Gender, UN Peacebuilding, and the Politics of Space: Locating Legitimacy, Laura J. Shepherd (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 264 pp., $74 cloth.

C. Duncanson
{"title":"Gender, UN Peacebuilding, and the Politics of Space: Locating Legitimacy, Laura J. Shepherd (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 264 pp., $74 cloth.","authors":"C. Duncanson","doi":"10.1017/S0892679418000357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"equivalency if it pursues all sides equally. Likewise, May and Fyfe’s claim that the ICC inappropriately singled out Uhuru Kenyatta for prosecution overlooks counterarguments that such prosecution expressed important global condemnation of election-related violence. Finally, in arguing that certain particularly egregious crimes require international-level prosecution, the authors assert, but do not demonstrate, that such crimes “adversely affect humanity” in a way that distinguishes them from national-level crimes (p. ). May and Fyfe characterize their book as a strong rebuttal to critics whowish to abolish international criminal tribunals, yet many if not most of the scholarly works that they discuss share the authors’ commitment to improving the international criminal justice system. For instance, in discussing punishment, the authors cite Mark Drumbl’s concerns about the justifications for international punishment, but Drumbl’s work clearly conveys an ambition to improve, rather than undermine or dismantle, the international criminal justice system. Like Drumbl, many of the authors that May and Fyfe cite as international criminal law “critics” would agree that “reform rather than disbandment is needed” (p. ). Only a small number of commentators advocate the abolition of international criminal tribunals, and the book’s effort to rebut such abolitionism sometimes distracts from its laudable efforts to suggest institutional reforms. Indeed, the authors’ focus on possible institutional destruction seems to limit the depth with which they engage existing debates about institutional reform. That preoccupation also prevents the kind of detailed comparative analysis that would be necessary to support the authors’ claim that international criminal tribunals are the fairest venues for adjudicating particular kinds of crimes. Despite these omissions, the book’s impressive breadth makes it an important vehicle for promoting debates about the normative underpinnings of global criminal justice. It is written clearly and accessibly, which will foster participation by a broad and diverse audience. Scholars will find the book useful as a resource for arguments about the normative strengths and weaknesses of international criminal tribunals, and practitioners of international criminal law should give careful consideration to the authors’ prescriptive suggestions.","PeriodicalId":424984,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & International Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679418000357","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

equivalency if it pursues all sides equally. Likewise, May and Fyfe’s claim that the ICC inappropriately singled out Uhuru Kenyatta for prosecution overlooks counterarguments that such prosecution expressed important global condemnation of election-related violence. Finally, in arguing that certain particularly egregious crimes require international-level prosecution, the authors assert, but do not demonstrate, that such crimes “adversely affect humanity” in a way that distinguishes them from national-level crimes (p. ). May and Fyfe characterize their book as a strong rebuttal to critics whowish to abolish international criminal tribunals, yet many if not most of the scholarly works that they discuss share the authors’ commitment to improving the international criminal justice system. For instance, in discussing punishment, the authors cite Mark Drumbl’s concerns about the justifications for international punishment, but Drumbl’s work clearly conveys an ambition to improve, rather than undermine or dismantle, the international criminal justice system. Like Drumbl, many of the authors that May and Fyfe cite as international criminal law “critics” would agree that “reform rather than disbandment is needed” (p. ). Only a small number of commentators advocate the abolition of international criminal tribunals, and the book’s effort to rebut such abolitionism sometimes distracts from its laudable efforts to suggest institutional reforms. Indeed, the authors’ focus on possible institutional destruction seems to limit the depth with which they engage existing debates about institutional reform. That preoccupation also prevents the kind of detailed comparative analysis that would be necessary to support the authors’ claim that international criminal tribunals are the fairest venues for adjudicating particular kinds of crimes. Despite these omissions, the book’s impressive breadth makes it an important vehicle for promoting debates about the normative underpinnings of global criminal justice. It is written clearly and accessibly, which will foster participation by a broad and diverse audience. Scholars will find the book useful as a resource for arguments about the normative strengths and weaknesses of international criminal tribunals, and practitioners of international criminal law should give careful consideration to the authors’ prescriptive suggestions.
《性别、联合国建设和平与空间政治:合法性定位》,劳拉·j·谢泼德著(纽约:牛津大学出版社,2017年),264页,74美元。
等价性是指平等地追求各方利益。同样,梅和菲夫声称,国际刑事法院不恰当地单独起诉乌胡鲁·肯雅塔(Uhuru Kenyatta),忽视了相反的论点,即这种起诉表达了全球对选举相关暴力的重要谴责。最后,在认为某些特别恶劣的罪行需要国际一级的起诉时,作者断言,但没有证明,这些罪行在某种程度上“对人类产生了不利影响”,使其与国家一级的罪行区别开来(页)。May和Fyfe将他们的书描述为对那些希望废除国际刑事法庭的批评者的有力反驳,然而他们讨论的许多学术作品(如果不是大多数的话)都分享了作者对改善国际刑事司法体系的承诺。例如,在讨论惩罚时,作者引用了Mark Drumbl对国际惩罚正当性的担忧,但Drumbl的作品清楚地传达了一种改善而不是破坏或废除国际刑事司法系统的雄心。像Drumbl一样,May和Fyfe认为是国际刑法“批评者”的许多作者都同意“需要的是改革而不是解散”(页)。只有少数评论家主张废除国际刑事法庭,而这本书驳斥这种废除主义的努力有时会分散其建议机构改革的值得称赞的努力。事实上,作者对可能的制度破坏的关注似乎限制了他们参与有关制度改革的现有辩论的深度。这种过分关注也妨碍了详细的比较分析,而这种比较分析是支持作者的主张所必需的,即国际刑事法庭是审判特定种类罪行的最公平场所。尽管有这些遗漏,但这本书令人印象深刻的广度使其成为推动关于全球刑事司法规范基础的辩论的重要工具。它写得清楚易懂,这将促进广泛和多样化的观众参与。学者们会发现,这本书是关于国际刑事法庭规范优势和弱点的论证的有用资源,国际刑法的实践者应该仔细考虑作者的规范性建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信