استكشف المجموعة الواسعة من العناوين المتاحة.

The book provides an updated account of justice reform in Afghanistan, which started in the wake of the US-led military intervention of 2001. In particular, it focuses on the role of international actors and their interaction with local stakeholders, highlighting some provisional results, together with problems and dilemmas encountered in the reform activities. Since the mid-1990s, justice system reform has become increasingly important in state-building operations, particularly with regard to the international administrations of Bosnia, Kosovo, East Slavonia and East Timor. Statebuilding and Justice Reform examines in depth the reform of justice in Afghanistan, evaluating whether the success of reform may be linked to any specific feature or approach. In doing so, it stresses the need for development programmes in the field of justice to be implemented through a multilateral approach, involving domestic authorities and other relevant stakeholders. Success is therefore linked to limiting the political interests of donors; establishing functioning pooled financing mechanisms; restricting the use of bilateral projects; improving the efficacy of technical and financial aid; and concentrating the attention on the ‘demand for justice’ at local level rather than on the traditional supply of financial and technical assistance. This book will be of much interest to students of Afghanistan, intervention and statebuilding, peacekeeping, and post-conflict reconstruction, as well as International Relations in general. Matteo Tondini is a researcher and a legal advisor. He has served as a project advisor to the Embassy of Italy in Kabul, Development Cooperation Unit, working within the ‘Afghanistan Justice Program’ and has a Phd in Political Systems and Institutional Change, from the Institute of Advanced Studies, Lucca, Italy.

This book provides an updated account of justice reform in Afghanistan, which started in the wake of the US-led military intervention of 2001. In particular, it focuses on the role of international actors and their interaction with local stakeholders, highlighting some provisional results, together with problems and dilemmas encountered in the reform activities. Since the mid-1990s, justice system reform has become increasingly important in statebuilding operations, particularly with regard to the international administrations of Bosnia, Kosovo, East Slavonia and East Timor. Statebuilding and Justice Reform examines in-depth the reform of justice in Afghanistan, evaluating whether the success of reform may be linked to any specific feature or approach. In doing so, it stresses the need for development programmes in the field of justice to be implemented through a multilateral approach, involving domestic authorities and other relevant stakeholders. Success is therefore linked to limiting the political interests of donors; establishing functioning pooled financing mechanisms; restricting the use of bilateral projects; improving the efficacy of technical and financial aid; and concentrating the attention on the ‘demand for justice’ at local level rather than on the traditional supply of financial and technical assistance. This book will be of much interest to students of Afghanistan, intervention and statebuilding, peacekeeping, and post-conflict reconstruction, as well as International Relations in general.

The article attempts to illustrate the politics of law which have characterized both the anti – terrorism legislation and jurisprudence since the 9/11 attacks. To this aim, it compares laws and regulations passed in a number of western countries after 2001, together with further case-law. Most of the laws adopted allow harsh constraints of the rule of law guarantees, admitting extrajudicial detention and deportation of non – citizens, under a clear friend/foe perspective. The analysis also shows a widespread criminalization of individuals according to vague statutes, which often rely on blacklists of proscribed groups or persons, held and amended by governments or international organizations (e.g. the UN or the EU). In this way, Executives legislate in criminal law matters, practically bypassing the principle of separation of powers. Judges are in turn often prevented from deciding on the merits of cases concerning terrorism, so that they have to take for granted the determinations made by governments or international organizations over the status of terrorist suspects. Nevertheless, a number of bold decisions issued by domestic courts have progressively reaffirmed the central role of judicial authorities in the fight against international terrorism, also circumscribing the increasing power of governments. However, this does not avoid the risk that judges issue common sense decisions, without considering the fragmented nature of terrorist organizations. In the conclusion it is underlined the need to abandon this ideological and discriminatory perspective, according to which international terrorism is portrayed as being a monolithic phenomenon joined only by aliens, and to fully comply with the rule of law.

The article attempts to illustrate the politics of law which have characterized both the anti -- terrorism legislation & jurisprudence since the 9/11 attacks. To this aim, it compares laws & regulations passed in a number of western countries after 2001, together with further case-law. Most of the laws adopted allow harsh constraints of the rule of law guarantees, admitting extrajudicial detention & deportation of non -- citizens, under a clear friend/foe perspective. The analysis also shows a widespread criminalization of individuals according to vague statutes, which often rely on blacklists of proscribed groups or persons, held & amended by governments or international organizations (e.g. the UN or the EU). In this way, Executives legislate in criminal law matters, practically bypassing the principle of separation of powers. Judges are in turn often prevented from deciding on the merits of cases concerning terrorism, so that they have to take for granted the determinations made by governments or international organizations over the status of terrorist suspects. Nevertheless, a number of bold decisions issued by domestic courts have progressively reaffirmed the central role of judicial authorities in the fight against international terrorism, also circumscribing the increasing power of governments. However, this does not avoid the risk that judges issue common sense decisions, without considering the fragmented nature of terrorist organizations. In the conclusion it is underlined the need to abandon this ideological & discriminatory perspective, according to which international terrorism is portrayed as being a monolithic phenomenon joined only by aliens, & to fully comply with the rule of law. Adapted from the source document.

An article on the analysis of legal aspects in peace operations undertaken by the United Nations, more precisely the applicability of human rights laws by civil and military personnel involved. The most important human rights treaties and instruments own a restricted territorial application. In this regard, an extraterritorial applicability entailing people however subjected to the jurisdiction of the signatory countries, might be argued. Fundamental questions raised: during peace support operations, do countries have to fully respect the human rights conventions? Are they accountable for violations perpetrated by their own personnel or anyway occurred in areas under their supervision or control? What happens if military contingents or the governmental personnel detached act as subsidiary organs of an international or regional organization with an international legal personality? An examination of the general principles regarding the use of force by UN military personnel and an evaluation of possible derogations from human rights via UN Security Council Resolutions, as well as a brief analysis of specific cases in recent peacekeeping operations, all placed around the sentences and decisions made by juridical and supervisory institutions concerned (European Court of Human Rights, UN Human Rights Committee, Inter American Court on Human Rights). References. O. van Zijl

Other crucial developments occurred at the London Conference on Afghanistan, which took place at the end of January 2006. The conference saw the signing of the Afghanistan Compact5 and the presentation of the Interim Afghanistan National Development Strategy (I-ANDS),6 which also represented the country’s I-PRSP. The former was basically a political agreement between the Afghan Government and the international community towards the achievement of 42 benchmarks within a five-year term. The Compact’s rule of law component was made up of four benchmarks, which mirrored those within the I-ANDS. Such benchmarks were related to the adoption and dissemination of new codes and laws, the establishment of functioning justice institutions, the adoption of anti-corruption procedures, as well as the construction and rehabilitation of judicial infrastructure.7 The London within five years. The Compact was eventually endorsed by the Security Council, which also welcomed the I-ANDS adoption.8 In line with the World Bank’s CDF model, the event also created the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board (JCMB, effectively established in April 2006), designed to monitor progress towards the achievement of the benchmarks included in the Compact.9 The JCMB is composed of 28 members, three quarters of whom are international actors.10 The remaining seven include the most relevant Afghan Ministers,11 who therefore represent the minority of participants, even though the Afghan government co-chairs the Board together with UNAMA. The JCMB meets at least four times per year and, up until mid-2008, its meetings were preceded by the preparatory meetings of consultative and working groups.