The international and comparative Criminal Trial Project

International Criminal Law Review

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 47-78

  Findlay, Mark ^a,b,c  

^a NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c Institute of Criminology   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1142284969     PISSN: 1567536X     EISSN: 15718123     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/157181202400285941     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. See. Henham & M. Findlay (2001) 'Theorising the Contextual Analysis of Trial Process' (in print) - see also (www.clr.ac.uk/ictp/index.htm).
2. See R. Henham & M. Findlay (2001) 'Criminal Justice Modelling and the Comparative Contextual Analysis of Trial Process'
3. and M. Findlay & R. Henham (2001) 'Methodology and comparative Contextual Analysis of Trial Process: A preliminary study' www.clr.ac.uk/ictp/ index.htm.
4. Such as the need to try war criminals identified as a consequence of more regular global military interventions such as Bosnia and Kosovo.
5. See, Cotic, D. (1994) 'A Critical Study of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia' in Criminal Law Forum 5/2-3:223-236. Also note the original US opposition to the establishment of an International Criminal Court was founded on the American view of an inextricable connection between any such court and the mandate and interests of the UN Security Council.
6. Driven as they are by the foreign policy concerns of the United States, Western Europe, and members of the Security Council even more than those of world agencies such as the United Nations.
7. See, Goldstone, R. (1996) 'Justice as a Tool for Peace-making: truth commissions and international criminal tribunals' in New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 28/3:485-503.
8. See, King, F. & La Rosa, A. (1997) 'International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: current survey - the jurisprudence of the Yugoslavia Tribunal: 1994-1996' in European Journal of International Law 8/1:123-179.
9. For a detailed discussion of the theoretical foundations for this project see, Henham R. & Findlay M. (2001) 'Theorising Comparative Contextual Analysis of Trial Process'.
10. For an examination of grounded theory
11. see, Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research, New York: Aldine Publishing.
12. For a discussion of comparative contextual analysis, where the comparative endeavour cannot commence without detailed individual comparative understandings of each referent-
13. see M. Findlay (1999) The Globalisation of Crime, Cambridge: CUP; Intro. 27 For instance, where in Kosovo, UNMIK is creating novel criminal codes and codes of procedure which implant alien concepts into the local legal system and in so doing violate the constitutional requirements present in Yugoslavia.
14. Findlay M. (1999) The Globalisation of Crime, Cambridge: CUP Epilogue.
15. For a discussion of the use of style see Findlay, M. & Zvekic, U. (1993) Alternative Policing Styles, Deventer: Kluwer.
16. Nelken D. (1994) 'The Future of Comparative Criminology', in D. Nelken (ed) The Futures of Criminology London: Sage; p. 225.
17. Hogg, R. (1991) 'Identifying and Reforming the Problems of the Justice System', in Carrington (et al) (eds) Travesty, Sydney: Pluto Press.
18. Alder, C. & Polk, K. (1986) 'Criminal Justice Reform in Australia', in Chappell & Wilson (eds) Australian Criminal Justice system: the mid 1980's, Sydney: Butterworths.
19. See, Henham, R. (2000) 'Sentencing Theory, Proportionality and Pragmatism', International Journal of the Sociology of Law 28/3.
20. See Findlay (1999) Intro.
21. Also see, Findlay, M. (2000) 'Decolonising Restoration and Justice: notes on the comparative project' in Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 39/4:398-411.
22. Findlay, M. (1994) Jury Management in NSW, Melbourne: AIJA - in particular see chaps 2, 3, 5 & 7.
23. 'Crime, Community Penalty, and the Integration with Legal Formalism in the South Pacific', in (1997) Journal of Pacific Studies 21:145-160.
24. See Findlay and Zvekic (1993) Alternative Policing Styles
25. Deventer: Kluwer, and (1988) Analysing Informal Mechanisms of Crime Control, Rome: UNICRI.
26. See Henham, R. (1999) 'Bargaining Justice or Justice Denied? Sentencing discounts and the criminal process', Modern Law Review 62:515-538;
27. Henham, R. (1990) Sentencing Principles and Magistrates' Sentencing Behaviour Avebury: Aldershot.
28. Recent publications such as Safferling C. (2001) Towards an International Criminal Procedure OUP., touch on the trial as part of a wider review of the internationalisation of criminal justice. However, this book in particular has no strong theoretical foundation and fails to treat comparative legal traditions seriously. The present proposal recognises these needs.