Search

Legal epistemology seems to be exploding. More and more philosophers seem to be taking an interest in the theory of evidence law, and to bring along with them to legal theory the freshest news from the abstract study of epistemology . This is understandable, of course: The law in general, and evidence law in particular, seems to be employing the same natural-language terms epistemologists are (or are at least supposed to be) interested in (“knew or should have known”, “reasonable doubt”, “evidence”, “presumption” (of innocence), and so on) . In this paper we argue that a large part of this project is based on a mistake, roughly analogous to the mistake involved in thinking of studies of intelligence as relevant to the understanding of military intelligence. With qualifications shortly to emerge, epistemology is not, we think, intrinsically and directly relevant to normative evidence law theory, at least, that is, as long as the relevant perspective is that of designing the evidence law regime. When it comes to the conscientious fact-finder, things may be – we’re not sure about this – importantly different.

This paper aims to examine the functional review of public relations management from an ontology perspective. Public Relations is an organizational activity that is manifested in the form of activities and at the same time is a process of communication between one individual with an individual or a community. The communication process that occurs and is created in this activity, is very important for the smooth and sustainable organization. Therefore, an ontology approach is needed, as part of a philosophical study to dissect about public relations management in terms of its function. As part of the study of philosophy, ontology has a very important role in finding out what and to what extent public relations management is to be achieved. In this perspective, the study of the functional review of public relations management concerns matters that have an existence in the dimensions of space and time, and can be reached by sensory experience, which includes the phenomenon of public relations that can be observed, measured and can be obtained and can be interpreted, so that it can be drawn a conclusion. This study uses a qualitative research type library approach. The data analysis technique used is content analysis. The results of the study show that; the managerial functional review of public relations covers the activities of fact finding, planning, communication, actuating, and evaluating.

A paradigm shift is underway in scholarship on legal fact-finding. Recent work clearly and consistently suggests that persuasion is the product of purely comparative assessments of factual propositions. This paper comments on the philosophical roots of the comparative paradigm. It also highlights two outstanding challenges for the comparative approach: (1) specification of a purely comparative test for the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, and (2) articulation of the mechanics by which unspecific or disjunctive factual propositions are supposed to be weighed in comparative fact-finding.

Legal epistemology seems to be exploding. More and more philosophers seem to be taking an interest in the theory of evidence law, and to bring along with them to legal theory the freshest news from the abstract study of epistemology . This is understandable, of course: The law in general, and evidence law in particular, seems to be employing the same natural-language terms epistemologists are (or are at least supposed to be) interested in (“knew or should have known”, “reasonable doubt”, “evidence”, “presumption” (of innocence), and so on) . In this paper we argue that a large part of this project is based on a mistake, roughly analogous to the mistake involved in thinking of studies of intelligence as relevant to the understanding of military intelligence. With qualifications shortly to emerge, epistemology is not, we think, intrinsically and directly relevant to normative evidence law theory, at least, that is, as long as the relevant perspective is that of designing the evidence law regime. When it comes to the conscientious fact-finder, things may be – we’re not sure about this – importantly different.

This brief paper addresses the relationships and differences between what motivates fact finding in law, history and sciences and how fact finding is pursued in these disciplines.

On the issue of fact-finding or knowledge acquisition, both history and law belong to the field of evidence science. They share the same research objects, use roughly the same method of evidential reasoning, follow the same general rules of fact-finding and face the same scientific and technological challenges. At the same time, there are obvious differences between the two in terms of research purposes, time limits and results. The process of fact-finding in historical study and judicial trials both require interpretation of evidence. On the premise of opposing factual constructionism, the law of evidence emphasizes that there must be a certain relationship between factual premise and judgment conclusion, and it uses the holistic accounts method of IBE instead of formalistic interpretation of evidence, thus revealing the essence of judicial proof and the value orientation of fundamental rights protection.

Conflict is a natural and unavoidable part of human existence. It is resulting from individual or groups that differ in attitude, beliefs, values or needs. This study explored Contemporary Practices of Customary Conflict Resolution Mechanism in and around Ambo district. The study answered the following basic questions: What are the roles of Bokkuu centers in handling conflict/disputes? How did the Bokkuu centers resolve conflict/disputes? Who are the main actors that guide the conflict resolution procedure at the Bokkuu centers? What types of conflict is resolved at the three Bokkuu centers? Qualitative research methods were used to understand the complexity of Oromo cultural peacemaking and how this takes shape within the culture of the Oromo custom. Techniques of collecting data were interviewing knowledgeable elders, field observation, and Focused Group Discussion were employed. The study discovers that the participants of the study agree that cultural conflict resolution are more effective in fact finding and resolve the disagreement between the disputants than that of formal courts. Because of its effectiveness in conflict resolution and truth finding traditional conflict resolution mechanisms is extensively serving in the study area. The ways judicial procedures take place is more reliably and open for disputants and any interested body that have an idea about the issue. The members of the council are the main actor of the cultural centers; they are five in number and belong to different clans.

In her article, ‘Measuring extraordinary rendition and international cooperation’, Rebecca Cordell seeks to subject the Rendition Flights Database to a model-based, statistical analysis. She argues that her analysis suggests that more countries were involved in the CIA’s rendition programme than our work has previously established, and that many more flights in the database are likely to be connected to rendition operations than we have identified. While we would not dispute the likelihood that both of these statements are correct, and we have always presented our findings with an acknowledgement that they provide a necessarily limited account of the rendition, detention and interrogation (RDI) programme, we suggest that Cordell’s work should be approached with some caution. This is so for two reasons. First, her findings – although derived through a different mode of analysis from our own – do not appear to move beyond those we have already published. Second, because Cordell has not triangulated her analysis with either data relating to transfers of specific prisoners, or with evidence relating to which countries hosted prisons for the CIA and the operational dates for these prisons, we question her claim that the flights she has identified from the Database are ‘likely rendition flights’. We aim to demonstrate the importance of having a clear understanding of the limitations of big data when researching violations of human rights, especially where such data is related to covert operations. We also seek to show why the Renditions Flights Database only has merit when it is triangulated with a wide range of supplementary sources, including first-hand accounts by prisoners themselves, declassified documents from the US Government, and the findings of parliamentary, journalist and legal investigations. It is this process of triangulation which gives the flight data meaning and which makes it of value for establishing the facts of human rights abuses.

Evidence law concerns rules for fact-finding. In this sense, it is driven towards the “Epistemology of the Tribunal”. The primary purpose of “courtroom epistemology” is to ascertain the truth or to...

In order to gain an understanding of journalists’ conceptions of what being factual means, the present work supplements the existing insights of journalism studies and the sociology of knowledge and philosophy with data about journalists’ beliefs regarding the importance of detached observation and reporting things as they are, spanning 62 countries (N = 18,248). In essence, our goal is to contribute to a future theoretical account of why journalists possess the beliefs that they do vis-a-vis truth-seeking and knowledge-acquisition. Data point to a significant relationship between reporters’ level of freedom and their conceptions of knowledge and reality. We discuss the implications of these findings for the debate about the possibilities of universality and context-dependence of journalistic fact-finding.

Prayer plays a noteworthy role in Muslims daily lives. Quran and Sunnah testify that regular prayers can boost one’s health, can remove the level of stress, and may make one more productive and vigour. Such findings also noticed by medical and psychological experts, and likewise many contemporary research have shown wide-ranging outcomes in terms of improved wellbeing when prayer is done with sincere devotion. Nevertheless what is lacking is that the policy makers in the Islamic world need to initiate whether there exist any linkages between prayer and productivity, which needs to be appreciated more by them, as well as by Islamic economists and social scientists, Islamic business professionals and Islamic jurists, and then through a concerted effort and dynamic fact finding mission and verification to ascertain the Qur’anic beliefs in our daily lives. This studies using descriptive analysis to explain the linkage between the Islamic prayer and productivityDOI: 10.15408/aiq.v8i2.3160

The Arbitral Tribunal in the arbitration instituted by the Philippines against China has issued its Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility. Juridical practices have something in common. The arbitral proceedings generally comprise two indispensable stages: findings of fact and application of law. The production, collection, and evaluation of evidence serve a particular purpose: they are meant to enable the adjudicative body to find facts. Thus, evidence is meant to prove or disprove facts. This review paper aims to discuss evidence and fact-finding process in the Award. As a general rule, international judges or arbitrators have wide discretion in the evaluation of evidence, but the guiding principle of the rules governing evidence should be the principle of fair trial. The problems of evidence evaluation and fact-finding revealed in the Award would be much serious at the merits stage, thus have negative implications for the Tribunal to deliver its decision impartially.

When the Editor-in-Chief of the Utrecht Journal of International and European Law (UJIEL) approached us with the possibility of guest editing a special issue related to public international law and policy, we felt the timing could not have been better. As academics at Utrecht University with the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights and Montaigne Centre for Judicial Administration and Conflict Resolution, we felt that a theme linking the world of lawyers with that of policymakers was important in order to examine the role of law in protecting human rights and security. Moreover, as Senior Counsel with the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG), which celebrated its 20-year anniversary in 2016, we welcomed the idea to link academic scholarship with the work of PILPG. After all, PILPG’s founders, Professor Paul Williams and Professor Michael Scharf, have themselves acted as bridges between scholarship and practice for years. As a result, this special edition is not only intended to highlight the extraordinary work carried out by PILPG on issues of law and policy around the world, but also to emphasise the importance of linking scholarship with practice and addressing contemporary issues impacting the world in which we live. PILPG’s motto ‘lawyering peace’ requires reflection on the role that law can play in helping to bring about the peaceful resolution of serious problems affecting individuals and societies as a whole. This special edition of UJIEL, addressing a variety of themes, does just that.

Earthquakes, floods, and landslides are frequent disasters in Indonesia. They can happen anytime. Recently Department of Architecture Faculty of Engineering Universitas Indonesia, together with the Indonesian Red Cross in Bogor Regency and its volunteers squat (SIBAT) had conducted disaster role-playing as a preparedness program for elementary school students. The role-play was aimed to introduce a quick response for elementary school students by the time the disaster happened at their school. Two kinds of disasters were chosen based on the school location's characteristics: flooding and earthquake. The method involved in this study is action-research. In the end, the students were asked to draw their spatial experience in one piece of paper as a reflection. Additionally, the team also gave feedback questions or quiz to measure the starting point of the role-playing which expected to shape their new knowledge. For in-depth aspects, the students also received a badge as the inauguration sign of “Agent of responsive to disaster”. This paper outlines the fact-finding during the role-playing as the students' response to the environment. The findings are useful as the baseline for a disaster quick response preparedness module for elementary students' development.

Intractable international conflicts and difficult or intractable family conflicts have much in common. Relationships are damaged or destroyed, escalation causes parties to become polarized and make bad decisions, communication is strained or nonexistent, and competition and coercion take the place of collaboration. Similarities also exist in the realm of solutions, and those caught in (or intervening in) difficult family conflicts can learn much from the strategies and tactics of international peacebuilders. This article describes eight steps that peacebuilders at both the family level and the international level can take to make very damaging conflicts more constructive. Key Points for the Family Court Community: Limiting escalation is important in both contexts. Preventing or correcting misunderstandings is key to resolution in both contexts as well. Be sure you are focusing on the real problem(s). Get the facts straight (and agreed upon) before making agreements. Healing past wrongs is important for long term stability. Working both within and beyond the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) is essential in both contexts. Working to improve relationships helps all parties and improves the outcome.

The Srebrenica tragedy has given rise to many responses of political, judicial and semi-judicial nature. One mechanism that has perhaps received less attention than the adjudicatory performances is the institution of inquiry. This article contrasts the two most prominent formal inquiries into the fall of Srebrenica by the UN and the Dutch NIOD and it offers valuable insights into the role and authority of inquiry exercises regarding international affairs and moments of crisis. The article also examines the function of ex post facto inquiries as compared to judicial exercises. Given that inquiry processes generally establish a greater set of facts which are not tied up to legal categories, it is argued that the institution of inquiry may fulfil a complementary function to legal processes as it can offer a more comprehensive account of events and thus address societal demands for the accountability of a wider range of actors.

More than ninety people died in political violence linked to the March–May 2010 “redshirt” protests in Bangkok. The work of the government-appointed Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) illustrates the potential shortcomings of seeing quasi-judicial commissions as a catch-all solution for societies struggling to deal with the truth about their recent pasts. The 2012 TRCT report was widely criticized for blaming too much of the violence on the actions of rogue elements of the demonstrators and failing to focus tightly on the obvious legal transgressions of the security forces. By failing strongly to criticize the role of the military in most of the fatal shootings, the TRCT arguably helped pave the way for the 2014 coup. Truth commissions that are unable to produce convincing explanations of the facts they examine may actually prove counterproductive. Following Quinn and Wilson, we argue in this article that weak truth commissions are prone to politicization and are likely to produce disappointing outcomes, which may even be counterproductive.

Whereas the characteristics of human rights fact-finding largely vary depending on the typology and scope of the entity that carries it out, consensus seems to be developing that a common set of challenges to human rights fact-finding exists. This is especially so when carried out under United Nations auspices. For example, it has long been acknowledged that the very nature of the institution, sitting as it does at the crossroads of international politics, as well as the seemingly irresolvable tension between calls for human rights protection on the one hand, and State sovereignty on the other, present some structural challenges to human rights fact-finding. Furthermore, issues of coordination between the United Nations and other institutions (such as international governmental and non-governmental organisations, or international tribunals), as well as what some have called a ‘lack of institutional memory’ arguably often feature as regular traits among fact-finding mechanisms. In recent years, a further set of challenges has been added to the mix by additional requirements, featuring increasingly often in mandates, that instruct fact-finding mechanisms to make further determinations of facts (concerning, e.g. , the identity of those most responsible for the violations being documented, or the existence of an armed conflict) and even consider questions of law ( e.g. the qualification of the violations as crimes under international law). Building on an expanding body of scholarship on the subject, as well as the author’s own experience with fact-finding efforts sitting at the intersection between traditional international human rights law and international criminal justice, this article argues: (i) that human rights fact-finding has evolved in three waves; (ii) that the third wave of human rights fact-finding is characterised by an “accountability turn”; and that (iii) this turn has brought about an additional set of challenges to the already thin-stretched capacity of UN human rights inquiries. By virtue of the arguments advanced in this article, the author posits that updating and solidifying the human rights fact-finding methodology can assist United Nations inquiries and other human rights fact-finders in strengthening the credibility of their findings.

Wittingly or unwittingly, civil society actors have long been faced with the task of documenting serious human rights violations. Thirty years ago, such efforts were largely organised by grassroots movements, often with little support or funding from international actors. Sharing information and best practices was difficult. Today that situation has significantly changed. The purpose of this article is to explore the changing landscape of civil society documentation of serious human rights violations, and what that means for standardising and professionalising documentation efforts. Using the recent Hisséne Habré case as an example, this article begins by looking at how civil society documentation can successfully influence an accountability process. Next, the article touches upon barriers that continue to impede greater documentation efforts. The article examines the changing landscape of documentation, focusing on technological changes and the rise of citizen journalism and unofficial investigations, using Syria as an example, as well as on the increasing support for documentation efforts both in Syria and worldwide. The changing landscape has resulted in the proliferation of international documentation initiatives aimed at providing local civil society actors guidelines and practical assistance on how to recognise, collect, manage, store and use information about serious human rights violations, as well as on how to minimise the risks associated with the documentation of human rights violations. The recent initiatives undertaken by international civil society, including those by the Public International Law & Policy Group, play an important role in helping to standardise and professionalise documentation work and promote the foundational principles of documentation, namely the ‘do no harm’ principle, and the principles of informed consent and confidentiality. Recognising the drawback that greater professionalisation may bring, it nevertheless concludes by applauding the initiatives undertaken thus far and calls for even more sustained cooperation, dissemination and training for civil society where possible.

A matrimony causes law effects for husband and wife called the rights and obligations. A husband and wife each have the right and obligation in marriage. Book ‘Uqūd al Lujayn by Shaykh Muhammad Bin Umar Al-Nawawī Al-Bantanī constituting book that works through marriage and still frequently be assessed at several boarding houses or pondok pesantren in Indonesia. Indonesia which constitutes as a law based country has managed laws on marriage, namely Undang-Undang Number 1 Year 1974 about marriage to know the right and obligations which correspond to orders in Islam and not rule out Indonesian marriage Law. This research is arranged utilized answers severally problem formula by using library research with qualitative method and descriptive analytic which is the researcher tries to word aught material with intent fact finding by analyzing what do be equal to as effort to solve problems . Data collecting is utilized to methodic library material via written texts and also soft copy edition and analyzed by content analyses and comparisons. Based on the observational result, researcher concludes that: (1) Books ‘ Uqūd al Lujayn in managing rights of husband and wife which positioning husband rights upon as level as higher as wife. (2) the right and obligation equations of husband and wife in book ‘ Uqūd al Lujayn and Number Law 1 Year 1974 Connubial are both husband and wife have to be good and glorious, husband as patriarch, husband mandatorying to give wife earnings, wife as housewife that mandatory manage housewifery with all the best and mandatory husband and wife mutually loves, faithful and helping. Meanwhile difference of both lays in rights arrangement and wife husband position, negligence sanction in going liabilities and wife permit liabilities to husband. (3 ) Basic Principle that become difference concept base rights balance and wife husband position in book ‘Uqūd al Lujayn and Number Law 1 Year 1974 connubial are that book footing ‘Uqūd al Lujayn on Q.S Al Baqarah (2 ): 228, Q. S al Baqarah (2 ): 228 and hadis is Prophets. Meanwhile Number Law footing 1 Year 1974 connubial on jender’s equation. Keywords: rights and obligations, ‘Uqūd al-Lujayn, Undang-Undang Perkawinan

Legal probabilism (LP) claims the degrees of conviction in juridical fact-finding are to be modeled exactly the way degrees of beliefs are modeled in standard bayesian epistemology. Classical legal probabilism (CLP) adds that the conviction is justified if the credence in guilt given the evidence is above an appropriate guilt probability threshold. The views are challenged on various counts, especially by the proponents of the so-called narrative approach, on which the fact-finders' decision is the result of a dynamic interplay between competing narratives of what happened. I develop a way a bayesian epistemologist can make sense of the narrative approach. I do so by formulating a probabilistic framework for evaluating competing narrations in terms of formal explications of the informal evaluation criteria used in the narrative approach., Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2017, arXiv:1707.08250

Recent studies have highlighted instances where findings of fact reached by international criminal tribunals appear not to be adequately supported by the evidence. These works have typically focused on evidential issues, such as witnesses’ fading memories, cultural differences, and more sinister aspects (such as financial incentives) as the root causes for such discrepancies. However, this article argues that these accounts are incomplete, as they do not recognise difficulties arising from the judicial evaluation of, and reasoning on, the evidential record, which poses potentially insurmountable challenges to reliable fact-finding by international criminal tribunals. This article highlights recent differences of opinion between judges on how evidence should be weighed and evaluated. It points to some issues arising from the enormity of the fact-finding role in international criminal trials and the procedural framework embraced by the international criminal tribunals. It discusses tools to assist fact-finding, and their potential applicability to international criminal trials.

One of the most debated and controversial topics amongst legal scholars has been the role of probability in the evaluation of legal proofs conducted in the fact finding process which is typical of courts. This matter is especially important in criminal proceedings, where the standard of proof is set to “beyond any reasonable doubt.” In international criminal tribunals, the governing principle is the “free evaluation of evidence” which means that judges are not obliged to respect any kind of rule on how to evaluate evidence and can therefore pick the approach that they consider being the best fit to evaluation. The ad-hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court so far have not stated a preference for any kind of mathematical or non-mathematical approach to evidence and for this reason an analysis of their case law is inevitably crucial in order to understand which method was applied by the judges in each specific case. This essay will first outline the main differences between mathematical and non-mathematical approaches to evidence. The focal flaws about methods applying mathematical probability theories will be mentioned and it will be argued why this method cannot be applied by the International Criminal Court. Then the non-mathematical approach to evidence will be delineated and specific attention will be given to Cohen’s system of inductive probability. Consequently, the reasoning of the International Criminal Court in a selection of cases will be studied in order to determine which approach was picked by the Court. The author will seek to prove the hypothesis that the International Criminal Court applied a reasoning of induction by elimination as delineated in Cohen’s theory. This Essay will aim at answering the following questions: has the International Criminal Court adopted Cohen’s Alternative Hypothesis Approach in the Al-Bashir and Ngudjolo cases? Is this a suitable approach to evidence in the ICC? What are the problems connected to this kind of approach? Due to the vast academic work on the matter, the author has decided not to describe comprehensively all the existing theories on how to evaluate evidence but to focus on what she thought were the most relevant theories applicable to three ICC cases.

One question that has long haunted philosophy of science is whether facts and values are so inextricably mixed up in social science that objectivity in any sense robust enough to distinguish its findings from mere opinion becomes unattainable. A not uncommon view nowadays is that such entanglement only shows the untenability of conceptions of objectivity that forbid it and that a new and value-sensitive conception of objectivity needs to be developed. While the discussion in recent years has centred on the issue of how estimations of inductive risk incur judgments of value—and so generalize the issue across all of the sciences—it is worthwhile to remember that in the decades around the previous turn of the century when the social sciences became established as such, it was the more or less direct interference of politics in the process of social scientific fact finding that was the focus of concern and prompted the demand for value-neutrality. This older worry has not, I submit, lost its urgency and it may be salutary to consider whether, especially in sciences issuing in policy advice, value entanglement is inevitable there as well. I will present a case study from what may at first appear most hostile territory, namely one of the most value-laden of all areas in the social sciences, the socialist calculation debate in political economy.

Ever since it was created in 2006, the Human Rights Council has established a significantnumberofcommissionsofinquiry.Otherthantheirhistoriccounterparts, the mandates of these commissions have not been fact-oriented but have had a strong legal dimension. In this context, questions arise whether the commissions are primarily acting as fact-finders or rather as de facto law-applying authorities.Aretheysupposedtofunctionasself-standinginstitutionalarrangements, or should they rather operate at the service of other mechanisms? The overarching and more generic question is: what is the primary function of human rights commissions of inquiry as established by the Human Rights Council and to what extent is the invocation of international law instrumental in fulfilling that function? This paper examines commissions of inquiry throughahistorical-comparativeapproachanddemonstratesthatcontemporary human rights commissions of inquiry have fundamentally different purposes. WheretheoriginalHague-inquirieswerepredominantlytransactionalincharacter,thehumanrightsinquiriesratherhavealertingandauthoritativeaspirations.

This study is a semiotic analysis of consumer-generated antibranding efforts and reveals tacit semiotic rules used by digital antibranders. A broad theoretical discussion about the semiotic characteristics of branding and antibranding is provided and “digital antibranding semiotics” is defined. The semiotics of consumer digital antibranding efforts are investigated in two studies examining a sample of antibranding images targeted at valuable corporate brands. The first study reveals that antibranders use drama and humor to demonize, criminalize, dehumanize, and “Hitlerize” the targeted brands, creating strong antibrand voices and positioning themselves against corporate greed and wrongdoing. The second study found that consumers successfully decode antibranding semiotic representations and classify them in terms of message clarity, fact finding, and “hostility versus entertainment values.” These findings reveal that both antibranding images with dark humor and clear messages and an aggressive and intriguing message have the potential to influence consumers.

The ‘reasonable doubt standard’ is the controlling standard of proof for criminal fact finding in several jurisdictions. Drawing on decision theory, some scholars have argued that the stringency of this standard varies according to the circumstances of the case. This article contends that the standard does not lend itself to the ‘sliding-scale’ approach mandated by decision theory. This is supported through investigation of the concept of ‘reasonableness’. While this concept has mostly been studied as it operates with reference to practical reasoning, scant attention has been given to the meaning that it acquires when referred to theoretical reasoning. Unlike in the former case, reasonableness does not in the latter depend on the reasoner's attitudes in favour of the outcomes of a decisional process. Therefore, since criminal fact finding is an instance of theoretical reasoning, the question whether in this enterprise a doubt is reasonable is not susceptible to a decision-theoretic approach.

They are everywhere; inquiries. We all do it; investigate. Some people are employed to do it; detectives. Every genuine academic disciple requires it; the development of skills in identifying, collating, analysing, assessing, presenting, etc., facts as evidence for an essay, report, argument, trial. And yet no university, let alone one which proclaims the importance of encouraging multidisciplinary studies, provides a degree directly studying investigations in all their richness and variety. This article outlines the case for such a degree and identifies the core courses it should contain.

O crime de lavagem de dinheiro desenvolve-se no contexto da sociedade de risco, em que a criminalidade organizada utiliza das facilidades do sistema financeiro globalizado para espraiar seus ganhos ilícitos. Neste panorama, os bens jurídicos supraindividuais passam a ter destaque, uma vez que a macrocriminalidade ultrapassa os limites dos direitos individuais. Diante deste cenário, configura-se a criminalidade econômica e, a fim de oferecer respostas aos novos riscos apresentados nesta sociedade, desenvolve-se o Direito Penal Econômico. Compreende-se, portanto, que uma das consequências do Direito Penal da sociedade globalizada de risco é a criminalização da lavagem de capitais de origem delitiva. Neste contexto, destaca-se o sistema vigente de apreciação de provas, qual seja o sistema da persuasão racional ou princípio do livre convencimento motivado. Desse modo, direciona-se a abordagem à busca de soluções para eficiência da instrução criminal processual no âmbito da criminalidade econômica, compreendendo-se a problemática da prova emprestada, bem como a validade da prova por indícios.

The traditional vision that international courts and tribunals do ‘good’ or create a better world through law is increasingly under question. International criminal justice started largely as a ‘faith’-based project, but is increasingly criticized in light of its actual record and impact. This essay examines this journey and, in particular, the role of ‘faith’ and ‘fact’ in the treatment and assessment of international criminal courts, through four core themes (‘effectiveness’, ‘fairness’, ‘fact-finding’, and legacy’) addressed in André Gide's version of the parable ofThe Return of the Prodigal Son. It argues that, in its ‘homecoming’, international criminal justice would benefit from a greater degree of realism by openly accepting its limitations and embracing its expressivist function. It cautions at the same time against exclusively quantitative understandings of impact, arguing that the power of international courts and tribunals lies not so much in their quantitative record as in their role in setting a moral or legal example or shaping discourse. It concludes that a better match between ‘idealism’ and ‘realism’ requires greater attention to the interplay between ‘international’, ‘domestic’, and ‘local’ responses to conflict, as well as recognition of their legitimate differences.

In this paper, we look at reasoning with evidence and facts in criminal cases. We show how this reasoning may be analysed in a dialectical way by means of critical questions that point to typical sources of doubt. We discuss critical questions about the evidential arguments adduced, about the narrative accounts of the facts considered, and about the way in which the arguments and narratives are connected in an analysis. Our treatment shows how two different types of knowledge, represented as schemes, play a role in reasoning with evidence: argumentation schemes and story schemes.

The establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Republic of Korea (TRCK) in 2005 marks a turning point in the history of South Korean efforts to understand the truth of the Korean War, a truth that had been remembered only selectively. As essential as the TRCK's fact finding and reparation efforts are in establishing the truth of the war, it is also important to think about the full meaning of the word “truth” at this current juncture. This article attempts to perform this task, first by introducing the concepts of truth proposed by Heidegger and Bakhtin, and then by examining Pak Wan-so's autobiographical novels on the Korean War and the “Still Present Pasts” multimedia exhibit on Korean American memories of the Korean War. Regarding Heidegger and Bakhtin, the author focuses on the fact that, for them, truth is both scientific and aesthetic in nature, hence dialogic and dynamic as well. Pak Wan-so's autobiographical novels are an example of this kind of dialogic and dynamic truth in that th...

This article defends what it refers to as “inference causation”: a fact-finder’s drawing of a causal link between a defendant’s actions and a plaintiff’s suffering in tort claims in the absence of expert scientific evidence.This type of reasoning, affirmed in 1990 by Justice Sopinka in the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Snell v. Farrell, has encountered significant academic criticism. The author defends inference causation by considering evidence theory. First, he shows that inference causation forms a part of law’s veritism—its commitment to the truth—since legal fact-finding’s aim is always to seek out the best obtainable truth, rather than the absolute truth. Second, he critiques the primacy of scientific evidence by showing that both its reasoning process and the nature of its conclusions are different from those of legal fact-finding. Last, the author shows that all fact-finding—particularly all legal fact-finding—is already inferential. Scientific evidence forms but one of many different elements that are analyzed by fact-finders in their inference about which factual account of the disputed events is the best account. Accordingly, where none is available, the same inference of fact is nonetheless possible., Cet article défend l’« inférence de causalité », le fait d’établir un lien de causalité entre les actes du défendeur et le préjudice subi par le demandeur en l’absence de preuve scientifique d’expert dans le cadre d’une poursuite en responsabilité extracontractuelle.Ce type de raisonnement, approuvé en 1990 par le juge Sopinka dans l’arrêt Snell c. Farrell de la Cour suprême du Canada, a depuis été vivement critiqué par la doctrine. L’auteur le défend par une étude de la théorie de la preuve. D’abord, il démontre que l’inférence de causalité s’inscrit dans la mission de recherche de la vérité du droit, puisque le but de la recherche juridique des faits est de parvenir aussi près de la vérité que possible et non d’atteindre la vérité absolue. Ensuite, il critique la primauté de la preuve scientifique puisque sa méthode et la nature de ses conclusions diffèrent de celles de la recherche juridique des faits. Finalement, l’auteur démontre que la constatation des faits, en particulier la constatation juridique des faits, inclut déjà l’inférence. La preuve scientifique n’est qu’un élément parmi plusieurs que le juge des faits analyse pour déduire le meilleur compte rendu possible des faits en litige. Ainsi, quand aucune preuve scientifique ne peut être établie, il est néanmoins légitime de recourir à l’inférence.

This paper evaluates the e-book usage and information seeking and reading behaviour of thousands of business and management students. Comparisons are made with students in other subjects. The data largely come from the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)-funded National e-Books Observatory (NeBO) project as well as the JISC User Behaviour Observational Study. The main sources of data were: a) transactional logs obtained from the MyiLibrary platform regarding 127 UK universities; b) questionnaire data for more than 5000 students and staff at these universities; c) hard-copy library circulation and retail sales data; and d) focus groups held with 50 staff and students from selected universities. The main findings were that e-textbooks can prove to be extremely popular and widely used, mainly for obtaining snippets of information and for fact finding. The main reason for using e-textbooks was ease of access and convenience.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (SRT) is mandated to investigate and assess the situation of torture worldwide. He takes up complaints by torture victims and sends communications to Governments; he addresses specific factual and legal issues related to torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and, most importantly; upon the invitation of Governments, he carries out fact-finding missions to specific countries. These country visits aim to establish a dialogue with the Government and to assess the situation of torture and illtreatment in a given country. The preparation of a country visit may last up to several years, since sometimes long negotiations are necessary before a Government extends an invitation to the SRT accepting the SRT’s terms of reference for fact-finding missions. These include full freedom of inquiry, unrestricted freedom of movement throughout the country as well as confidential interviews with victims, witnesses, human rights defenders, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Because torture takes place behind closed doors, torture factfinding and the assessment of the general conditions of detention require unannounced visits to places of detention and individual and confidential interviews with persons deprived of their liberty. It is essential that interviews with detainees only take place with their informed consent and that necessary precautionary measures against reprisals are taken. The mission reports that are drafted on the basis of information received from the Government, NGOs, lawyers, and detainees are presented and discussed in the Human Rights Council. The SRT’s recommendations included in the report should help the Government in its efforts to eradicate torture in the respective country. Additionally, the reports are essentially background materials for the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council and can serve as an important advocacy tool for NGOs and other actors.

In 2002, Maher Arar, a dual Canadian and Syrian citizen, was detained and accused by American authorities of being a member of al Qa'ida. He was deported to Jordan and, ultimately, Syria, where he was imprisoned and subjected to torture for one year. In 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology and 10.5 million dollars (Canadian) in compensation. Drawing on contemporary theoretical accounts of multiculturalism, security, and the state, and utilizing parliamentary debates and American and Canadian print media accounts between 2002 and 2007, we examine the statements of public officials in Canada and the United States to show how the story of Arar, from his deportation to the apology, has been framed in contradictory ways. These contradictions spin on three main dualisms: Arar's guilt versus innocence; Arar's status as a Syrian versus Canadian; and the rule of law versus exception. It is argued that these contradictions are of tremendous theoretical significance for understanding the contemporary Canadian state as one in which multiculturalism and liberalism co-exist with racialization and exception. Resume En 2002, Maher Arar, un citoyen ayant la double nationalite canadienne et syrienne, fut detenu et accuse par les autorites etats-uniennes de faire partie d'al Qa'ida. Il fut deporte en Jordanie, puis en Syrie, ou il fut emprisonne et torture pendant un an. En 2007, le Premier ministre Stephen Harper presenta des excuses officielles accompagnees d'une compensation de 10,5 millions de dollars. Dans cet article, a partir de theories contemporaines sur le multiculturalisme, la securite et l'Etat, et en reference aux debats parlementaires de meme qu'aux media ecrits entre 2002 et 2007, nous examinons comment les discours officiels publics se contredisent, aussi bien au Canada qu'aux Etats-Unis, et ce depuis la deportation d'Arar jusqu'aux excuses publiques qui lui ont ete presentees. Ces contradictions decoulent de trois formes de dualisme : d'abord, la culpabilite d'Arar par opposition a son innocence, ensuite son double statut de citoyen canadien, mais aussi syrien, et enfin, la regle de droit en concurrence avec la regle d'exception. Cet article montre que ces contradictions sont tres importantes sur le plan theorique pour comprendre comment, dans l'Etat canadien contemporain, liberalisme et multiculturalisme coexistent avec un phenomene de 'racialisation' et de rejet de la difference. ********** On behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish to apologize to you, Monia Mazigh, and your family for any role Canadian officials may have played in the terrible ordeal that all of you experienced in 2002 and 2003. Although these events occurred under the last government, please test assured that this government will do everything in its power to ensure that the issues raised by Commissioner O'Connor are addressed. I trust that, having arrived at a negotiated settlement, we have ensured that fair compensation will be paid to you and your family. I sincerely hope that these words and actions will assist you and your family in your efforts to begin a new and hopeful chapter in your lives. --Prime Minister Stephen Harper January 26, 2007 The case of Maher Arar, a dual Canadian and Syrian citizen, has captured considerable public attention in Canada and elsewhere. While traveling through the United States on his Canadian passport in 2002, American authorities detained and accused Arar of being a member of al Qa'ida, and then deported him to Jordan. Arar was ultimately sent to Syria, where he was imprisoned for a year and subjected to torture. Facing mounting public pressure, the Canadian government pressed for his return, which was granted in 2003, and eventually established a fact finding commission to also assess whether and how Canadian officials were culpable. As a result of this commission--which reported in 2006--Arar was cleared of any wrongdoing. …

This article examines the relationship between judicial proof of facts and positivistic explanation in the natural and social sciences. Although these two forms of factual inquiry share evident similarities, it is argued that, on closer analysis, legal fact-finding is not even a proximate model of scientific explanation. Judicial proof more closely resembles clinical deliberations, such as those encountered in a medical context, than classical scientific method. Comparison with clinical practices should therefore promote understanding and serve as a basis for further research, critical appraisal and practical improvement of the processes of judicial proof.

With the UN's attention to individual accountability for human rights abuses now well into its third decade, this paper appraises the added value of a UN role and the best methods for accomplishing it. The paper argues that human rights fact-finding is an especially important task for the UN and considers, based on past practice, the factors that contribute to successful fact-finding as well as the pitfalls for the UN to avoid in the future. Some of the insights are based on the author's membership in the Secretary-General Group of Experts for Cambodia and the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka. This paper was originally delivered as the John P. Humphrey Lecture in Human Rights at McGill University in September 2014.

This article analyses the fact-finding practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to underscore some of the broad challenges faced by the Tribunal and to determine what lessons can be learned from its legacy for the future of complex international criminal trials. It fills a gap in the existing literature by taking a broad assessment of the lessons that can be learned from the ICTR’s fact-finding practice over the course of its lifetime, as the Tribunal adjudges upon its final case. It argues, inter alia, that it is difficult to derive consistent principles on the definition of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, the requirement of corroboration, and the weight to be given to different types of witness testimony. It also introduces the fundamental concepts of Bayesian probability, and argues that, given that international criminal judgments are inherently probabilistic in nature, the use of Bayes’ Theorem and Bayesian Networks might assist in the decision-making process, in enabling judges to question the strength of their own beliefs as to the truth of a matter. It concludes with some reflections on the function of international criminal tribunals in relation to the historical record of the conflicts upon which they adjudge.

Court proceedings and court records are traditionally open to the public. The courts are public institutions, and openness serves a number of important purposes including protection of the free discussion of governmental affairs and the enhancement of the quality and integrity of the fact finding process. But court proceedings also address family matters including adoptions, juvenile delinquency, child protection, and domestic relations cases. These types of cases often involve personal issues, and many family members would prefer that they remain private. In most states, many of these proceedings have been closed to the public. Strong policy reasons support both openness of family court proceedings and privacy considerations for family members, particularly children. This article addresses confidentiality in the context of juvenile and family court proceedings. It takes the position that the tension between these conflicting policies can be reduced if most family court proceedings are presumptively open, but judges are given the authority to place conditions on the information that can be revealed by observers outside the courtroom. Additionally, the article asserts that if the courts and the media take steps to change their practices and their relationship with one another, both the public interest and the confidentiality interest of the parties can be better served.

The contention that an unborn child has the right to life has been visited with several oppositions from all works of life, all over the world. Most people do not accept the view that an unborn child possesses any form of human right which is to be protected because, that child is yet to be born into the world. It is however an established fact that, the fundamental principle of international human right instrument is to uphold the dignity and sanctity of all human persons, whether born or unborn. This shows that international human right instruments are founded on the basis of natural law. This study set out to investigate the core principle of international human right law. By so doing, the actual values and tenents of international human right law will be revealed. This is a doctrinal research, wherein the authors set out on a fact finding mission using selected articles, books and periodicals to bring out the objective of the study. At the end of the exercise, it was revealed that no international human right law will perpetrate a principle in opposition to natural law. This being the case, the unborn child, like any other living being is vested with the inalienable right to life. Keywords: Natural law, international human right law, right to life, unborn child.

Today, many international criminal lawyers claim that the future of international law is domestic. The example of the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC) shows that this might not only be the future, but also the past. This article analyzes the practice of the Commission (1943–1948), with a particular emphasis on facts, evidence and interaction with domestic authorities. It argues that the UNWCC marked an early counter-model to the idea of military justice that prevailed in many World War II accountability initiatives, and an alternative to the centralized and situation-specific enforcement model under the umbrella of United Nations (UN) peace maintenance. The Commission represents a cooperative approach to justice and sovereignty that has got lost in the course of the second half of the twentieth century. In the mid-1940s, attention shifted quickly, and perhaps too early from the UNWCC itself to the idea of centralized enforcement under the umbrella of an International Criminal Court. The work of the Commission foreshadows many core dilemmas of contemporary international justice, including debates over independent investigative authority, proprio motu powers, the labelling and origin of core crimes (e.g. aggression, crimes against humanity), the treatment of group criminality (e.g. attribution of conduct) and evidentiary standards in proceedings. Similar structures are gradually re-emerging in the context of regional integration (e.g. ‘mutual trust’ under the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) or the operationalization of complementarity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). But in terms of cooperation between major powers and use of international expertise and advice in criminal proceedings, international criminal justice is still in search of a modern UNWCC 2.0.

This Article offers a new account of legal fact-finding based on the dual-process framework in cognitive psychology. This line of research suggests that our brains possess two radically different ways of thinking. “System 1” cognition is unconscious, fast, and associative, while “System 2” involves effortful, conscious reasoning. Drawing on these insights, I describe the ways that unconscious processing and conscious reflection interact when jurors hear and decide cases. Most existing evidential models offer useful insights about the ways that juries use relevant information in deciding cases but fail to account for situations in which their decisions are likely to be affected by irrelevant stimuli. The dual-process approach, by contrast, is able to explain both probative and prejudicial influences on decision making. As a demonstration, I use the dual-process framework to explain the surprising result in People v. Rivera, a case in which a jury convicted a man of rape and murder despite the admission of exonerating DNA evidence. This result, I suggest, was not the product of an unusually lazy or unreasonable jury but rather illustrates the way that our ordinary cognitive processes can lead us to endorse quite unreasonable results if primed using certain common prosecutorial strategies. After elaborating the dual-process model in a descriptive form, I then consider some of its normative implications. Many leading evidence scholars have argued that verdicts resting on “pure” or “naked” statistical evidence are problematic. Although the dual-process model of fact-finding is descriptive rather than normative, it nevertheless provides surprising insight into this debate by showing that our intuitive discomfort with verdicts that are based on purely statistical data may arise from the failure of such evidence to speak in terms that our unconscious, intuitive System 1 can process reliably. In such circumstances, intuitions about outcomes should be treated with caution. Thus, what unites the seemingly disparate examples of the Rivera trial and the naked statistical evidence debate is that, in both contexts, it feels right to do wrong.

The following contribution zeroes in on the diverging responses that permeate international adjudicative practice pertaining to international disputes arising out of scientific controversies. Drawing on the idea that scientific fact-finding is as much a struggle for argumentative persuasiveness as traditional fact-finding and law-interpretation, this article identifies and critically evaluates four attitudes of international judges and arbitrators. It shows that, when it comes to scientific fact-finding, adjudicative bodies are in a constant flux between nihilism, protectionism and outsourcing. It further demonstrates that similar dynamics can be observed with regards to the weighing of scientific knowledge in cases when adjudicators decide to outsource it to experts. This paper subsequently argues that when confronted with scientific fact-finding, international adjudicators are dealing with knowledge that is as unstable as the law and which brings them to make a choice between different types of reasoning or rationality. It ultimately makes the argument that the question of scientific fact-finding inevitably confronts international judges and arbitrators with a choice of epistemic rationality.

Paper form can match electronic for simple quests With a minimum of class time, reporting students can learn to find answers to questions like these: What is the most popular color for sports cars? What do U.S. public school teachers perceive as the most serious problem in their schools? Of which companies is Jay Pritzker either a board member or officer? How many people play soccer and how does it rank in sports popularity? What is the current status of the Ethics in Government Reform Act? To whom does the director of the FBI report? None of the answers need be found through the wizardry of electronic technology. All six are found in basic print references-ones that take no more expertise than the ability to turn a page and no more memorization of format than ability to alphabetize. According to a survey taken of newspaper business editors, paper references are still the norm on smaller newspapers, where most journalism graduates will get their first jobs. The survey also provided evidence that many reporters on such newspapers make little use of any but the most basic reference works, yet those who go beyond the minimum are sold on the results-as are reporters on larger newspapers. The literature in the field suggests a trend toward an all-or-nothing approach to the question of reporters as researchers. There are now a number of textbooks devoted to fact gathering (for example, Search Strategies in Mass Communication, The Reporter's Handbook, Investigative Reporting: Advanced Methods and Techniques), a great growth in the number of courses aimed at teaching computer-assisted reporting, and occasional reports of ambitious newsroom programs to educate reporters on computer-research skills (for example, a June 24, 1994, article in Editor Fr Publisher titled "Five-Step Plan for Raising Reporters' Computer Literacy"). The difficulties of setting up a course on computer-assisted reporting are well documented in the Autumn 1995 edition of Journalism & Mass Communication Educator ("Problems of Introducing Courses in Computer-Assisted Reporting"). All of this can be rather daunting, perhaps explaining why some have begun to argue that information gathering has become so complex that it is well to leave it to the specialists (as in a June 1993 Quill article, "Need Leaders for News Technology? Look to Librarians" and a Sept./Oct. edition of Online, in which the librarian writer extols the division of labor between reporters and researchers-a division that creates "those moments of intense partnership when you're each doing what you know how to do best."). We suggest there may be a happy medium. Although the news-editorial department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln is offering instruction in database manipulation in second-year reporting and will offer a course next fall devoted exclusively to fact gathering, we also have incorporated more fact gathering in beginning reporting classes-in bite-size pieces that don't require a redo of the course. The aim is to bridge the gap lying between the telephone-book/city directory format and the world of database searches. If students have knowledge of a small but well-chosen set of reference sourcesprincipally paper ones-they will find good use for their knowledge when they get their first jobs. The bite-size beginning also can be the base for building more fact finding into the second-year course. This article will outline what we have begun to offer in a beginning reporting class and what we perceive its future value will be. Together, we (a journalism professor and liaison librarian with a journalism specialty) talked over time limits, format and goals. We settled on three, one-hour library visits, to consist of 20 minutes of instruction and 40 minutes of practice. An overall test, containing questions much like those that opened this article, also is given. …

This article examines the difficult question of the deference congressional fact-findings merit when they support legislation expanding or limiting individual rights. The deference question is crucial to judicial review of such legislation. Yet the Supreme Court has offered little by way of a principled answer: platitudes about Congress’s expertise and co-equal status when it wishes to defer to such findings, and bromides about the Court’s superiority in constitutional interpretation when it does not. Scholars have described this important question as “radically undertheorized.” Any stable and useful theory addressing Congress’s ability to participate in the process of constitutional construction requires a better answer to the deference question than those which have been thus far offered. This Article proposes the outlines of such an answer.This Article begins, in Parts I-III, by identifying the three criteria that should govern the deference question. Part I argues that courts should consider whether the deference claim is based on a justification of expertise or authority. This distinction tracks a similar distinction made in the context of administrative agency claims for deference in interpreting statutes. Obviously, this latter context is quite different from the one considered in this Article; still, lessons from that doctrine help us understand how expertise and authority justifications should influence the deference question this Article considers. Part II explains how deference claims require consideration of the type of fact at issue. It proposes a rough taxonomy of facts whose distinctions are relevant to the deference question, and explains how those distinctions address that question. Part III then then explains how deference claims turn on the details of the underlying doctrine the finding seeks to apply.Based on the insights gleaned from this analysis, Part IV identifies six principles guiding the deference inquiry. One of these principles suggests, contrary to conventional wisdom, that empirical findings merit the least judicial deference. Another principle analogizes to equal protection law to explain why findings that precisely target a constitutional rule may also be appropriately subject to more searching judicial scrutiny. Part V applies these principles to congressional deference claims in several very different contexts: legislation enforcing the Equal Protection Clause, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, a “human life” statute of the sort that has been proposed in the past, and the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance requirements. The Article concludes with a call for further research in order to continue finding better resolutions to this troublesome yet crucial question, which has so far generated only incomplete, unsatisfying answers.