Suchergebnisse

We investigate why states provide a voluntary contribution to war crimes tribunals despite the fact that these tribunals are located in states that offer few economic and strategic advantages. We view tribunal financing as a form of foreign assistance and place the funding of tribunals within the broader foreign assistance literature to explain the motivations of donor states. We examine voluntary contributions to four tribunals, and our analysis shows that there are differences between the gatekeeper stage and the secondary decision to allocate assistance. However, donors generally make no distinction among tribunals for purposes of foreign assistance. As a consequence, purely voluntarily funded tribunals are at a disadvantage, since they are not seen by states as unique and requiring special consideration. Ultimately, the lack of funding calls into question the ability of these tribunals to provide justice to victims as well as serve as a mechanism for national reconciliation. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2007.]

Abstract
This paper discusses a poetic output of a research project at the intersection of linguistic ethnography (LE) and
poetic inquiry (PI) which explores the barriers experienced by refugee and asylum seekers, seeking access to Higher Education. The
research draws on Jan Blommaert's applied ethnopoetics (AEP) work to reconstruct silenced voices (Blommaert, 2006). AEP as a 'means of recognition' of marginalised voices is explored. The paper goes on
to explore the transformative possibilities for knowledge production offered by combining AEP with PI. This innovative approach
and output are presented as act of resistance to normative expectations within academia which freeze conditions for voice (Blommaert, 2008). Questions are then offered to consider how we might advance the
approach and its emancipatory potential further.

Following its landmark decisions in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court allows federal judges to dismiss cases when the plaintiff's allegations are conclusory or implausible, thereby increasing the judges' discretionary power in pleading stages of litigation. Using a stylized litigation model, I find the conditions under which the ruling improves upon litigation outcomes by simultaneously raising deterrence and reducing litigation costs and error costs. In particular, I demonstrate the ways in which the ruling's effect depends on the correlation between the potential injurers' primary behavior and the strength of cases filed at trial courts.