Igualitarismo, estructura básica y contextualismo rawlsiano

En este trabajo se analiza si es apropiado evaluar acciones individuales con los principios de justicia aplicables a las instituciones. Para lograr este objetivo, el artículo examina la teoría de la justicia rawlsiana y algunas de las principales objeciones en su contra. Los críticos niegan que los principios de justicia de esta teoría estén configurados para evaluar exclusivamente las instituciones sociales básicas. Es más: afirman que la justicia no sólo exige instituciones justas sino que además exige acciones individuales justas. La hipótesis de este trabajo afirma que principios aptos para ciertos contextos sociales no son adecuados para evaluar otro tipo de interacciones sociales. El argumento apela a una interpretación normativa de la noción de estructura básica, elemento clave para defender el carácter institucional de la justicia rawlsiana

Igualitarismo, estructura básica y contextualismo rawlsiano

En este trabajo se analiza si es apropiado evaluar acciones individuales con los principios de justicia aplicables a las instituciones. Para lograr este objetivo, el artículo examina la teoría de la justicia rawlsiana y algunas de las principales objeciones en su contra. Los críticos niegan que los principios de justicia de esta teoría estén configurados para evaluar exclusivamente las instituciones sociales básicas. Es más: afirman que la justicia no sólo exige instituciones justas sino que además exige acciones individuales justas. La hipótesis de este trabajo afirma que principios aptos para ciertos contextos sociales no son adecuados para evaluar otro tipo de interacciones sociales. El argumento apela a una interpretación normativa de la noción de estructura básica, elemento clave para defender el carácter institucional de la justicia rawlsiana

Igualitarismo, estructura básica y contextualismo rawlsiano

En este trabajo se analiza si es apropiado evaluar acciones individuales con los principios de justicia aplicables a las instituciones. Para lograr este objetivo, el artículo examina la teoría de la justicia rawlsiana y algunas de las principales objeciones en su contra. Los críticos niegan que los principios de justicia de esta teoría estén configurados para evaluar exclusivamente las instituciones sociales básicas. Es más: afirman que la justicia no sólo exige instituciones justas sino que además exige acciones individuales justas. La hipótesis de este trabajo afirma que principios aptos para ciertos contextos sociales no son adecuados para evaluar otro tipo de interacciones sociales. El argumento apela a una interpretación normativa de la noción de estructura básica, elemento clave para defender el carácter institucional de la justicia rawlsiana

Governança transversal dos direitos fundamentais : experiências Latino-Americanas

Tese (doutorado)—Universidade de Brasília, Faculdade de Direito, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito, 2016.

United States Department of Justice domestic and foreign field installation directory.

Description based on: May 1991.

Domestic violence in the urban fringe

Police call data for domestic violence incidents in the city of Brisbane were used to further explore the locational disadvantage thesis. it was hypothesised that the supposed additional burdens and stresses on disadvantaged families living in the outer suburbs may be reflected in significantly higher rates of reported domestic violence. Using an index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage and employing Analysis of variance (ANOVA) this research shows that significantly higher rates of reported domestic violence occur in the inner suburbs relative to the middle or outer suburbs of Brisbane. This finding adds further doubt to the magnitude of locational disadvantage impacts on outer suburban low income family households.

The constitutional power to make war: domestic legal issues raised by Australia's action in Iraq

The legal power to declare war has traditionally been a part of a prerogative to be exercised solely on advice that passed from the King to the Governor-General no later than 1942. In 2003, the Governor- General was not involved in the decision by the Prime Minister and Cabinet to commit Australian troops to the invasion of Iraq. The authors explore the alternative legal means by which Australia can go to war - means the government in fact used in 2003 - and the constitutional basis of those means. While the prerogative power can be regulated and/or devolved by legislation, and just possibly by practice, there does not seem to be a sound legal basis to assert that the power has been devolved to any other person. It appears that in 2003 the Defence Minister used his legal powers under the Defence Act 1903 (Cth) (as amended in 1975) to give instructions to the service head(s). A powerful argument could be made that the relevant sections of the Defence Act were not intended to be used for the decision to go to war, and that such instructions are for peacetime or in bello decisions. If so, the power to make war remains within the prerogative to be exercised on advice. Interviews with the then Governor-General indicate that Prime Minister Howard had planned to take the matter to the Federal Executive Council 'for noting', but did not do so after the Governor-General sought the views of the then Attorney-General about relevant issues of international law. The exchange raises many issues, but those of interest concern the kinds of questions the Governor-General could and should ask about proposed international action and whether they in any way mirror the assurances that are uncontroversially required for domestic action. In 2003, the Governor-General's scrutiny was the only independent scrutiny available because the legality of the decision to go to war was not a matter that could be determined in the High Court, and the federal government had taken action in March 2002 that effectively prevented the matter coming before the International Court of Justice

An evaluation of the sustainability of agreements reached through mediations conducted by the dispute resolution centres of the Department of Justice and Attorney General, Queensland between 1999 to 2003

In 1990 the Dispute Resolution Centres Act, 1990 (Qld) (the Act) was passed by the Queensland Parliament. In the second reading speech for the Dispute Resolution Centres Bill on May 1990 the Hon Dean Wells stated that the proposed legislation would make mediation services available “in a non-coercive, voluntary forum where, with the help of trained mediators, the disputants will be assisted towards their own solutions to their disputes, thereby ensuring that the result is acceptable to the parties” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). It was recognised at that time that a method for resolving disputes was necessary for which “the conventional court system is not always equipped to provide lasting resolution” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). In particular, the lasting resolution of “disputes between people in continuing relationships” was seen as made possible through the new legislation; for example, “domestic disputes, disputes between employees, and neighbourhood disputes relating to such issues as overhanging tree branches, dividing fences, barking dogs, smoke, noise and other nuisances are occurring continually in the community” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). The key features of the proposed form of mediation in the Act were articulated as follows: “attendance of both parties at mediation sessions is voluntary; a party may withdraw at any time; mediation sessions will be conducted with as little formality and technicality as possible; the rules of evidence will not apply; any agreement reached is not enforceable in any court; although it could be made so if the parties chose to proceed that way; and the provisions of the Act do not affect any rights or remedies that a party to a dispute has apart from the Act” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). Since the introduction of the Act, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General has offered mediation services through, first the Community Justice Program (CJP), and then the Dispute Resolution Centres (DRCs) for a range of family, neighbourhood, workplace and community disputes. These services have mirrored those available through similar government agencies in other states such as the Community Justice Centres of NSW and the Victorian Dispute Resolution Centres. Since 1990, mediation has become one of the fastest growing forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Sourdin has commented that "In addition to the growth in court-based and community-based dispute resolution schemes, ADR has been institutionalised and has grown within Australia and overseas” (2005, 14). In Australia, in particular, the development of ADR service provision “has been assisted by the creation and growth of professional organisations such as the Leading Edge Alternative Dispute Resolvers (LEADR), the Australian Commercial Dispute Centres (ACDC), Australian Disputes Resolution Association (ADRA), Conflict Resolution Network, and the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA)” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). The increased emphasis on the use of ADR within education contexts (particularly secondary and tertiary contexts) has “also led to an increasing acceptance and understanding of (ADR) processes” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). Proponents of the mediation process, in particular, argue that much of its success derives from the inherent flexibility and creativity of the agreements reached through the mediation process and that it is a relatively low cost option in many cases (Menkel-Meadow, 1997, 417). It is also accepted that one of the main reasons for the success of mediation can be attributed to the high level of participation by the parties involved and thus creating a sense of ownership of, and commitment to, the terms of the agreement (Boulle, 2005, 65). These characteristics are associated with some of the core values of mediation, particularly as practised in community-based models as found at the DRCs. These core values include voluntary participation, party self-determination and party empowerment (Boulle, 2005, 65). For this reason mediation is argued as being an effective approach to resolving disputes, that creates a lasting resolution of the issues. Evaluation of the mediation process, particularly in the context of the growth of ADR, has been an important aspect of the development of the process (Sourdin, 2008). Writing in 2005 for example, Boulle, states that “although there is a constant refrain for more research into mediation practice, there has been a not insignificant amount of mediation measurement, both in Australia and overseas” (Boulle, 2005, 575). The positive claims of mediation have been supported to a significant degree by evaluations of the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. A common indicator of the effectiveness of mediation is the settlement rate achieved. High settlement rates for mediated disputes have been found for Australia (Altobelli, 2003) and internationally (Alexander, 2003). Boulle notes that mediation agreement rates claimed by service providers range from 55% to 92% (Boulle, 2005, 590). The annual reports for the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General considered prior to the commencement of this study indicated generally achievement of an approximate settlement figure of 86% by the Queensland Dispute Resolution Centres. More recently, the 2008-2009 annual report states that of the 2291 civil dispute mediated in 2007-2008, 86% reached an agreement. Further, of the 2693 civil disputes mediated in 2008-2009, 73% reached an agreement. These results are noted in the report as indicating “the effectiveness of mediation in resolving disputes” and as reflecting “the high level of agreement achieved for voluntary mediations” (Annual Report, 2008-2009, online). Whilst the settlement rates for the DRCs are strong, parties are rarely contacted for long term follow-up to assess whether agreements reached during mediation lasted to the satisfaction of each party. It has certainly been the case that the Dispute Resolution Centres of Queensland have not been resourced to conduct long-term follow-up assessments of mediation agreements. As Wade notes, "it is very difficult to compare "success" rates” and whilst “politicians want the comparison studies (they) usually do not want the delay and expense of accurate studies" (1998, 114). To date, therefore, it is fair to say that the efficiency of the mediation process has been evaluated but not necessarily its effectiveness. Rather, the practice at the Queensland DRCs has been to evaluate the quality of mediation service provision and of the practice of the mediation process. This has occurred, for example, through follow-up surveys of parties' satisfaction rates with the mediation service. In most other respects it is fair to say that the Centres have relied on the high settlement rates of the mediation process as a sign of the effectiveness of mediation (Annual Reports 1991 - 2010). Research of the mediation literature conducted for the purpose of this thesis has also indicated that there is little evaluative literature that provides an in-depth analysis and assessment of the longevity of mediated agreements. Instead evaluative studies of mediation tend to assess how mediation is conducted, or compare mediation with other conflict resolution options, or assess the agreement rate of mediations, including parties' levels of satisfaction with the service provision of the dispute resolution service provider (Boulle, 2005, Chapter 16).

Theorizing Police Response to Domestic Violence in Singapore: Police Subculture Revisited

This article focuses on the well documented, yet potentially contested concept of rank-and-file policesubculture to conceptualize policeresponse to situations of domesticviolence in Singapore. It argues that the utility of the concept to explaining police behavior is often undermined by an all-powerful, homogenous, and deterministic conception of it that fails to take into account the value of agency in police decision-making and the range of differentiated policeresponse in situations of domesticviolence. Through reviewing the literature on policeresponse to domesticviolence, this study called for the need to rework the concept of policesubculture by treating it as having a relationship with, and response to, the structural conditions of policing, while retaining a conception of the active role played by street-level officers in instituting a situational practice. Using Pierre Bourdieu's relational concepts of ‘habitus’ and ‘field,’ designating the cultural dispositions of policesubculture and structural conditions of policing respectively, the study attempted to reconceptualize the problem of policing domesticviolence with reference to the Singaporean context.

The Operational Policing of Domestic Violence in Singapore: An Exploratory Study

This article examines the formal processing of domestic violence as accomplished by institutionalized policing in Singapore. The description of the process through which domestic calls for assistance were shaped and translated into relevant categories for appropriating a particular police response was facilitated through the use of the participant observation method. The ethnographic fieldwork reported here, including observations of call screening in action, is an attempt to explicate the phenomenological grounds employed by organizational members to constitute calls as instances of categories for practical policing purposes. Theoretically, the data point to the need for a reconceptualization of the problem of policing domestic violence by emphasizing the point that the eventual institutional response be understood as a product of the relationship that exists between police subculture and structural conditions of policing unique to contemporary Singapore society.

Between the Devil and the Deep-blue Sea: Conceptualizing Victims Experiences of Policing in Domestic Violence in the Singaporean Context

In contextualising victims' experiences of policing in domestic violence situations in Singapore, two extreme but interrelated sets of responses have been observed. At one end of the continuum, criminal justice sanctions are strictly contingent upon victim willingness to initiate criminal proceedings against the perpetrator, and at the other, victims' rights, needs and preferences seem to be usurped by the justice system regardless of victims' choice. Neither of these positions takes victims' interests into account. Nor do they stem from an understanding of the sociocultural, economic and structural circumstances in which victims experienced violence, and continued to experience it, long after a police intervention. Data from the research revealed that criminalisation as an ideological and legally practical tool was not only rendered ineffective but irrelevant to the experiences of women in the Singaporean context.Two factors account for this phenomenon. First, the absence of support structures to achieve criminalisation and address victims' needs in the aftermath of criminalisation; second, the authoritative, paternalistic and patriarchal state impedes processes aimed at the empowerment of women victims.