The Golden Dawn trial is a legitimate criminal case, not political persecution

The trial of several members of the Greek political party Golden Dawn is set to resume on 7 May, with charges ranging from murder to participation in a criminal organisation. Emmanuel Melissaris writes on the legality of the trial and the accusation that it amounts to little more than the political persecution of the party. He argues that despite Golden Dawn’s protestations, from a legal perspective the trial is a legitimate criminal prosecution

Trying the dead

Emmanuel Melissaris on achieving justice when the defendant is dea

Non-citizens as subjects of the criminal law

The article has a dual aim. The first is to contribute to the study of criminalisation at the border in Europe by outlining some ways in which Greek law organises the normative exclusion of at least one class of immigrants. Secondly, it tackles the theoretical question of whether such practices are justifiable. No sooner is a non-citizen involved in the criminal law that a web of duties and rights is activated marking the gradual inclusion of the non-citizen in the political community as its proper subject. This renders the differential treatment of noncitizens incoherent. The article also argues that it is both permissible and necessary for a state to treat non-citizens as the proper subject of the criminal law. The former because of the implicit consent provided by non-citizens; the latter out of the respect owed to citizens, whose normative position is impacted upon by their criminal law related interactions with noncitizens

The Greek referendum was a clear break with the past that could pave the way forward for Europe

In the aftermath of the Greek bailout referendum much of the discussion has focused on whether Greece should be granted some form of debt relief. Emmanuel Melissaris writes that while opposition from other European states to the principle of restructuring Greek debt is understandable, particularly given the austerity programmes implemented in other Eurozone countries, there is an argument for viewing Greece as a unique case. He suggests that the referendum could be seen as a break with the country’s past and that the sense of solidarity on which the European project rests might dictate that Greece should now be allowed to enter a new phase

Why Syriza might be up to the task of tackling corruption in Greece

Corruption is frequently cited as one of the key underlying factors behind the economic crisis in Greece. Emmanuel Melissaris assesses whether the new Syriza-led government, which came to power in the Greek elections on 25 January, has the potential to help solve the problem. He writes that while the failures of previous governments might lead some to be sceptical about the party’s goals in this area, Syriza’s platform has the capacity to tackle many of the core facilitating factors which have allowed corruption to embed itself in Greek society

On solidarity

When all else fails–justice, law, the institutional structure–solidarity is invoked as a fundamental principle in political discourse. Yet, such appeals to solidarity often determine radically divergent courses of action. This paper is animated by two intuitions: first, that solidarity cannot be divisive, as the ways in which it is invoked would suggest. Second, that solidarity does indeed lie at the foundation of our political relations, framing and supporting all else. The article attempts primarily to resist the conflation of solidarity with other concepts or from any normative antecedents. It will do so by targeting some central conceptions of solidarity available in the literature. Secondly, it will identify the paradigmatic locus of emergence of solidarity in the space left by the failure or limitations of institutions, while arguing that solidarity is not exhausted in these moments. Third, it will begin to articulate (rather tentatively, for the lack of space) a way of thinking about solidarity as a very basic relation that is political in a fully-fledged sense. It will also begin to explore the practical implications of this conception. My hope is that thinking of solidarity in the terms suggested here can frame actual solidarity practices as naturally as possible and be of some service to our political communities

Posthumous ‘punishment’: what may be done about criminal wrongs after the wrongdoer’s death?

The commission of criminal wrongs is occasionally revealed after the (suspected) wrongdoer’s death. In such cases, there seems to be a widely-shared intuition, which also frequently motivates many people’s actions, that the dead should still be blamed and that some response, not only stemming from civil society but also the state, to the criminal wrong is necessary. This article explores the possibility of posthumous blame and punishment by the state. After highlighting the deficiencies of the pure versions of retributivism and general deterrence theory, but also the potential in the latter, it argues for a political theory of the criminal law (mainly from a normative perspective, although the modest claim is made in passing that current institutional arrangements are best understood in this light), which views institutions of punishment as the business not only of defendants and victims but also the political community as a whole. Within this normative scheme posthumous responses to wrongs are possible and in some cases necessary for the maintenance of the stability of the political community. Accountability-holding processes may also be possible and necessary for the protection of the reputation of the deceased suspected wrongdoer

From legal pluralism to public justification

__Abstract__ The paper offers an argument for a conception of legal pluralism, which has some substantive upshots and at least partly alleviates that legal pluralism may regress to rampant relativism. In particular, I will argue that law in its pluralist conception is inextricably linked to the requirement of public justification. This is not by way of appealing to any transcendental normative ideals but as a matter of entailment of the very practice of law. But, perhaps to the disappointment of many, this procedural requirement is the only practical consequence of the concept of law. For thicker, substantive limits to what law can do and for ways in which legal pluralism may be reduced in real contexts one will have to turn to the actual circumstances furnishing the law with content and a different kind of thinking about the law

We should be cautious about televising trials as they would do little to bolster public faith in the judicial system and provide for open justice: alternative solutions should be sought

The recent spate and profile of super-injunctions has once again opened up the debate over whether to televise courtroom proceedings. Arguments have been made that such a development would serve to bolster public confidence in the judicial system and would represent a clear manifestation of the principle of open justice. However, Emmanuel Melissaris urges caution and suggests that such benefits are not at all clear and the execution of justice could be complicated by such a change

The Big Society is an illiberal concept that promotes subjective moral beliefs and threatens to entrench private interests in public life

The Big Society has become one of the defining concepts of David Cameron’s short term as Prime Minister. However, Emmanuel Melissaris argues that it threatens to promote substantive moral beliefs and private interests, to which not everyone is or ought to be committed, and thus it fails to abide by the very standards of liberalism and fairness that the coalition has set for itself