FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2041520013> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2041520013 endingPage "46" @default.
• W2041520013 startingPage "31" @default.
• W2041520013 abstract "For these crimes, no punishment is severe enough. It may well be essential to hang Goring, but it is totally inadequate. That is, this guilt, in contrast to all criminal guilt, oversteps and shatters any and all legal systems. That is the reason why the Nazis in Nuremberg are so smug. --Hannah Arendt (1) What you end up in post-genocide society is not justice. Perhaps we should use another word for it. --Gerald Gahima, Deputy Minister of Justice, Rwanda (2) In recent history, mass atrocities have occurred only at the margins of western experience. Since the end of World War II at least, the worst international crimes have taken place in remote spots like Cambodia, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia, appearing only as ghostly images on CNN and in the pages of Life magazine. This fact has had many consequences for our thinking about the relations between law, justice, and international society. In particular, it has left faith in international law and international criminal proceedings largely unchallenged in much of western consciousness. Increasingly, international criminal tribunals are promoted by diplomats and legal scholars as a means by which victims of horrendous crimes may achieve justice, and states may develop an international order based on a respect for rights. This movement reached a dramatic new phase with the codification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its entry into force in July 2002 (with 139 signers). However, the development of this novel institution may bring the power as well as the limitations of international criminal justice into public debate again, raising questions that were asked--and largely dropped--at the end of World War II. One such observation was that of Hannah Arendt, quoted above. I take Arendt's comments and her somewhat oblique criticism to be important for understanding the moral foundations of modern war-crimes trials. In my view, she points to a problem that creeps only around the edges of contemporary legal thought, but one which nonetheless requires serious reflection. In particular, her assertion about Nuremberg points to a serious problem for retributivists (like myself), for whom punishment is considered to be a moral response to the crimes that were committed. In essence, if there is no possible equivalence between crime and punishment then, as Arendt asserts, then there is no moral rationale for such trials. Or at least, if this is the case, the retributivist view of punishment is in some deep sense a flawed one. However, this is not just a critique of a particular theory of criminal punishment, a theory that could be easily discarded in favor of another more appropriate one. Rather, Arendt's critique cuts deeper than mere theory. Her insight (shared by Churchill among others) points to a flaw in the central rationale for the nascent international criminal law regime. This legal order (comprising treaties, customs, and moral principles developed over the last sixty years since the international Military Tribunal [IMT] at Nuremberg) has been constructed around a particular philosophical ideal that depends on notions of justice, order, and dignity. It is these values that are the object of Arendt's critique. Thus, if her criticism is a valid one, it would prove devastating for the entire program of international criminal justice. In this essay, I seek to make sense of a retributivist approach to punishment for war crimes in light of Arendt's observation. My argument has several steps. First, I claim that a retributivist theory of punishment is the only approach that can effectively make sense out of the human rights revolution, on one hand, and war-crimes trials, on the other. This is especially true in light of current international criminal law and the newly constructed ICC. Second, I will turn to Arendt's objection, one that I take to be particularly threatening for the retributivist because it attacks this view on its own terms (that is, it offers an internal critique of retributivism). …" @default.
• W2041520013 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2041520013 creator A5067260722 @default.
• W2041520013 date "2005-01-01" @default.
• W2041520013 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2041520013 title "Crimes beyond justice? Retributivism and war crimes" @default.
• W2041520013 cites W1969276059 @default.
• W2041520013 cites W2011931335 @default.
• W2041520013 cites W2057257255 @default.
• W2041520013 cites W2076273920 @default.
• W2041520013 cites W2943869298 @default.
• W2041520013 cites W4231229036 @default.
• W2041520013 cites W4235527692 @default.
• W2041520013 cites W4289790859 @default.
• W2041520013 cites W4299854466 @default.
• W2041520013 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129x.2005.9992178" @default.
• W2041520013 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2041520013 type Work @default.
• W2041520013 sameAs 2041520013 @default.
• W2041520013 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W2041520013 countsByYear W20415200132013 @default.
• W2041520013 countsByYear W20415200132016 @default.
• W2041520013 countsByYear W20415200132019 @default.
• W2041520013 countsByYear W20415200132022 @default.
• W2041520013 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2041520013 hasAuthorship W2041520013A5067260722 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConcept C102587632 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConcept C110928126 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConcept C195064531 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConcept C55447825 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConceptScore W2041520013C102587632 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConceptScore W2041520013C110928126 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConceptScore W2041520013C139621336 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConceptScore W2041520013C144024400 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConceptScore W2041520013C17744445 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConceptScore W2041520013C195064531 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConceptScore W2041520013C199539241 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConceptScore W2041520013C55447825 @default.
• W2041520013 hasConceptScore W2041520013C73484699 @default.
• W2041520013 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2041520013 hasLocation W20415200131 @default.
• W2041520013 hasOpenAccess W2041520013 @default.
• W2041520013 hasPrimaryLocation W20415200131 @default.
• W2041520013 hasRelatedWork W1993830771 @default.
• W2041520013 hasRelatedWork W2792939081 @default.
• W2041520013 hasRelatedWork W2796575976 @default.
• W2041520013 hasRelatedWork W2841311583 @default.
• W2041520013 hasRelatedWork W2910603152 @default.
• W2041520013 hasRelatedWork W2911448784 @default.
• W2041520013 hasRelatedWork W3122827494 @default.
• W2041520013 hasRelatedWork W596441448 @default.
• W2041520013 hasRelatedWork W618539258 @default.
• W2041520013 hasRelatedWork W6878567 @default.
• W2041520013 hasVolume "24" @default.
• W2041520013 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2041520013 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2041520013 magId "2041520013" @default.
• W2041520013 workType "article" @default.