CfP: International Congress on Gender Violence: Intersectionalities

Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law Oñati, 10 – 12 July 2013

Call for papers Deadline 4th March 2013

Papers Deadline 10th June 2013

The congress will be hosted by the International Institute for Sociology of Law, which is located in Oñati, Spain. Sessions will be held in both English and Spanish, with simultaneous translation provided for the final keynote speaker session. This congress is aimed at examining the main conceptual frameworks for thinking about gender violence. We invite participants to consider how useful the concept of gender violence is for tackling violence against women. We also particularly encourage papers that will examine the intersections of gender violence with other determinants of inequalities. Papers are invited from researchers working in the area of gender violence, as well as policy makers, practitioners and activists. We feel that this interdisciplinary may help to produce new conceptualisations of gender violence. The topic of gender violence is especially relevant to Spain and the Basque country. Spain has been a relative latecomer to legislation to address gender violence, although is now attempting to a take a lead in Europe. In Spain, violence against women is seen to be a problem of gender violence. The decision to use the concept of gender rather than domestic violence was based on the recognition that violence against women arises from gender inequalities that extend outside of the domestic sphere, and are connected to patriarchy. However, this definition has also been criticised for only conceptualising violence with intimate partnerships, and excluding other types of violence such as sexual harassment, rape, trafficking of women etc. The definition also does not recognise the intersectionality of violence with race, ethnicity, sexuality, disability and other structural determinants of inequality. For instance, Amnesty International has argued that undocumented migrant women in Spain who have been the victims of violence have not been able to access services provided to other victims. In addition, despite the provision of considerable funding to tackle the problem, gender violence appears to be a growing problem in Spain, and it is becoming clear that legislation reform alone is not sufficient to address the problem. Clearly these problems are not limited to Spain, and we invite different international examples and comparative perspectives. Congress themes This congress is aimed at examining existing and producing new conceptual frameworks for thinking about gender violence. It is proposed to have sessions on: New theoretical models of gender violence: questioning the primacy of gender inequality The persistence of gender violence as a gendered phenomenon The intersection of gender, race and ethnicity Giving voice of marginalised women: disabled women’s experiences of violence Debunking stereotypes of battered women: intersections of gender and class Sexuality and violence

ORGANISATION COMMITTEE: Angela Melville (International Institute for the Sociology of Law) Ana Isabel Pérez Machio (Instituto Vasco de Criminología. Universidad del País Vasco) Arantza Campos (UPV/EHU) David Gadd (Manchester University School of Law)

For further information: IISL (Meetings) Antigua Universidad Apartado 28 20560 Oñati (Gipuzkoa) – Spain Tel.: +34 943 71 88 89 Fax: +34 943 78 31 47 E-Mail: malen@iisj.es

See also the Congress website.

The ECtHR, the Catholic Church and Rights in Conflict

The ever-instructive UK Human Rights Blog (Rosalind English and commenter hp lehofer) reports on an illuminating series of cases, all deriving from one case in Austria. (I should say at once that these were not blasphemy cases along the lines of Otto Preminger Institut v Austria.)

In all three cases, an Austrian news magazine had published reports of police searches at a Catholic seminary at St. Pölten. The police was reported to have searched for child pornography alleged to have been downloaded at the seminary. In connection with these allegations, the news magazine reported that the principal and deputy principal of the seminary had had homosexual relations with some of the seminarians. Some suggestive photographs were also published.

The principal and deputy principal sued before the Austrian courts, requesting damages. Both lost. However, the principal also applied for a judicial injunction against (inter alia) the publication of the photographs. This was granted by the Austrian Supreme Court.

In a strange twist, therefore, both parties of the overall dispute took their cases to Strasbourg. The magazine argued that the injunction had breached Article 10 (freedom of expression), whereas the principal and deputy principal submitted that their rights under Article 8 (privacy) had been violated by the refusal of damages. The cases of Verlagsgruppe News GmbH and Bobi v Austria on the one hand and Küchl v Austria and Rothe v Austria on the other hand therefore effectively pitted the parties from the domestic cases against one another again (even though the cases were technically against Austria, obviously).

In another neat twist, neither side won (except Austria). Continue reading

CfA: Feminist Critical Analysis: Contemporary Contentions, Dubrovnik, May 27-May 31 2013

Feminist Critical Analysis

Inter-University Center (IUC), Dubrovnik May 27th to May31st, 2013

Call for Applications Center for Gender and Politics of the Belgrade University (Political Science Department), Women’s and Gender Studies at Rutgers of the State University of New Jersey, and Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies, Washington University in St Louis are pleased to announce the next annual postgraduate course in Feminist Critical Analysis: Contemporary Contentions -Rethinking Gender Identity and Identity Politics. Continue reading

CfP: Aftermath Conference: Sites and Sources of History & Memory

The 3rd Dr Jan Randa Conference in Holocaust and Genocide Studies

AFTERMATH 2013: SITES AND SOURCES OF HISTORY AND MEMORY

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

6-7 August 2013

Hosted by the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation in partnership with the History Program at Monash University and the University of Warwick

Keynote Speakers Include: Professor Hasia Diner, New York University; Professor Ben F. Kiernan, Yale University

Call for Papers:

The field of Holocaust and Genocide Studies is at a critical juncture.  Archives, testimony projects, documentation centres, and new tools in the fields of salvaging and mapping sites of conflict have proliferated and thus present new and urgent possibilities for documenting and transmitting histories and memories of traumatic events.  Consequently, the expansion of new sources (ranging from recently opened Holocaust archives to the creation of Rwandan testimony projects) and the unearthing of sites of destruction (in locations like Cambodia and Darfur) compel explorations of how evidence will be accessed and interpreted with an attention to their cultural, historical, topographical, and media specificity, and how they will be engaged not only in scholarly and pedagogical terms but also in larger areas of social and political practice. Continue reading

New Issue of GoJIL and Call for Papers

A brand new issue of the Goettingen Journal of International Law is available on the journal’s homepage: www.gojil.eu. They have compiled eleven great articles about the precursors to international constitutionalism, especially the development of the German constitutional approach.

The Journal is already preparing the next issue. Vol. 5, Issue No. 1 of the Goettingen Journal of International Law will include a focus on the law and politics of indigenous peoples in international law.

Indigenous peoples received increasing public and scholarly attention over the last decades. It has been a unique journey from the colonial history to the beginning of their political presence in the United Nations since the 1970s to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. The UN’s International Year for the World’s Indigenous Peoples in 1993 as well as the following decades of the world’s indigenous peoples from 1995 to 2004 and 2006 to 2015 prove the ongoing need to attend to indigenous peoples’ interests.

Today, discourses of indigenous peoples rights and their claim for self-determination are found beyond International Human Rights law: topics such as intellectual property rights, control over the exploitation of natural resources, the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions are on the agenda.
Underlying all is the constant debate about a definition and the implementation of indigenous peoples’ rights beyond the Americas, particularly in Asia and Africa.
In order to shine a light on the legal and political problems indigenous peoples are facing, the Journal presently calls for authors to submit papers on the topic.
The submission deadline is 1 March 2013. For more information contact the journal at info@gojil.eu.

Call for Papers Transnational Judicial Dialogue (21 & 22 June 2013)

For more info, we kindly refer you to the website of the Amsterdam Center for International Law.

The ACIL, ECRP project ‘International Law through the National Prism’ and the ERC project ‘MultiRights’ now invite paper proposals related to the theme ‘Transnational Judicial Dialogue: Concept, Method, Extent and Effects’.

Synopsis

The Conference will explore the practice of transnational judicial dialogue on issues of international law by and between domestic and international courts (and tribunals). It seeks to examine whether, how, when and why courts engage in such dialogues; and what the effects are of this practice. In particular, the Conference aims to clarify the concept and extent of court-to-court dialogue, the process itself, its limits and possibilities, as well as any influence it may have on the international legal order further down the line. The Conference seeks to address how transnational judicial dialogues occur in different regions of the world and in various fields of law, including, but not limited to, human rights.
The organizers of the Conference now invite paper proposals from scholars, adjudicators and practitioners in law and related disciplines.

Background

Domestic and international courts and tribunals across the world play an important and increasing role in giving effect to international law. One method that can be used by judges when interpreting and applying international norms is to look at how their colleagues in other states and/or in (quasi-) judicial bodies at the international level have construed a particular norm or issue of international law. There is evidence that such a transnational judicial dialogue takes place in and between various jurisdictions.

This practice raises questions of both a practical and theoretical nature which form the background for the project ‘International Law through the National Prism: the Impact of Judicial Dialogue.’ This project is funded by the European Science Foundation (ESF) as a European Collaborative Research project in the Social Sciences (ECRP). The main cooperating partners are the universities of Amsterdam, Berlin (Humboldt), Lodz, Oslo and Vienna. The universities of Salamanca, Siena and Tel Aviv are associated partners.

The Oslo Conference follows a conference hosted by the University of Vienna in April 2012 on ‘Transnational Judicial Dialogue of Domestic Courts on International Organizations’. A workshop in Berlin is planned for the autumn of 2013, and a final conference will be organized in Amsterdam in the summer of 2014. The Oslo Conference will be part of the third annual ‘MultiRights’ conference, which starts on 20 June 2013 with sessions concerning the effects of the international and regional human rights judiciary on human rights situations ‘on the ground’. The ‘MultiRights’ project, which is financed by the European Research Council (ERC), is based at the Law Faculty of the University of Oslo, and analyses claims of legitimacy deficits with respect to supervisory human rights organs (e.g. regional courts).

It is noted that the ECRP project builds on earlier work analysing the application of international law by domestic and international courts, including the volume ‘The Practice of International and National Courts and the (De-) Fragmentation of International Law’ edited by Ole Kristian Fauchald and André Nollkaemper. Hence, the focus of the Oslo Conference lies on effects of judicial dialogue different from and beyond (de-) fragmentation.

Themes and queries

The themes and queries that conference papers could address include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The Concept and Extent of Judicial Dialogue

When may we speak of transnational judicial dialogue? In addition to dialogues between domestic courts inter se (horizontal dialogue), does the concept cover dialogues between domestic courts and international judicial bodies (vertical dialogue)? Can we speak about ‘dialogue’ when courts oppose each other or only when domestic courts unconditionally take on interpretations by other courts? Next to dialogues between courts (through their judgments), does the concept cover dialogues between judges in other formal as well as informal ways (e.g. judges’ meetings)? Is it limited to the borrowing of substantive law issues or does it have broader application?
Are the decisions of certain courts more prone to be considered/used in judicial dialogue; and if so, why? Do courts show a preference for court decisions belonging to the same region or legal system? Does the prevalence of judicial dialogue differ with respect to subject matter; and if so, what are the reasons? Are there any regional differences with respect to judicial dialogue; and if so, how can these be explained?

2. The Method and Process of Judicial Dialogue

How do courts go about when engaging in a transnational judicial dialogue, for instance in terms of the selection of the courts with whom they engage in a dialogue? Is it possible to discern any criteria that domestic and international courts employ when deciding whether and when to engage in judicial dialogue; what makes one decision or reasoning more influential than others?
To what extent does transnational judicial dialogue depend on the arguments presented by the disputing parties/legal counsel (jura (non) novit curia)?

Next to possible legal barriers or requirements concerning judicial dialogue, what are the practical barriers to dialogue, such as access to judgments, translations and commentaries, which may prevent judges (and arbitrators) from learning how courts elsewhere treat comparable questions?

Which methods may be used to explore how often and in what situations courts engage in dialogues with judicial bodies of a different legal system? How can changes in the practice of such dialogues be detected? How can dialogues and their influence be traced where there are no explicit references to foreign or international decisions in the respective judgments? How can one best make the practice of domestic courts available to courts elsewhere?

3. The Aims and Effects of Judicial Dialogue

What aims does transnational judicial dialogue seek to fulfil, for instance as a catalyst in developing international law, or justifying the avoidance of the application of international law? How may (selective or the lack of) transnational judicial dialogue affect the interpretation and determination of particular rules of international law?

In the context of the effects judicial dialogue may have on the development of international law, what role do and can domestic court cases play in decisions by international courts and tribunals?
Papers are invited to explore these and other pertinent queries from normative and empirical standpoints in a variety of international law sub-disciplines, including but not limited to human rights. We also encourage submissions from neighbouring disciplines with an interest in international law (such as international relations, philosophy and sociology). The themes are interrelated, and multiple angles can be addressed within one paper.

It is hoped that answers to the queries will help establish best practices, allowing domestic and international courts to arrive at sound responses to shared problems, as well as helping us articulate normative perspectives for assessing judicial dialogues.

Submission of paper proposals

Paper proposals should be no longer than 500 words and include the applicant’s curriculum vitae.

Papers to be presented at the Conference should not have been published elsewhere previously.

At the time of the Conference, the invited authors should present a paper of 7,000-8,000 words, excluding references.

It is the intention of the organisers to publish the papers in an edited volume.

Paper proposals should be sent by e-mail to: Dr. Amrei Müller (a.s.mueller@jus.uio.no).

Time line

The deadline is 15 February 2013.

Selected participants will be informed by 22 March 2013.

Each participant must submit a paper by 31 May 2013 for distribution to the other participants.

The Conference takes place on 21-22 June 2013 in Oslo, Norway.

The sponsoring organizations will cover the speakers’ travelling and accommodation expenses.

Questions

For substantive questions, please contact Dr. Amrei Müller at: a.s.mueller@jus.uio.no

For questions about the MultiRights project, please contact Leiry Cornejo Chavez at: l.c.chavez@nchr.uio.no

Assistant Professor in International Relations at University of Amsterdam

Job description

Developing, conducting, and supervising high quality academic research on International Relations;

Teaching general and specialist courses in Political Science, more in particular International Relations at both undergraduate and post-graduate levels, and involvement in post-graduate supervision;

(Participation in) the acquisition of external research funding;

Contributing to the research programme of the Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research and to the development of the field through scholarly publications and participation in national and international research networks and educational initiatives.
Requirements

A completed doctoral thesis in Political Science or other relevant field in the social sciences;

An ongoing programme of research and publications, focused on internationally ranked, ‘peer reviewed’ journals and/or books published by internationally recognized academic presses;

Broad general knowledge in International Relations;

Mastery of appropriate social science research methods (qualitative and/or quantitative);

Ability to provide excellent and inspiring teaching at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, in English as well as (eventually) Dutch;

Strong passive and adequate active knowledge of Dutch, or the ability and willingness to acquire such within a period of three years;

The basic qualification at Dutch universities in higher education (Basiskwalificatie Onderwijs; BKO) certificate, or a willingness to acquire such.

Conditions of employment

Depending on experience, pay will be based on assistant professor scale 1 or 2 (i.e. a gross monthly salary ranging from a minimum of €3195 to a maximum of € 4970 for full-time work, based on the January 2009 salary scale). Holiday pay is 8% of the gross annual salary, while the year-end bonus is 8.3% of the gross annual salary. According to our employment policies, you will be offered a temporary contract for three years, with conditions for tenured position thereafter agreed upon appointment.

Organisation

Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences

The Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences (FMG) is the largest educational and research institution in the social sciences in the Netherlands. The Faculty serves around 9,000 students in numerous Bachelor’s and Master’s programs in Political Science, Sociology, Anthropology, Communication Science, Psychology, Social Geography, Planning and International Development Studies, and Educational Sciences. The academic staff is employed in education as well as research. There are over 1,200 employees at the Faculty, which resides in a number of buildings in the centre of Amsterdam.

Additional information

Additional information about the vacancy may be obtained from:

Prof. Dr. Brian Burgoon
Website PETGOV
More information about employer University of Amsterdam (UvA) on AcademicTransfer.

Direct link to this job opening: www.academictransfer.com/16137

SHARES Seminar Principles of Shared Responsibility in International Law

The Research Project on Shared Responsibility in International Law (SHARES) will organize a seminar on Principles of Shared Responsibility in International Law, on 7 and 8 February 2013 (7 February: 12:00-18:30; 8 February: 9:30-17:30) in Amsterdam.

This SHARES Seminar will provide a critical review of the principles of international responsibility, as these have been formulated by the International Law Commission, from the perspective of shared responsibility.

This seminar is closed, but there is limited room for expert academics and practitioners. If you are interested to participate, please send an email to: contact@sharesproject.nl.

For more information and the preliminary programme see here.

 

CfP: CEPS Human Rights and Policing Conference, April 2013

In April 1963, the United Nations held a Seminar on the Role of Police in the Protection of Human Rights, in Canberra, Australia. The Seminar was attended by delegates and observers from 19 countries and territories, including government ministers, police commissioners, academics, NGO representatives, judges and lawyers. The agenda covered topical issues such as compulsory finger-printing; freedom of police from political influence; the right of suspected persons to legal advice; and the unacceptability of the use of force to obtain a confession.

In April 2013, the ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security (CEPS) will be holding a conference to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the original Seminar. The 2013 conference will examine issues at the 1963 seminar, address the evolution of human rights since 1963, and also consider new topics of concern that did not confront law enforcement in 1963. These issues include:
* The changing environment of accountability and human rights: police unions; integrity; corruption and police ethics.
* Criminal investigation and human rights: interrogation/interviewing; torture; violence.
* Internationalisation of policing: engagement in regional and multi-national peacekeeping missions; transnational crime.
* Balancing human rights and security/anti-terrorism.
* Indigenous people and policing.
* Gender; women in policing.
* Discrimination (e.g. gender, race, disability).
* The role of technology and forensic science.
* The role and differing structures of modern policing.

The 2013 conference will be an opportunity to re-engage professionals and academics in the fields of human rights and policing, and to create a discourse about issues that face police in the 21st Century. Continue reading

The enforcement of the established order

Guest post by Dr. Sinan Çankaya 

Police officers cannot tackle all crime, enforce all laws and stop all people. They have to make choices. During proactive policing so-called street cops make use of generalizations. This practice is ineffective and has a stigmatizing impact on ‘communities’.

Traditionally, the police organization functions as ‘fire fighters’: they react as quickly as possible to a fire, extinguish it and then wait for the next call. This type of officer is unfortunately always late. Since the eighties there is a development whereby the officer who is always late, wants to be early – in fact, the police officer is preferably at the occasion before the fire even ignites. The proactive police organization waits no longer for the reports of citizens, but attempts to prevent, disrupt and deter crime from happening.

The street cop as a “Where’s-Waldoseeker”

During proactive policing, officers use generalized images of potential suspects and work with a selection profile. Citizens who tend to the profile, are more inclined to be stopped and checked. I define this decision-making process with the notion where’s-Waldo-seekers. In my childhood I ‘read’ almost the entire series of Where’s Waldo? In this comic book for children, which has an A3-format, the reader is supposed to find Waldo. The drawings represent a variation of realistic scenes, but also imaginative worlds. However, the ‘description’ of Waldo remains unchanged: a white man with glasses and a cane, dark brown hair, blue jeans, brown shoes and a red and white striped sweater.

My argument is that the officer also searches for Waldo, who apparently looks a certain way. Here, Waldo symbolizes the archetypal and decontextualized images of a ‘criminal’. Consciously and unconsciously, street cops define civilians not only as suspicious because they have committed or are committing a criminal offense. Partly they judge their appearance – such as skin colour, age, gender, clothing and jewellery – in a positive or negative way. The judgments about the personal facades of civilians are not neutral with respect to class, ethnicity, age and gender. Some facades work to the disadvantage of civilians, while others form privileges. Yet the appearance is not necessarily the decisive factor in the daily decision making processes of police officers. For the same reason there is not just one Waldo, but there are several variables that constitute numerous Waldo’s.

Ethno-racial profiling

This selection process is partly consistent with what is described as racial and ethnic profiling. This method is problematic for several reasons. The first false assumption is that so-called ‘communities’ can be identified on the basis of biological, thus racial, characteristics. This is highly unworkable, because the physiological variations within ethnic categories are too large. Secondly, the reasoning jumps from individual offenders to ‘groups’. An overrepresentation of for example Moroccan-Dutch young men in specific offenses does not justify the association of the total population with that offense. Thirdly, the present practice can undermine the trust of ‘groups’ of citizens in the police organization. Fourthly, criminals who do not tend to the ‘picture’ of police officers can be overlooked. Bad policing in my opinion.

It is remarkable that the deleterious effects of the current practice are unconvincing in public opinion. The fact that innocent civilians are subjected to proactive checks is perceived as collateral damage. The most persistent objection is the over-representation of ethnic minorities in the visible forms of crime. In the same category, officers say: “What should we do? ID check grandmas?” But the current practice has little to do with robust intelligence-led policing. Instead of focusing on individual, specific and concrete delinquents and ‘suspicious behaviour’, it leads to (self)management at the level of risky profiles. In other words: social categorization, stereotyping, status and prestige are inextricably linked to proactive policing.

 From the officer as a ‘crime fighter’, to the officer as an ‘information broker’

Moreover, the proactive stops do not result in a significant number of arrests. The reason is that the stops rely on the intuitive and vague suspicions of the police officer. A ‘gut feeling’ as they will say. As a result, street cops usually have insufficient legal grounds for an arrest. The relative low numbers of arrests are in sharp contrast to how street officers justify selective attention to certain ethnic categories.

So what is it that cops do? The result of the proactive control is generally (a) a record in a police system and (b) the assumption that crime is prevented in the preliminary phase of its execution. When we look at the first ‘hit’, it becomes clear that Intelligence-led Policing (Informatiegestuurde Politie), an abstract policy concept of management cops, has seeped to the level of street cops. However, the formal and informal norm of “the more intelligence, the better” is at odds with the Police Data Act (Wet op de Politiegegevens, WPG). For much of the records the basis for processing data is general and unclear, and seems redundant and irrelevant. Besides, it is unclear how many records are actually used in concrete investigations.

This practice has a curious side effect. The choices of street cops in the present affect the focus areas in the future. Intelligence is also proactively acquired, created, edited and added. In addition, the supplemented intelligence focuses on the already defined ‘target groups’ and perpetuates these categories. The everyday decisions of street cops not only relate to stops and checks, but also to who is and is not recorded in police systems.

Preventive Policing = black box

When looking at the second ‘hit’: the effectiveness of preventive interventions are difficult to be determined. There is no actual crime in the present, but an imagined act in the future – that does not necessarily need to occur, even without the intervention of the police officer (see also Schinkel 2009). Preventive policing is basically a virtual business. Police officers avoid a hypothetical and a future scenario from taking place. At the same time, it is possible that street cops paradoxically prevent hypothetical criminal acts from happening.

Inclusive and exclusive function of the police organization

The labels and categorizations of street cops are not about hostilities towards certain social or ethnic groups. In my interpretation, ethnicity and social class are the criteria by which a given social order manifests itself. What matters are the underlying power relations in a society. All together, the enforcement of public order is accompanied by the consolidation of the boundaries between positively valued ‘normal’ groups and the groups ‘who do not belong’ to society.

Sinan Çankaya is a cultural anthropologist and researches the police organization and inclusion – and exclusion processes. This article is a snapshot of his latest publication (in Dutch) “The control of Martians and other scum: the decision making process during proactive policing”. Anyone interested can mail to info@boomlemma.nl

Literature:

Schinkel, W. (2009) ‘De nieuwe preventie: Actuariële archiefsystemen en de nieuwe technologie van de veiligheid’ Krisis (2): 1-21