked to the coherency and effective operation of the principle of mutual recognition of criminal decisions, and calls the European Parliament to request the UK to opt in EU Directives on suspects procedural rights as condition for the UK to ‘opt back in’ measures like the European Arrest Warrant.

Affective Commitment and Job Satisfaction among Non-family Employees: Investigating the Roles of Justice Perceptions and Psychological Ownership

Due to numerous characteristics often attributed to family firms, they constitute a unique context for non-family employees’ justice perceptions. These are linked to non-family employees’ pro-organizational attitudes and behaviors, which are essential for family firms’ success. Even though scholarly interest in non-family employees’ justice perceptions has increased, more research is still needed, also because the mechanism connecting justice perceptions and favorable outcomes is not fully understood yet. We address this gap by explicitly investigating non-family employees’ justice perceptions and by introducing psychological ownership as a mediator in the relationships between justice perceptions (distributive and procedural) and common work attitudes (affective commitment and job satisfaction). Our analysis of a sample of 310 non-family employees from Germany and German-speaking Switzerland reveals that psychological ownership mediates the relationships between distributive justice and affective commitment as well as job satisfaction. This represents valuable contributions to family business research, organizational justice and psychological ownership literature, and to practice.

The Committed and the Happy: Exploring the Effects of Justice and Ownership Perceptions among Non-family Employees

A main challenge that family businesses face is fostering non-family employees' val-ue-creating attitudes, such as affective commitment and job satisfaction. While justice perceptions have been identified as being critical in the creation of these outcomes, the process how they actually evolve is less clear, especially in family firms. We address this gap by introducing psychological ownership as a mediator in the relationships between justice perceptions (distributive and procedural) and common work attitudes (affective commitment and job satisfaction). Our analysis of a sample of 310 non-family employees from family firms in German-speaking Switzerland and Germany reveals that psychological ownership mediates the relationships between distributive justice and affective commitment as well as job satisfaction. This leads to valuable contributions to family business research, organizational justice and psychological ownership literatures, and to practice.

Workplace justice, citizenship behavior, and turnover intentions in a union context: examining the mediating role of perceived union support and union instrumentality

This study examined the relationship between workplace justice afforded by the grievance system and the union outcomes of citizenship behavior and turnover intentions and the mechanisms that underpin these relationships. Respondents (N = 187) were members of a large public sector union in Singapore. Results revealed that perceived union support and union instrumentality fully mediated the relationship between the dimensions of workplace justice and citizenship behavior directed toward the union (OCBO) and citizenship behavior directed at other union members (OCBI). Union instrumentality partially mediated the procedural justice–turnover intentions relationship.

Managing careers and managing fairness : an organisational justice theory perspective on employee evaluations of, and reactions to, organisational career management practices

This thesis presents the results of a multi-method investigation of employee perceptions of fairness in relation to their career management experiences. Organisational justice theory (OJT) was developed as a theoretical framework and data were gathered via 325 quantitative questionnaires, 20 semi-structured interviews and the analysis of a variety of company documents and materials. The results of the questionnaire survey provided strong support for the salience of employee perceptions of justice in regard to their evaluations of organisational career management (OCM) practices, with statistical support emerging for both an agent-systems and interaction model of organisational justice. The qualitative semi-structured interviews provided more detailed analysis of how fairness was experienced in practice, and confirmed the importance of the OJT constructs of fairness within this career management context. Fairness themes to emerge from this analysis included, equity, needs, voice, bias suppression, consistency, ethicality, respect and feedback drawing on many of the central tenants of distributive, procedural, interpersonal and information justice. For the career management literature there is empirical confirmation of a new theoretical framework for understanding employee evaluations of, and reactions to, OCM practices. For the justice literatures a new contextual domain is explored and confirmed, thus extending further the influence and applicability of the theory. For practitioners a new framework for developing, delivering and evaluating their own OCM policies and systems is presented.

The Evolution and Reform of Summary Trials in Canadian Military Justice

There is a place where a Canadian citizen can be sent to 30 days detention, by someone who is not a judge, without being represented by counsel, and without having a meaningful right to appeal. It is the summary trial system of the Canadian Armed Forces. This thesis analyses that system and suggests reforms. It is aimed at those who have an interest in improving the administration of military justice at the unit level but want to sufficiently understand the issues before doing so. Through a classic legal approach with elements of legal history and comparative law, this study begins by setting military justice in the Canadian legal firmament. The introductory chapter also explains fundamental concepts, first and foremost the broader notion of discipline, for which summary trial is one of the last maintaining tools. Chapter II describes the current system. An overview of its historical background is first given. Then, each procedural step is demystified, from investigation until review. Chapter III identifies potential breaches of the Charter, highlighting those that put the system at greater constitutional risk: the lack of judicial independence, the absence of hearing transcript, the lack of legal representation and the disparity of treatment between ranks. Alternatives adopted in the Canadian Armed Forces and in foreign jurisdictions, from both common law and civil law traditions, in addressing similar challenges are reviewed in Chapter IV. Chapter V analyses whether the breaches could nevertheless be justified in a free and democratic society. Its conclusion is that, considering the availability of reasonable alternatives, it would be hard to convince a court that the current system is a legitimate impairment of the individual’s legal rights. The conclusion Chapter presents options to address current challenges. First, the approach of ‘depenalization’ taken by the Government in recent Bill C-71 is analysed and criticised. The ‘judicialization’ approach is advocated through a series of 16 recommendations designed not only to strengthen the constitutionality of the system but also to improve the administration of military justice in furtherance of service members’ legal rights.

Integrating Environmental Justice and Social-Ecological Resilience for Successful Adaptation to Climate Change: Lessons from African American Communities on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay

This research concerns the conceptual and empirical relationship between environmental justice and social-ecological resilience as it relates to climate change vulnerability and adaptation. Two primary questions guided this work. First, what is the level of resilience and adaptive capacity for social-ecological systems that are characterized by environmental injustice in the face of climate change? And second, what is the role of an environmental justice approach in developing adaptation policies that will promote social-ecological resilience? These questions were investigated in three African American communities that are particularly vulnerable to flooding from sea-level rise on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, I found that in all three communities, religious faith and the church, rootedness in the landscape, and race relations were highly salient to community experience. The degree to which these common aspects of the communities have imparted adaptive capacity has changed over time. Importantly, a given social-ecological factor does not have the same effect on vulnerability in all communities; however, in all communities political isolation decreases adaptive capacity and increases vulnerability. This political isolation is at least partly due to procedural injustice, which occurs for a number of interrelated reasons. This research further revealed that while all stakeholders (policymakers, environmentalists, and African American community members) generally agree that justice needs to be increased on the Eastern Shore, stakeholder groups disagree about what a justice approach to adaptation would look like. When brought together at a workshop, however, these stakeholders were able to identify numerous challenges and opportunities for increasing justice. Resilience was assessed by the presence of four resilience factors: living with uncertainty, nurturing diversity, combining different types of knowledge, and creating opportunities for self-organization. Overall, these communities seem to have low resilience; however, there is potential for resilience to increase. Finally, I argue that the use of resilience theory for environmental justice communities is limited by the great breadth and depth of knowledge required to evaluate the state of the social-ecological system, the complexities of simultaneously promoting resilience at both the regional and local scale, and the lack of attention to issues of justice.