Book of panels and abstracts
Deconstructing the European Union’s present: a chronic solidarity disease, domopolitics and the migrant crisis
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Panel 8: Security, Securitization and Criminalisation
- Making a Case for Adopting a Human Rights Paradigm To Pandemic Preparation
- Discretion, Framing, and the Single Legal Definition of Terrorism: One Size Fits All
- Panel 9: Urbanity, Control and the Commons: Realising Possible Urban Futures
- Walls of the city as palimpsests of the commons.
- Urban Protocols: An architectural commoning experimentation
- Title TBC
- Panel 1
- Stigma and the Political Theology of the Ban on Torture
- Panel 2
Deconstructing the European Union’s present: a chronic solidarity disease, domopolitics and the migrant crisis Rachael Dickson Hillyard School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast - rdickson07@qub.ac.uk The perception of values, their content and meaning, has become a problem for the European Union (EU) during recent times as the Member States and institutions have attempted to respond in a spirit of solidarity. This paper will discuss how the EU’s handling of the migrant crisis creates a façade of a ‘turning point’ in EU relations while grounding actions taken in a condition of presentism through the holistic treatment of wider afflictions through the narrative of crisis. It addresses the problem of understanding the EU’s response as something beyond immediate action to save lives. It illuminates alternative narratives which speak beyond the governmentalities of security, unease and risk to go right to a crisis at the heart of the EU rights project – the understanding of solidarity. The results of an empirical analysis of policy, the interpretations of law made to formulate it and articulations of key stakeholders and individuals it will be presented. The paper will address how the EU conceives of itself as a home and then detail how the migrant crisis poses a threat to the values comprising this home. By analysing the articulation of the values of rights, solidarity and shared responsibility by the EU institutions and comparing them with the mandates of the actors delivering the response pragmatically, the paper will emphasise the presence of domopolitics. Therefore, the paper illustrates that the migrant crisis is a symptom of a greater condition affecting the EU (namely, a lack of understanding of the content and meaning of the value of solidarity). Due to this wider state of unwellbeing, the EU is engaging in a domopolitical governmentality in order to tame and domesticate migration that could intensify the symptoms of a chronic solidarity disease. Thus, the migrant crisis is a turning point, a moment where it is either cured or worsened. Panel 8: Security, Securitization and Criminalisation Chair: TBC Organized criminal answer to State governance in Latin America: gang resistance in motion Vitor Stegemann-Dieter, University of Kent (UK) and Eötvös Loránd University (Hungary) - vs284@kent.ac.uk This exploratory study aims to discuss the interplay between states and gangs based on the Latin American dynamics after the re-democratisation and economic opening period in the end of the 20th century. Traditional gang research (see Thrasher, 2000; Sánchez-Jankowski, 1991) shows how gangs behave, but they do not take into consideration the role of the State behaviour and State governance to crime and the consequences to gang organization and behaviour. Relevant governance researchers (see Rhodes, 1996) claim that a new set of networks are relevant to understand the undermining power of the state in present society, some (see Gambetta, 1996; Skarbek, 2014) claim that gangs have taken a share of that governance to themselves. However, the present study argues that the state capacity to rule has not diminished, but changed from welfare inclusion to criminal persecution (Wacquant, 2009), and that marginalized individuals respond to those policies by creating new forms of organization inside and outside prisons (Moore, 1978). I argue that gangs respond to the State by creating new forms of organisations (Biondi, 2010) that enhance their collective capacity to evade, corrupt or confront State policing (Bailey & Taylor, 2009). Thus, in spite of the shrinking of the inclusive State, gangs do not become independent of State policies, but more engaged with the State behaviour, a phenomenon defined by Lilian Bobea (2011) as ‘statetropism’. This exploratory study aims to critically engage with the concept of ‘governance’ and ‘self-governance’ according to political and economic transformations in South and Central America, and secondly, ‘resistance’ as a conceptual tool to the interrelation of socio-economic responses of society to these changes. Finally, this debate contributes to the understanding of crime control policing strategies repercussion in different countries, in which economic inclusion has been reduced and aggressive policing strategies have been enhanced. Making a Case for Adopting a Human Rights Paradigm To Pandemic Preparation Omowamiwa Kolawole, University of Cape Town(UCT), South Africa - ookolawole@gmail.com The recent Ebola virus pandemic that spread across many parts of the world, brought to the fore the lack of preparedness of the global health governance system and individual state parties for pandemic outbreaks. Of the various factors identified as contributing to the limited pandemic preparation capacity, perhaps the most important has been the approach with which pandemics have been addressed, pre and post outbreak. The existing theoretical framework for pandemic preparedness has been one of Securitization and the protection of State party economic interests. However, the securitization approach has been criticized for placing undue focus on the protection of state security rather than the care of citizens. While the protection of states’ security is a valid concern, recent outbreaks have shown that pandemics do not recognise geographical boundaries, and actions solely geared at securitization have yielded minimal results. In addition, in the case of many developing countries, the primary factors for the spread of pandemics have been poverty and weak health systems that are unable to withstand the wave of diseases and appropriately nip such outbreaks in the bud. For many of these countries, there is need to have a different approach to pandemic preparedness. A case has been made for the adoption of a human rights approach. This paper explores this approach, and the ramifications of its implementation by developing countries. The paper further enquires into the normative structure of such an approach, highlighting what it would entail, the legal framework required to implement such an approach and the systems needed for successful implementation; yielding in a subsequently better pandemic preparedness stance. Discretion, Framing, and the Single Legal Definition of Terrorism: One Size Fits All? Alan Greene, Durham Law School - alan.greene@durham.ac.uk This paper argues against a single definition of terrorism in law, both at a domestic international level. Using the UK's definition contained in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, this paper argues that a single definition of terrorism is invariably broad owing to the need to accommodate the lowest common denominator thus damaging to the 'principle of legality'. This faith in discretion paves the way for the definition to be applied arbitrarily and selectively against certain groups, rather than against an objectively identifiable phenomenon known as ‘terrorism’. In addition, arguments suggesting that by legally defining terrorism we can control its use in political discourse, misunderstand law's capacity to shape and frame public debate. Such arguments instead promote law to a lofty place in the political discourse that it simply does not occupy. A legal definition of terrorism cannot hope to control public debate; rather, it can only serve as a tool to be arbitrarily applied by those with the actual power to frame public discourse. Panel 9: Urbanity, Control and the Commons: Realising Possible Urban Futures Chair: Harley Ronan Panel organizer: Harley Ronan The urban environment is now the daily context for more than 50% of the world’s population. The way cities are governed, and the manner in which law underpins the spatial, material and social architecture of cities determines the conditions of existence for the majority of the global population. In a European context, law, politics and social organisation cannot be separated from the urban condition. Rethinking the legal and political nature of urban social organisation creates a realm of possibility for building alternative, more socially just urban futures. This panel seeks to further debates on how the city possesses potential for innovation in the fabric of social organisation; what strategies and approaches can harness this potential; and how the ‘just city’ might take shape - politically, socially and legally. The city is a unique settlement form for the realisation of alternative forms of legal, political and social organisation. This has crystallised recently in disparate claims to appropriate the city such as the Gezi Park movement, the Arab spring, the rise of Podemos and Syriza in southern European cities, and a global multitude of ‘right to the city’ movements which are reclaiming urbanity to further social justice. In the current context of European austerity, precarity and disenfranchisement, there is increasing debate on the constitution of urban society and how it could be radically different. Cities are complex worlds, socially produced by inhabitants, and replete with energy and potential. ‘Tapping into’ this potential to build more socially just forms of urban life requires further attention, elaboration and experimentation from critical legal scholars and urbanists. The commons has become a powerful concept to imagine alternative ways of thinking the city, of organising social life and reshaping the distribution of resources. It has been suggested that the commons is the “progressive political key word of our time”. It crystallises concerns of social justice and provides a mode of action to realise forms of collective social organisation that are an alternative to state and market. Importantly, the commons provides inspiration for development of alternative, collective conceptions and practices of property that are based on furthering social justice. Conceptualising cities and the commons also invites us to think dialectically with enclosure and how capitalism has continually extracted value from the commons. Cities are a strategic site of accumulation and enclosures, foreclosing alternative forms of social organisation. The ubiquity of ‘luxury’ developments; the splintering of the urban fabric intro control zones creating intertwined states of exception; and the continuing intensity of surveillance technologies built into the urban environment further capital’s grip on the city and polarise urban life. Understanding how capital and law valorise urban space, the technologies of dispossession employed and the resulting inequalities is essential in formulating alternative urban futures produced in common. This panel seeks to interrogate the juncture between enclosure and the commons; how the latter can inspire alternative forms of organizing the city, and how the former forecloses the possible. It seeks to explore the possibility of the commons as a political, legal and property regime for organizing the city; and it seeks to understand the forces preventing the realisation of other, more socially just urban futures. Walls of the city as palimpsests of the commons. Francesco Salvini On the wall of the Pavillon L in the former Loony Bin of Trieste, a graffiti cries: “LA VERITÀ É RIVOLUZIONARIA” (truth is revolutionary); almost illegible another sentence goes like this: “C'est toujours au nom de la verité que l'on enferme. Ne crois qu'à la tienne” It is always in the name of truth that a person is confined. This palimpsest is the explosion in the public space of another practice of commonality, one typical of the total institution. Writing on the wall of the institution constitutes an escape from solitude and the imagination of another life beyond the institution, beyond the wall. By inscribing, accumulating, overlapping and contrasting these words on the same surface, a silent conversation emerges between the one interned now, the one that was here before, and the one that will be here again after you; this silent conversation allows the inmate to become a living agent in and against the endless and identical objectivation of confinement, imposed by the institution. It is a conversation that expresses and refuses and resists the attempt of making the confined body and the confined life nothing else than a bare object for the institutional disposal. In my communication, I address the translation of this intimate practice of inscription and expression into the urban space, as a dynamic of invasion that transform the status of a place, its legality and regulation. Throughout the radical reorganisation of mental healthcare in Trieste, writing on the walls became a practice for claiming an appropriation of public space and a political voice. A voice that is composed through a palimpsest of walls, and floors, and letter boxes, throughout the city. A palimpsest of the commons. Urban Protocols: An architectural commoning experimentation Thanos Zartaloudis, Kent Law School, University of Kent In this paper I will briefly present the inspirations, plans and development of an architectural project that I have been devising for a few years with the Antonas Office in Athens, Greece called Urban Protocols. This will detail to the extent possible the schematics, the ideas and the problems that are involved in this experimentation, whereby we attempt to facilitate the development of common uses of particular spatial categories in Athens, during a time of 'crisis' and in response to 'crisis', yet with ramifications that extent beyond the particular period and with particular regard to the role architecture can play in commoning experiences. This presentation will coincide with the publication of the book that details this collective project (Archipelago of Protocols, dtp Barcelona, 2016). Control and Creativity Nathan Moore, School of Law, Birkbeck College, London The question of control, as with any regime of power, is one concerned with processes of freedom and enslavement. The particular difficulty under control, which differentiates it from sovereign and disciplinary arrangements, is that it tends to make freedom and enslavement converge; that is, it obliges us to be free. It is then a matter of exploring the forms and methods of such an obligation, across an array of practices and activities. In this paper, I will focus on this question in relation to architecture. In particular, I am concerned to address how it is that increasingly open and interactive spaces, that seemingly increase choice and engagement, also serve to channel and shape behaviour through techniques of pre-emptive design and informational feedback. In so doing, I will draw an analytic distinction between two modes of being in, and of, space. The first, labelled ‘creative being’, involves thinking of space as a matter of embodiment, with risky and unpredictable encounters serving as the condition for the formation of new and creative modes of spatial being. The second, labelled ‘innovative being’, considers how spatial design invites seemingly open engagements, all the while restricting them to pre-formatted regimes of power. To be clear, this latter is not a static set of ‘rules’ or ‘obligations’, but rather an interactive mechanism that requires us to constantly innovate – not for the production of new and creative modes of being, but as a subtle demand that we constantly re-form ourselves as we move from space to space, that we re-invest in the designated features of each design, and that we re-responsibilise ourselves when faced with unexpected and unplanned for spatial engagements. Title TBC Anne Bottomley Abstract TBC 1. AFTER CHRISTIAN LAW? CONTESTING LAW'S CHRISTIANITY, CONTEMPLATING ALTERNATIVES Stream organisers: John Ackerman, Didi Herman and Thanos Zartaloudis (all University of Kent) It has sometimes been noted, but is more frequently forgotten, that both the rule of law and the critique of ‘the law’, as we know them, are deeply Christian phenomena, the dual legacy of Christianity’s historical and theological overcoming of Judaism and of its contributions to the emergence of the modern Rechtsstaat. It has long been acknowledged that the chief alternative to the persistence of Christianity as the organising frame for state and society – the narrative of secularisation – is itself the product of Christian categories and divisions that it continues to reproduce. But critical legal thinking, too, whenever it is tempted to overcome the law (a law that inevitably falls short of justice) or proclaim the insufficiency of its dead letter, inevitably finds itself acting out one of Christianity’s oldest tropes, one that has been deployed through the ages as a rebuttal to Jewish adherence to the law and sometimes to Islamic legalism together with – or perhaps increasingly apart from – it. These considerations provide the occasion for a series of questions:
This stream invites new efforts to conceive and contest the relationship between law, legal critique and Christianity, whether through investigation of this Christian nexus or by appeal to Christianity’s various others. It aims to bring together a range of projects for contemplating critical (non-Christian) approaches to law in the context of societies that today are often far less Christian than the legal systems – and perhaps also the modes of legal criticism – against and through which they are constituted. The stream welcomes both theoretical studies and commentaries on specific contemporary political, social and legal issues and impasses. In doing so it also invites participants to ask: Might the assembling of such a collection of critical approaches help to begin to signal the possibility of a ‘turning point’ between the imperious reign of (post-) Christian law and another epoch that has perhaps already begun? And if it is not a matter of ‘turning points’ what is the situation in which we find ourselves? Panel 1 Chair: John Ackerman “A major attack on Jewish freedoms…”: A Socio-Legal History of Anti-shechita Prosecutions in the English-speaking World, 1855-1913 David Fraser, Nottingham - david.fraser@nottingham.ac.uk This paper offers the first legal historical examination of attempts to prosecute those engaged in the Jewish mode of slaughter for animal cruelty. These cases, which took place between 1855 and 1913, present unique insights into the development of the anti-cruelty movement, immigrant Jewish communities, the interactions between the two, and use of legislation and criminal law adjudication to settle fundamental normative conflicts. Taking place in England, Scotland, Canada, the United States, and Australia, these animal cruelty cases present unique insights into the normative conflicts between two sets of religious beliefs within a legal system of criminal prosecution. Jewish slaughter or shechita was controlled and sanctioned by religious authorities, while anti-cruelty cases were placed by legislation in the hands of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty. The apparently neutral legislative regime aimed at eliminating cruelty to animals was deeply informed by the larger frame of Christian social reform. In every case, private modes of regulation and enforcement, on both sides, confronted the legal system of anti-cruelty legislation and adjudication before local lower courts (magistrates or Police Courts). Jews saw these prosecutions as a form of antisemitic agitation, the goal of which was to criminalize the practice of the Jewish faith. Protection societies saw the cases as protecting helpless creatures from unnecessary suffering. This paper examines these normative religious, ethical, and legal conflicts across a number of jurisdictions, from the first to the last reported prosecution. It explores the historical, political, religious, and social contexts in which the cases took place and were decided, and uncovers a heretofore unexamined aspect of the legal history of anti-Jewish agitation in the common law world. Stigma and the Political Theology of the Ban on Torture Michelle Farrell, Liverpool - Michelle.Farrell@liverpool.ac.uk The European Court of Human Rights attaches a ‘special stigma’ to torture to distinguish the act from other forms of ill-treatment. This phrase was introduced in Ireland v United Kingdom and is now elemental to the Court’s conceptualisation of torture. The phrase has little legal currency; perhaps, for this reason, it has been overlooked in academic commentary. Or perhaps ‘special stigma’ is simply viewed as an innocuous reinforcement of the pervasive universal view that ‘torture is very bad’ indeed.4 In fact, the representation of torture as stigmatic gestures to ulterior social and theological logics underpinning the act of, and the ban on, torture. This papers re-imagines torture by filtering international legal definitions and renderings of torture through a political theological conceptualisation of torture. Torture occupies a paradoxical position in the international imagination – whilst it earns universal normative recognition as barbarous and beyond the pale, it is also reserved – almost reverently – to describe a particular and limited kind of practice. Torture has this special status in the international imagination, yet, in practice, it is mundane (i.e. ordinary/pervasive). This paper exploits the perfectly ambiguous notion of stigma to explore this paradox. Stigma suggests shame and disgrace, on the one hand, and stigmata (the marks corresponding to those left on Christ’s body following crucifixion), on the other hand. Correspondingly, special stigma has operated in the Court’s jurisprudence both to free the state from the disgraceful enunciation as torturing and to deny the victims their claims to suffering. This latter interpretative invocation of stigma signifies a jurisprudential nod to the redemptive character of Christ’s suffering on the cross. Stigma, then, opens up the space to explore the Christian character of the universal ban. Christian Israel Didi Herman, Kent - D.Herman@kent.ac.uk The early 20th century Christian conquest of Palestine, Protestant theological influence on the development of Israeli nationalist thinking, Protestants’ continued involvement in propping up successive Israeli governments, and the orientation of Israel nationalist leaders and settlers towards northern European Christianity – have had an enormous impact on the character and politics of Israel. This paper explores some of these dimensions. Panel 2 Chair: Didi Herman Queering International Law: Sodom and ‘sodomy’ in a foundational moment Nan Seuffert, University of Wollongong - nseuffer@uow.edu.au Spurred by the impotence of international law and its conventions in the face of Australia’s industrial incarceration system for asylum seekers who arrive by boat, including significant numbers of sexual minorities, this paper investigates a founding moment in modern international law, the lectures of Francisco de Vitoria, for the shapes and limits of the Sodom allegory and ‘sodomy’ embedded there. Central to Vitoria’s work is the construction of a ‘law of nations’ which imposes broad and deep duties of hospitality, often religiously based, on indigenous Mesoamericans in the ‘New World’, duties which are not reciprocated by European nations. Directory: law law -> Law in American Society Black History Month Essay Contest law -> A brand New Image? Should Personality Rights be law -> Jurisdiction of the Courts law -> Luther V. Borden: a taney Court Mystery Solved law -> ‘Intellectual Property Rights in Sport’ law -> The law of tort introduction a. What is a Tort? law -> Law of Delict Chapter 1: General Introduction law -> Appendix C: Federal and Minnesota Case Law Summaries Download 0.92 Mb. Share with your friends:
|