In Search of the Prototype of Forced Marriage

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Ligeia Quackelbeen
{"title":"In Search of the Prototype of Forced Marriage","authors":"Ligeia Quackelbeen","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqae023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the categorization of the phenomenon of bush wives as forced marriage under the residual category of other inhumane acts in the Ongwen case. It reveals how judges at the International Criminal Court have used an Aristotelian Approach to characterization which entailed them to examine, on the basis of a jurisprudentially established checklist, whether the bush wives phenomenon shares the properties of the crime category of other inhumane acts. By discussing the forced marriage practices through an ‘other inhumane acts’ categorization, this article reveals the limits and pitfalls of the Aristotelian Approach. The main problem is that the Aristotelian Approach fails to grasp that categorization does not merely work on the basis of a checklist logic but also is a culturally determined process in which cultural prototypes need to be examined. This article’s main proposition is to consider an alternative way of categorization drawing from the philosophy of language and social sciences and suggests judges adopt a Prototype Approach. This approach enables judges to move away from a generic way of labelling different fact patterns through a checklist of properties and take on a more tailor-made and culturally sensitive approach that involves categorization through the discussion of the similarity and distinctiveness of a certain fact pattern to a prototype. In this way, judges can diversify interpretation of the other inhumane acts category in light of local practices as it requires a fresh decision of the facts by engaging with cultural practices in a more sensitive way and examining whether this phenomenon entails prototypical marriage practices. In this way, prototype theory opens new pathways in terms of how we label cultural practices and how we use the residual category of other inhumane acts.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqae023","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article discusses the categorization of the phenomenon of bush wives as forced marriage under the residual category of other inhumane acts in the Ongwen case. It reveals how judges at the International Criminal Court have used an Aristotelian Approach to characterization which entailed them to examine, on the basis of a jurisprudentially established checklist, whether the bush wives phenomenon shares the properties of the crime category of other inhumane acts. By discussing the forced marriage practices through an ‘other inhumane acts’ categorization, this article reveals the limits and pitfalls of the Aristotelian Approach. The main problem is that the Aristotelian Approach fails to grasp that categorization does not merely work on the basis of a checklist logic but also is a culturally determined process in which cultural prototypes need to be examined. This article’s main proposition is to consider an alternative way of categorization drawing from the philosophy of language and social sciences and suggests judges adopt a Prototype Approach. This approach enables judges to move away from a generic way of labelling different fact patterns through a checklist of properties and take on a more tailor-made and culturally sensitive approach that involves categorization through the discussion of the similarity and distinctiveness of a certain fact pattern to a prototype. In this way, judges can diversify interpretation of the other inhumane acts category in light of local practices as it requires a fresh decision of the facts by engaging with cultural practices in a more sensitive way and examining whether this phenomenon entails prototypical marriage practices. In this way, prototype theory opens new pathways in terms of how we label cultural practices and how we use the residual category of other inhumane acts.
寻找强迫婚姻的原型
本文讨论了在翁古文案中,如何将丛林妻子现象归类为其他不人道行为这一剩余类别下的强迫婚姻。文章揭示了国际刑事法院的法官们是如何采用亚里士多德式的定性方法,要求他们根据法理上确立的清单来审查丛林妻子现象是否具有其他不人道行为犯罪类别的属性。通过对 "其他不人道行为 "的分类来讨论强迫婚姻的做法,本文揭示了亚里士多德方法的局限性和缺陷。主要问题在于,亚里士多德方法未能认识到,分类不仅仅是根据核对表逻辑进行的,而且也是一个由文化决定的过程,在这一过程中,需要对文化原型进行研究。本文的主要主张是借鉴语言哲学和社会科学,考虑另一种分类方法,并建议法官采用原型方法。这种方法可使法官摆脱通过属性核对表对不同事实模式进行标记的通用方式,而采用一种更有针对性和文化敏感性的方法,即通过讨论某种事实模式与原型的相似性和独特性来进行分类。这样,法官就可以根据当地习俗对其他非人道行为类别做出多样化的解释,因为这需要以更加敏感的方式接触文化习俗,并审查这种现象是否包含原型婚姻习俗,从而对事实做出全新的判断。这样,原型理论就为我们如何标记文化习俗以及如何使用其他不人道行为这一剩余类别开辟了新的途径。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
22.20%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Journal of International Criminal Justice aims to promote a profound collective reflection on the new problems facing international law. Established by a group of distinguished criminal lawyers and international lawyers, the Journal addresses the major problems of justice from the angle of law, jurisprudence, criminology, penal philosophy, and the history of international judicial institutions. It is intended for graduate and post-graduate students, practitioners, academics, government officials, as well as the hundreds of people working for international criminal courts.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信