Being Good Lawyers: A Relational Approach to Law Practice

In response to past generations of debates regarding whether law is a business or profession, we advance an alternative approach that rejects the dichotomies of business and profession, or hired gun and wise counselor. Instead, we propose a relational account of law practice. Unlike frameworks grounded in assumptions of atomistic individualism or communitarianism, a relational perspective recognizes that all actors, whether individuals or organizations, have separate identities yet are intrinsically inter-connected and cannot maximize their own good in isolation. Through the lens of relational self-interest, maximizing the good of the individual or business requires consideration of the good of the neighbor, the employee or customer, and of the public. Accordingly, relational lawyers advise and assist clients, colleagues, and themselves to take into account the well-being of others when contemplating and pursuing their own interests. A relational approach to law practice does not require a choice between labeling law a business or a profession, and indeed is consistent with both perspectives. Lawyers can access relational perspectives from a wide range of understandings of the lawyer’s role, with the exception of the particular hired gun ideology that views lawyers as amoral mouthpieces for clients who act as Holmesian bad men and women aggressively pursuing their self-interest with no regard to others. The relational framework offers all lawyers, whether they see themselves as professionals or business persons, a framework for understanding that they can continue to serve as society’s civic teachers in their capacity as intermediaries between the people and the law, integrating relational self-interest into their representation of clients and their community service. By doing so, lawyers as professionals, individuals, and community members will more effectively represent clients, as well as enhance their contribution to the public good and to the quality of their own professional and private lives. They will also surmount the generation-long malaise resulting from the crisis of professionalism

Liability to International Prosecution: The Nature of Universal Jurisdiction

The paper considers the proper method for theorizing about criminal jurisdiction. It challenges a received understanding of how to substantiate the right to punish, and articulates an alternative account of how that theoretical task is properly conducted. The received view says that a special relationship is the ground of a tribunal’s authority to prosecute and, hence, that a normative theory of that authority is faced with identifying a distinctive relation. The alternative account locates prosecutorial standing on an institution’s capacity to address the basic reasons generating criminal liability. This reframes the normative issues at stake, and has the result that various, perhaps quite heterogeneous, considerations can substantiate penal authority. It also eliminates the existence of a special relation as a necessary condition for legitimate criminal accountability. The argument proceeds by offering an analysis and account of universal jurisdiction. Not only does the alternative elegantly perform where the received view struggles, it can accommodate much of what motivates the pursuit of relational ties in existing efforts to vindicate jurisdictional conclusions

Practising the Space Between: Embodying Belief as an Evangelical Anglican Student

This article explores the formation of British evangelical university students as believers. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork conducted with a conservative evangelical Anglican congregation in London, I describe how students in this church come to embody a highly cognitive, word-based mode of belief through particular material practices. As they learn to identify themselves as believers, practices of reflexivity and accountability enable them to develop a sense of narrative coherence in their lives that allows them to negotiate tensions that arise from their participation in church and broader social structures. I demonstrate that propositional belief – in contexts where it becomes an identity marker – is bound up with relational practices of belief, such that distinctions between “belief in” and “belief that” are necessarily blurred in the lives of young evangelicals

Accountability in Climate change governance and Caribbean SIDS

Accountability is part of the good governance of institutions and regimes. The subject of this paper is nature of accountability in the climate change governance relationships. Context matters for understanding related governance dynamics and this paper presents the findings of research on accountability in climate governance in Caribbean SIDS over the last 18 years. It identified the Caribbean climate governance agents at the regional and local scales. It created an accountability framework that examined two levels (internal/external accountability); four accountability relationships (normative, relational, decision and behavioural) and four accountability mechanisms or processes: certification, monitoring, participation by stakeholders in the overseeing of projects and self-reporting. It analysed how far accountability was appreciated and applied within institutions and in relationships between regional institutions, international partners, government agencies, non-governmental organisations and the private sector to manage climate change adaptation and mitigation. The study found that accountability was valued as a good governance principle but the mechanisms to operationalise accountability were lacking in practice. The absence of structured processes was attributed to the economic and governance contexts of these SIDS. Governance actors had limited resources for governance safeguards. The study recommends processes to strengthen the “culture of governance” within the Caribbean as a whole and specifically within state agencies and civil society

International sentencing in the context of collective violence

This article evaluates some of the theoretical and practical arguments which suggest that the potential for international trial justice to make a significant contribution towards reconciliation and peace following mass atrocity is limited. Conversely, it argues that it is possible to move beyond the current narrow conceptualisation of penality in international trials by re-thinking the ideological framework for punishment and sentencing and giving trial outcomes a greater sense of moral purpose and legitimacy in the eyes of victims and those communities seeking justice. The article argues why this is necessary and achievable through the adoption of more constructive strategies and interventions in international trial process

The researcher’s erotic subjectivities : epistemological and ethical challenges

Aquest article pretén aprofundir en la qüestió de la rellevància potencial i la importància d’incloure reflexions sobre el desig i la sexualitat de la persona que investiga en els resultats de la seva recerca. Analitzem críticament l’excepcionalització de les interaccions sexual(itzade) s en la recerca: quines són les raons per les quals el contacte sexual(itzat) entre la persona que investiga i les persones participants es considera no ètic o problemàtic, i quines són les conseqüències del fet d’evitar la intimitat —o l’(auto)censura en relació amb el debat— en el treball de camp? Aquest debat ens porta a defensar una aproximació ètica alternativa a la prescrita pels protocols ètics institucionals. L’aproximació ètica que plantegem es basa en la premissa que la producció de coneixement mai no es dona fora dels nostres cossos i que la relació de recerca no és fonamentalment diferent de cap altre tipus de relació. El que proposem és una ètica relacional de la recerca que creï espais per al debat obert i en diàleg amb altres persones sobre les conseqüències (potencials) de les nostres accions com a investigadors/es/éssers humans en unes relacions d’asimetria de poder canviants.This paper aims to deepen the conversation about the potential relevance and importance of including reflection on the desire and sexuality of the researcher in research outputs. We critically scrutinise the exceptionalisation of sexual(ised) interactions in research: why is sexual(ised) contact between researchers and participants considered unethical or problematic, and what are the consequences of the avoidance of—and/or the (self-)censorship with regard to discussin —intimacy in the field? This discussion leads us to argue for an alternative ethical approach than that prescribed by institutional ethical protocols. The ethical approach that we envision is based on the premise that knowledge production never occurs apart from our bodies and that a research relationship is not fundamentally different from any other human relationship. What we propose is a relational research ethics that creates space for discussing openly and in dialogue with others the (potential) consequences of our actions as researchers/human beings within relationships of shifting power asymmetry

Process evaluation for complex interventions in primary care: understanding trials using the normalization process model

Background: the Normalization Process Model is a conceptual tool intended to assist in understanding the factors that affect implementation processes in clinical trials and other evaluations of complex interventions. It focuses on the ways that the implementation of complex interventions is shaped by problems of workability and integration.Method: in this paper the model is applied to two different complex trials: (i) the delivery of problem solving therapies for psychosocial distress, and (ii) the delivery of nurse-led clinics for heart failure treatment in primary care.Results: application of the model shows how process evaluations need to focus on more than the immediate contexts in which trial outcomes are generated. Problems relating to intervention workability and integration also need to be understood. The model may be used effectively to explain the implementation process in trials of complex interventions.Conclusion: the model invites evaluators to attend equally to considering how a complex intervention interacts with existing patterns of service organization, professional practice, and professional-patient interaction. The justification for this may be found in the abundance of reports of clinical effectiveness for interventions that have little hope of being implemented in real healthcare setting