Spartan Daily, October 12, 1964

Volume 52, Issue 14https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/4624/thumbnail.jp

Spartan Daily, April 5, 1983

Volume 80, Issue 39https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/7021/thumbnail.jp

The feature tenseness in the modern French vowel system: A diachronic perspective

No abstrac

Negotiating an Institution for the Twenty-First Century: Multilateral Diplomacy and the International Criminal Court

The authors review the decades of discussion and years of negotiation that led to the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998. By placing the creation of the International Criminal Court in its historical context, they emphasize the significance of the statute and the Court for international law. The lecture discusses various provisions of the statute, highlighting controversial aspects such as the jurisdiction of the Court and the crime of aggression. The statute reflects the compromises struck throughout the negotiations, compromises that are a necessary part of multilateral diplomacy. Though it was not possible to reconcile fully the concerns of all states, the authors point out that the statute achieves an important balance that allows for widespread support from the international community while establishing an institution that has the power to punish those responsible for the most serious crimes in international law. That this balance is a success is, in the authors\u27 view, reflected in the ever-growing levels of support for the Court They detail the challenges faced by the Preparatory Commission in transforming the Court from a statutory model to a working judicial institution. Finally, the authors examine the positive impact that ratification and implementation of the statute is having on reform of domestic laws criminalizing genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes

Theory\u27s a What Comes Natcherly

So what kind of theorizing do we do in law? First, we do empirical, predictive theorizing. We form hypotheses about how the world will be affected by various rules of law, because of their content and form, and by the design of our legal institutions. These hypotheses can be confirmed or falsified. We also form hypotheses about how particular judges will decide future cases, or how legislatures and agencies will react to various proposals. When we do legal history, we reason backwards from effects and form hypotheses about their causes. The second type of theorizing we do is normative. In doing this we basically employ Rawls\u27s method of reflective equilibrium:\u27 moving from particular normative judgments to build more general normative principles, both testing and revising those principles through further particular normative judgments, and revising our particular normative judgments in light of the more general normative principles. Every discussion of what we ought to do that I have ever observed has taken this form. Another type of theorizing is what I shall call analytical. We do it when we point out internal inconsistencies or incoherences, both in doctrines and in methods, such as analogical reasoning or constraint by precedent. Finally, we philosophize-we theorize about theorizing itself. What are we doing when we engage in normative debate? What are we doing when we reason by induction