bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Accountability
Authors: Eleftheriadis Pavlos 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
Accountability is the most fundamental principle of the European Union. By offering practical assurance that agreements will be enforced, that the Union’s institutions will not go beyond their enumerated powers and the division of competences will be respected by all, the Union’s legal framework makes long-term multilateral cooperation possible. However, the European Union does not follow the pattern of accountability through the separation of powers in the way of a federal state. The distinction between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary does not work in the same way because of the role played by the member states. Many important decisions are made by the states’ institutions, not the Union’s institutions. The institutional architecture of the European Union is thus unfamiliar. It is impossible to compare it to that of a constitution. The European Union is divided between the institutions of the EU and the institutions of the member states. The fragmentation of accountability in the European Union among the EU’s institutions and the various member states (in various combinations, e.g. the members of the Eurozone) is a principled position. It does not mean that the relations between the states and the Union are unregulated or merely transactional.
Fairness
Authors: Eleftheriadis Pavlos 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This chapter argues that fairness is a fundamental principle of the EU treaties. It means that under the EU treaties obligations of solidarity from one state to another are real. Their rationale, however, is not one of fair distribution. States may seek redress for unfairness on the basis of a conception of corrective, not distributive justice. Solidarity in the European Union is a matter of bilateral corrective justice, which informs the established treaties and gives them meaning. This is not just a moral interpretation, but also a legal interpretation, manifested not only in the practice of the member states but also in the judgments of the Court of Justice. Fairness, understood as justice in cooperation, is the third fundamental principle of the European Union as a Union of Peoples.
An Unfair Union?
Authors: Eleftheriadis Pavlos 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
Is the Eurozone fair? Since the member states jointly created a structurally flawed Eurozone, they remain jointly responsible for the asymmetric risks they created for the disadvantaged members. When the crisis caused important economic and social losses to the disadvantaged states, all the other states as a whole had a moral obligation to provide redress. The financial assistance programmes can be reasonably seen as the expression of a new form of solidarity generated by European integration and based on the idea of justice in cooperation. This kind of solidarity, however, is transnational, not constitutional and has its origins in corrective, not distributive justice. It is the result of states cooperating, not of citizens setting up common political institutions.
Data and methods
Authors: Mauk Marlene 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This chapter prepares the empirical analysis by approaching the key methodological issues associated with a global comparison of regime support and its individual- and system-level sources in democracies and autocracies. It presents the study’s case selection, regime classification, and research strategy. Drawing on survey data from six cross-national survey projects and macro data from various sources, it introduces the data employed in the empirical analysis. The chapter continues to describe the operationalization of the main variables and explicates how regime support can be measured in a comparable way across regime types as institutional confidence in government, parliament, police, and army. Finally, it discusses the validity of the data in light of the challenges associated with conducting survey research in autocracies.
Levels and sources of regime support in democracies and autocracies
Authors: Mauk Marlene 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This chapter presents the results of the empirical analysis of levels and sources of citizen support for democratic and autocratic regimes. The analysis proceeds in three steps. First, it compares the levels of regime support in democracies and autocracies. It shows that levels of citizen support, while varying considerably across individual countries, are roughly equal between democratic and autocratic regimes. Second, the analysis investigates the individual-level sources of regime support. It finds evidence that the same set of individual-level sources affect regime support in democracies and autocracies and that they do so in virtually the same way across regimes. Third, it addresses the system-level sources of regime support in democracies and autocracies. Using multilevel structural equation modeling, it observes effects of three of the four system-level sources in both types of regimes; yet, these system-level sources do not affect regime support in the same way in democracies as in autocracies.
The Coercion Thesis
Authors: Himma Kenneth Einar 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
Chapter 1 fleshes out the content of the Coercion Thesis, according to which it is a conceptually necessary condition for something to count as a legal system that it backs some mandatory norms governing non-official behavior with the threat of a coercive sanction. It begins with an analysis of the compound concept-term coercive sanction, distinguishing the deterrence and punitive functions they are reasonably contrived to perform, as a conceptual matter. The chapter then situates the Coercion Thesis with respect to the demands of morality and ends by explicating what the Coercion Thesis presupposes and implies with respect to what considerations characteristically motivate rationally competent self-interested subjects like us.
Three Conceptual Problems of Legal Normativity: The Logical Space of Reasons
Authors: Himma Kenneth Einar 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
Chapter 5 continues with the second step of a modest analysis of the concept of a legal system. As a prelude to showing how only the Coercion Thesis can explicate law’s presumed conceptual normativity, this chapter is concerned to explicate the concept of normativity and distinguish among several classes of reasons that might be thought to figure into the problems associated with explicating law’s conceptual normativity. It proceeds to identify the class of reasons that the practices constituting something as a system of law must be presumed equipped to provide. The chapter ends with a description of three conceptual problems of legal normativity that must be solved to vindicate the very rationality of adopting legal systems to regulate behavior.
The Coercion Thesis and the Content Problem of Legal Normativity
Authors: Himma Kenneth Einar 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
Chapter 8 addresses the Content Problem of Legal Normativity, arguing that the content of the only first-order motivating reason to which the practices constituting something as a system of law are reasonably contrived to give rise is an objective motivating reason to obey law as a means of avoiding being subject to coercive sanctions. It rejects one possible solution to the Content Problem, arguing that there is nothing in objective norms of practical rationality that would encourage us, even presumptively, to obey a norm simply because it has the status of law. Since there is nothing else in these practices reasonably contrived to give rise to an objective motivating reason with different content, neither the How Problem nor the Content Problem can be solved without assuming it is a conceptual truth that some mandatory legal norms governing non-official behavior provide objective motivating reasons to comply in virtue of being backed with the threat of a coercive sanction.
Coercive Sanctions and International Law
Authors: Himma Kenneth Einar 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
Chapter 9 argues that, regardless of whether it is properly characterized as law, the U.N. Charter system of international regulation authorizes the imposition of economic and diplomatic measures that count as coercive sanctions, as I have explicated the notion in this volume, because they are reasonably contrived to deter and punish non-compliance. While these measures differ in salient ways from the coercive sanctions authorized by systems of municipal law, they nonetheless count as coercive sanctions; all that is required for something to count as a coercive sanction, as I have explicated the notion, is that it imposes non-trivial detriment that rationally competent self-interested subjects are likely to experience as something that deters and punishes non-compliance. The Charter system is thus consistent with the Coercion Thesis and not a counterexample to it.
A Coalition of Good Will: History Instruction in Secondary Education
Authors: Furas Yoni 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
Chapter 7 is dedicated to secondary education and the matriculation exam. Although only comprising a fraction of the student population, these private and governmental schools represented Palestine’s Ivy League. History instruction in these schools, which was heavily influenced by the Department’s Matriculation exam, was frequently discussed in meetings of the Palestine Board for Higher Studies (PBHS) that oversaw secondary and postsecondary education. This pedagogical attention was clearly disproportional to its quantitative share in the student population. Analysis of PBHS’ internal debates and the history syllabi of secondary schools sheds much light on the relationship between history teaching, identity, and nationalism.
Learning History
Authors: Furas Yoni 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
Chapter 8 completes the analytical framework by leaving administrators and educators to delve into the students’ world to trace their voices as the product of this system. The chapter examines the omnipresence of history beyond the history classroom, and it takes a broad view of the educational rationale that sought to mould a historical consciousness through an educational calendar, field trips, and youth movements. The latter part of the chapter discusses students’ essays in school journals and the internalization of, and correspondence with, the material they were taught, thus underscoring the centrality and validity of historical study in these young people’s identity formation.
Hissène Habré on Trial
Authors: Weill Sharon , Seelinger Kim Thuy , Carlson Kerstin Bree 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This introductory chapter provides a background of the trial and conviction of Hissène Habré in 2015–2016, which is the most significant achievement global criminal justice has enjoyed in the past decade. The 2016 judgment of the Extraordinary African Chambers (EAC) found Habré guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and torture—including several counts involving sexual violence committed by Habré's agents and Habré himself. The judicial achievement of the EAC is particularly meaningful in the current climate, where there is a ‘backlash’ against international criminal justice. The chapter then offers a brief overview of the structure and procedure of the EAC. The EAC was a hybrid tribunal applying international criminal law doctrine and governed by Senegalese procedure, ie, civil law tradition. This is why victims were able to participate as parties before the EAC, a development that many cite as critical to the capacity of international justice institutions to meaningfully address victims. The EAC Statute defined the core crimes and the penalties. Most of the rules of procedure remained undefined by the Statue, and here the Statute specified, in Article 16, that whatever is not included in the Statute shall be governed by Senegalese law.
Documenting Crimes and Organizing Victims in Chad
Authors: Guengueng Souleymane 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This chapter details how Hissène Habré’s victims themselves had started their own process of documentation in prisons. Souleymane Guengueng had been detained and tortured by the Documentation and Security Directorate (DDS). While imprisoned, he began quietly documenting the torture and death of his fellow prisoners in order to build a dossier for later prosecution. Guengueng then discusses how he emerged from Habré's jails to organize a victim movement—the Association for Victims of Crimes and Political Repression in Chad (AVCRP)—that ultimately led to the conviction of his jailor. Indeed, he later became a representative of Chadian victims. Guengueng was aided in the pursuit of justice by Reed Brody of Human Rights Watch (HRW). Brody was the public face of the Habré trial in the Anglophone world. Working with Chadian victims' groups, Brody used the power of HRW's international brand to galvanize international awareness of Habré's victims.
Prosecuting International Crimes in Senegal
Authors: Fall Mbacké 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This chapter explains how M'backé Fall took on the role of prosecuting Hissène Habré, as well as how he balanced the legal elements of that prosecution with the political. For example, it notes his decision to proceed with the case against Habré even in the absence of Habré's co-defendants and despite limited cooperation from the Chadian authorities. With the accusation of Hissène Habré by the Prosecutor's office on 2 July 2013, the investigative judges took over the investigation. The Prosecutor's office, however, joined the execution of the different international rogatory missions in Chad, carried out with some difficulty. In Senegal, the Prosecutor's office participated in Hissène Habré's interrogation sessions and ensured the regularity of procedure for interlocutory appeals before the Accusation Chamber. The chapter then details the trial and appeal process, particularly as regards the management of oral, sometimes unexpected, testimony.
Supporting Victims at Trial
Authors: Werner Alain , Marchand Emmanuelle 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This chapter examines how victim representation worked at the Extraordinary African Chambers (EAC) and how it differed from other international tribunals such as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). The ECCC and the EAC are the only ad hoc tribunals that have allowed victims participation. The reason for this is that both hybrid tribunals are rooted in the French civil law system, which awards civil party status to the victims. This status recognizes victims as a legal party to the proceedings. Overall, in the Hissène Habré case, the different roles amongst the national and international lawyers representing the victims were better defined than in the first trial in front of the ECCC. Similarly, the collaboration between the civil parties' lawyers and the Prosecution was better organized in the Habré trial than in front of the ECCC.
The Habré Appeals Judgment
Authors: Gall Élise Le 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This chapter looks at the appeals decision of the Extraordinary African Chambers (EAC) in the Hissène Habré trial. The Appeals Chamber of the EAC issued its appeals decision on April 27, 2017. Upon appeal, the judges upheld Hissène Habré's life sentence for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture. However, Hissène Habré was acquitted of one of the sexual violence-related charges: the direct commission of rape of Khadija Hassan Zidane. With regard to reparations, the judges clarified Hissène Habré's sentence to pay financial compensation to 7,396 victims. The grounds of appeal that may be invoked before the Appeals Chamber include errors of procedure, errors of fact, and/or errors of law. It should be proven that those errors led to a denial of justice and that the error was a decisive factor in the outcome. The chapter then summarizes all the grounds of appeals—of the Defence and the civil parties—and the Appeals Court's corresponding decisions.
Outreach for the EAC
Authors: Petit Franck 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This chapter describes how the Extraordinary African Chambers (EAC) communications team structured public debates and other outreach activities during and after the Hissène Habré trial in Chad and Senegal. The EAC was the first court to provide for outreach in its budget and to make outreach activities an official element of court's structure and output. The trial of a former president on African soil within a reasonable time framework and the popularity of the intense struggle of Chadian victims fueled this successful and invigorating outreach program. In Chad, Senegal, and elsewhere in Africa and Europe, the three member organizations of the outreach consortium—RCN Justice & Démocratie, Primum Africa Consulting, and Magi Communications—and their local partners joined forces to ensure that this first inter-African tribunal was understood, explained, and debated, neutrally and transparently, and as close to the public as possible. The chapter then notes the challenges and opportunities of working across countries, cultures, and politics in seeking to publicize the work of the EAC.
Prosecutions in Chad
Authors: Thulliez Henri 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This chapter studies recent trials and convictions of Habré-era collaborators in Chad in 2015. Among those convicted were defendants named with Hissène Habré in the EAC's indictment. While current President Idriss Déby and his government cooperated with the EAC by financing them and by letting EAC magistrates investigate in Chad, things became more complicated when the EAC started to look at prosecuting a few of Habré's henchmen who were living in Chad: Mahamat Djibrine ‘El Djonto’, Saleh Younous, and Zakaria Berdei. Faced with this development, Déby and his government decided to organize the trial of Habré's accomplices in Chad, thereby controlling the narrative while also finally responding to the longstanding request of the victims. By trying Habré-era collaborators in Chad, Déby ensured that these collaborators of Habré could not participate in the EAC. However, many of those convicted in 2015 have already been freed, making the trials in Chad a pyrrhic victory for justice.
Academia as Partner in the Habré Trial
Authors: Sullivan Érick , Lafontaine Fannie 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This chapter highlights how the clinical work of Érick Sullivan and Fannie Lafontaine from Canada's Laval University with law students supported both the Hissène Habré trial as well as student engagement with international criminal justice. During the 5 years that lasted Laval University's involvement in the Habré case, academics and students alongside practitioners undertook numerous activities. This collaboration demonstrated how legal clinics can be used as a hub bridging academia and community in the context of strategic litigation. Through them, researchers' outputs are feeding strategic litigators, and practitioners' applied knowledge is feeding the researchers' agenda, thus allowing both to co-create innovative arguments that will be used in strategic litigation to achieve the expected long-lasting impact on law and society. This novel partnership structure hosted at Laval University links academic researchers, legal clinics, and NGO partners across Canada to work on an interdisciplinary research program that has both international and Canadian dimensions comprised of three main axes that pertain to different and complementary routes that victims of international crimes can take in Canada, in other states, and before international institutions, to seek criminal, civil, and administrative or other remedies.
Hybridization—A Spectrum of Creative Possibilities
Authors: Kersten Mark , Ainley Kirsten 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This chapter assesses the emerging preference for hybrid judicial institutions. Recent years have seen a spate of hybrid tribunals established or proposed, from Syria and South Sudan, to the Central African Republic and Sri Lanka. Perhaps most prominently, a hybrid court was set up in Dakar, Senegal, to prosecute former Chadian President Hissène Habré in 2013, a development that has stood out as the vanguard of a new generation of hybrid tribunals. The re-emergence of the hybrid tribunal has been addressed by numerous scholars. Yet despite its renewed popularity, it remains unclear what, precisely, it means to be a hybrid court and how the latest hybrids might contribute to furthering the project of international criminal justice. The answer to the first question is typically assumed to be simple: hybrid tribunals are ‘of mixed composition and jurisdiction, encompassing both national and international aspects, usually operating within the jurisdiction where the crimes occurred’. However, hybrid tribunals are much more than just middle-ground institutions that marry national and international components. As this chapter demonstrates, they are institutions whose very hybridity creates productive space for creative solutions aimed at responding to some of the most endemic challenges facing international criminal justice.
Victims as a Third Party
Authors: Zegveld Liesbeth 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This chapter explores and challenges the promise of victim participation before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Victims are a key reason for international criminal trials. Indeed, trials are said to be held because of the great numbers of victims the crimes have created. Perpetrators are prosecuted so victims can see justice being done. Yet when it comes to victims who want to claim their own rights before international criminal courts, the picture is less clear. International courts have struggled with how to deal with victims. Responses to victims’ participation in criminal trials have ranged from outright opposition, to reluctant acceptance, to apparent embrace. Even when there seems to be embrace, though, under the surface victims struggle to have their suffering and damage recognized. Victims are merely third-parties in the criminal trial. The charges are not their charges; they may not fit their damage. What is more, courts deal with victims collectively, denying them the individual attention their claims may demand. To make things worse, rather than applying the legal principle of accountability to victims' claims for damage, courts have a tendency to address victims' damage as a humanitarian problem that can be solved through humanitarian assistance.
‘We Will Not Go Away’
Authors: Cody Stephen , Stover Eric 
Published: June 2020

Abstract
This chapter studies the participation of victims in international criminal tribunals. Victim participation in international criminal trials has been uneven. Historically, prosecutors often have side-lined victim testimony in favour of documentary or physical evidence or assumed that justice for victims equated to retributive punishment of offenders. In recent decades, however, victims have become more active contributors in criminal investigations and proceedings. Victim participation at all stages of the Hissène Habré trial, for example, suggests a growing trend towards greater victim inclusion in international and national criminal trials. As such, it is incumbent on court personnel, as well as international justice researchers and practitioners, to better understand the diverse needs of victims and how they can be best supported before, during, and after trials.