Dissent and Legitimacy in International Criminal Law

Throughout history, dissenting opinions have been subject to soaring praise as well as vitriolic criticism. Although some commentators nominally acknowledge that the normative value of dissenting opinions necessarily varies depending on the unique context in which the relevant court operates, in fact, we see the same arguments advanced to support or oppose dissenting opinions, regardless of the court in which those opinions appear. Dissents are particularly prevalent in international criminal courts--those courts established to prosecute the worst crimes known to humankind: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Although dissents in these courts have garnered little scholarly attention, the few normative arguments that have been made track those that have been advanced for decades in the United States and other judicial systems. In a previous work, I launched a comprehensive empirical and normative analysis of separate opinions in international criminal law. Whereas my earlier scholarship laid the groundwork and evaluated certain alleged benefits of separate opinions, this Article begins by empirically assessing their costs. The Article then evaluates the primary normative claim made in support of separate opinions both domestically and internationally: that they enhance the legitimacy of the court and its opinions. These examinations reveal that previous commentators have employed one-size-fits-all analyses that fail to take account of the unique features of international criminal courts and mass atrocity trials. These features complicate the relationship between separate opinions and legitimacy, but the quantitative and qualitative evidence combined strongly suggest that separate opinions are likely to delegitimize an already fragile, vulnerable criminal justice system

Dissent and Legitimacy in International Criminal Law

Throughout history, dissenting opinions have been subject to soaring praise as well as vitriolic criticism. Although some commentators nominally acknowledge that the normative value of dissenting opinions necessarily varies depending on the unique context in which the relevant court operates, in fact, we see the same arguments advanced to support or oppose dissenting opinions, regardless of the court in which those opinions appear. Dissents are particularly prevalent in international criminal courts--those courts established to prosecute the worst crimes known to humankind: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Although dissents in these courts have garnered little scholarly attention, the few normative arguments that have been made track those that have been advanced for decades in the United States and other judicial systems. In a previous work, I launched a comprehensive empirical and normative analysis of separate opinions in international criminal law. Whereas my earlier scholarship laid the groundwork and evaluated certain alleged benefits of separate opinions, this Article begins by empirically assessing their costs. The Article then evaluates the primary normative claim made in support of separate opinions both domestically and internationally: that they enhance the legitimacy of the court and its opinions. These examinations reveal that previous commentators have employed one-size-fits-all analyses that fail to take account of the unique features of international criminal courts and mass atrocity trials. These features complicate the relationship between separate opinions and legitimacy, but the quantitative and qualitative evidence combined strongly suggest that separate opinions are likely to delegitimize an already fragile, vulnerable criminal justice system

A novel in vitro release method for submicron-sized dispersed systems

Sink conditions are often violated when using conventional release methods for dispersed systems. A novel reverse dialysis bag method was designed to overcome this problem. Model drug transport rates from submicron emulsions obtained using the conventional diffusion cell method and this novel method were compared. In the side-by-side diffusion cell method, emulsions were placed in the donor chamber and surfactant/buffer solutions in the receiver chamber. In the novel dialysis bag method, emulsions were diluted infinitely in the donor phase and surfactant/buffer solutions were placed in the receiver phase (dialysis bags). Slow release rates and linear release profiles were obtained using the side-by-side diffusion cell method apparently due to limited model drug solubility in the donor chamber resulting in violation of sink conditions. Biphasic release profiles were obtained using the dialysis bag method apparently due to an initial rapid release of free and micellar solubilized model drug from the donor to the receiver chambers followed by slow release from the oil droplets. Using both release methods, an initial increase and latter decrease in release rates were observed with increase in surfactant concentration. The initial increase was considered to be due to a decrease in the model drug oil-in-water partition coefficients and the subsequent decrease in release rates was due to micellar shape change (spheres to rods) causing a decrease in diffusion rates. Sink conditions were violated using the side-by-side diffusion cell method but were maintained in the dialysis bag method since emulsions were diluted infinitely in the donor phase