This thesis explores the practices and perceptions of the courts and professionals in child contact proceedings where domestic violence is an issue and the implications of this for mothers, with particular reference to Practice Direction 12J which establishes the framework for best practice to be followed in such proceedings. In-depth interviews were undertaken with 29 family lawyers and Cafcass officers covering a broad geographic and demographic area, and the reported cases to which the Practice Direction applies were reviewed. The resulting data were analysed utilising discourse analytic and qualitative approaches, drawing on a feminist poststructuralist approach and also insights from autopoietic theory. It was found that the ‘presumption of contact’ and an acontextual, legalistic approach to domestic violence reinforce each other and have a powerful normative influence on professional and judicial perceptions and practices. Dominant parental subjectivities of ‘implacably hostile mothers’ and ‘safe family men’ continue to resonate with many courts and professionals, who focus on promoting contact rather than safeguarding mothers and children. Despite more judges and professionals gaining a broader understanding of the coercively controlling nature of domestic violence, only recent, very severe physical violence warrants the holding of fact-finding hearings on disputed allegations and provides sufficiently ‘cogent’ reasons for family lawyers to support mothers in opposing contact and for courts to refuse contact. The notion that domestic violence is morally reprehensible and a significant failure in parenting, and that women’s desires for safety, wellbeing and autonomy are morally legitimate, finds very little expression. This study concludes that in order to regain a valid and authoritative voice for women in current family law we need to expose and disrupt law’s construction of the ‘scientific truth’ about children’s welfare, the dominant parental subjectivities to which it gives rise, and the ‘safe haven’ of law’s ideal post-separation family.

<p>Since the 1980&rsquo / s, many dictatorships around the world have been replaced by new democracies. These old dictatorships were notorious for their human rights abuses. Many people were killed and tortured / and many others were disappeared. When the new governments came into power, they had to confront these injustices that were perpetrated under the predecessor regime. This was necessary to create a culture of human rights / promote a respect for the law and access to justice. Many confronted these injustices in different ways, some granted amnesty, some prosecuted and others instituted truth commissions. This research paper focuses on truth commissions. The research focuses particularly on the study of the South African Truth Commission. The mandate of the South African Truth Commission is analysed and the investigation into whether the commission served the purpose for which it had been established is discussed.</p>

In the wake of atrocities arising from internal armed conflicts in the 1990s, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (“R2P”) as a solution to reconcile the notion of state sovereignty with the need to protect citizens. The lack of available protection for internal armed conflicts and the subsequent evolution of the humanitarian intervention debate facilitated the unanimous acceptance of R2P’s fundamental principles by all UN member states. This paper examines the development of the R2P doctrine and its current status as customary law. By identifying its inadequacies, the paper raises questions of the doctrine’s viability in fulfilling the emerging norm of the collective responsibility to protect. In order to remedy these shortfalls and ensure the doctrine’s effectiveness, the paper argues the need to incorporate post-conflict investigatory mechanisms into the R2P.

In the wake of atrocities arising from internal armed conflicts in the 1990s, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty introduced the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (“R2P”) as a solution to reconcile the notion of state sovereignty with the need to protect citizens. The lack of available protection for internal armed conflicts and the subsequent evolution of the humanitarian intervention debate facilitated the unanimous acceptance of R2P’s fundamental principles by all UN member states. This paper examines the development of the R2P doctrine and its current status as customary law. By identifying its inadequacies, the paper raises questions of the doctrine’s viability in fulfilling the emerging norm of the collective responsibility to protect. In order to remedy these shortfalls and ensure the doctrine’s effectiveness, the paper argues the need to incorporate post-conflict investigatory mechanisms into the R2P.

<p>Since the 1980&rsquo / s, many dictatorships around the world have been replaced by new democracies. These old dictatorships were notorious for their human rights abuses. Many people were killed and tortured / and many others were disappeared. When the new governments came into power, they had to confront these injustices that were perpetrated under the predecessor regime. This was necessary to create a culture of human rights / promote a respect for the law and access to justice. Many confronted these injustices in different ways, some granted amnesty, some prosecuted and others instituted truth commissions. This research paper focuses on truth commissions. The research focuses particularly on the study of the South African Truth Commission. The mandate of the South African Truth Commission is analysed and the investigation into whether the commission served the purpose for which it had been established is discussed.</p>

Magister Legum - LLM / Since the 1980's, many dictatorships around the world have been replaced by new democracies. These old dictatorships were notorious for their human rights abuses. Many people were killed and tortured; and many others were disappeared. When the new governments came into power, they had to confront these injustices that were perpetrated under the predecessor regime. This was necessary to create a culture of human rights; promote a respect for the law and access to justice. Many confronted these injustices in different ways, some granted amnesty, some prosecuted and others instituted truth commissions. This research paper focuses on truth commissions. The research focuses particularly on the study of the South African Truth Commission. The mandate of the South African Truth Commission is analysed and the investigation into whether the commission served the purpose for which it had been established is discussed. / South Africa

Scientific evidence is increasingly relied on in litigation. Discussions and debates aimed at enabling courts to make the best use scientific evidence are therefore critical. This thesis adds the perspective of procedural legitimacy to the science and law dialogue. Procedural Legitimacy is the concept that consistent adherence to legal procedure maintains the overall legitimacy of the legal system, and the validity of its outcomes. I argue that to maintain legitimate legal outcomes, procedural rules must be applied consistently and vigilantly to scientific evidence. This means that admissibility rules must be applied properly to scientific evidence, and that admitted scientific evidence must be duly scrutinized and weighed against the legal standard of proof. This ensures that the legal outcome will be based on valid legal facts. When the law is applied to those legal facts, litigants are legitimately bound by the judicial decision, despite the risk of factual inaccuracy. / The bulk of this thesis develops the notion of procedural legitimacy, and argues that its role in the adjudicative process is vital. The argument is founded on the conditions of uncertainty in which legal decisions are made. I show that both liability determinations and damages determinations in personal injury actions are made in conditions of uncertainty, and are dependent on consistency in procedure to maintain legitimacy. Ultimately, I apply the procedural legitimacy argument to admissibility and use of scientific evidence, and endorse the recommendations of the Goudge Inquiry in that respect.

[pt] Considerando a disponibilidade do Big Data para engenharia de software, como no caso do GitHub, a semi-automação da elicitação de requisitos não funcionais (NFRs) é uma estratégia fundamental para a definição de requisitos. Como tal, a elicitação de NFRs, dentro da automação da leitura de documentos, pode gerenciar a massa de informações valiosas existentes nos dados disponíveis. Esta tese explora esse contexto em três partes, a escolha de fontes apropriadas de informação, uma elicitação de descoberta de fatos e a identificação de NFRs. As avaliações realizadas mostraram que a automação enfrenta um balance entre eficiência e eficácia. Esse equilíbrio é detalhado com diferentes estratégias inovadoras. O conhecimento adquirido é organizado como um catálogo SIG (Softgoal Interdependence Graph). / [en] Considering the availability of Big Data for software engineering, as the case of GitHub, the semi-automation of non-functional requirements (NFRs) elicitation is a key strategy towards requirements definition. As such, NFRs elicitation, within the automation of document reading, can manage the mass of valuable information existing in available data. This thesis explores this context in three parts, the choice of proper sources of information, a fact-finding elicitation, and NFRs identification. The assessments performed showed that the automation faces a trade-off between efficiency and efficacy. This trade-off is detailed with different novel strategies. The acquired knowledge is organized as a SIG (Softgoal Interdependence Graph) catalog.

Ce mémoire propose une conception narrative du système de justice criminel. Pour ce faire, l’auteure mobilise la théorie narrative suivant laquelle le procès contradictoire est appréhendé comme un concours entre différentes histoires. Le caractère général de cette théorie confère à l’auteure l’espace nécessaire pour analyser et expliquer différents aspects du traitement judiciaire des faits, que ce soit la preuve judiciaire, le processus de détermination judiciaire des faits, l’intervention judiciaire en appel ou encore le droit qui encadre chacun de ces aspects. La notion d’« histoire » favorise l’adoption d’une perspective qui sort du cadre restreint du procès dans lequel la notion de « preuve » est enfermée. La théorie narrative permet ainsi à l’auteure d’expliquer et d’organiser en un tout unifié divers aspects du processus judiciaire comme l’enquête, le dépôt des accusations, la théorie de la cause, le contre-interrogatoire ou encore la façon dont les faits sont d’abord choisis et assemblés par les parties avant d’être administrés et traités au procès sous forme de « preuve ». Appliquée au procès, cette théorie implique une approche holistique de la preuve suivant laquelle la détermination judiciaire des faits est une évaluation de la vraisemblance relative des histoires en compétition. Cela remet en question la vision traditionnelle (ou rationaliste) atomiste de la preuve où les faits sont déterminés suite à une décision sur la véracité ou la fausseté de chacun des éléments de preuve. Le nouvel éclairage qu’apporte cette vision narrative du procès et ses diverses implications mènent l’auteure à remettre en question le bien-fondé de la vision traditionnelle voulant que le procès mène à une détermination judiciaire des faits qui soit exacte. Au terme de son illustration de la valeur heuristique de la théorie narrative, l’auteure revisite sous la perspective narrative les récentes études en matière d’erreurs judiciaires. Elle en conclut que le droit commande au juge d’atteindre une vérité hybride sur les faits, à michemin entre, d’une part, ce qui est survenu dans la réalité et, d’autre part, ce qui permet de conférer un maximum de cohérence aux éléments de preuves effectivement présentés au procès. / This master’s thesis proposes a narrative conceptualization of the criminal justice system. The author employs the narrative theory framework that conceives the adversarial trial as a contest between different stories. This comprehensive theory offers a lens through which the author analyzes and explains multiple aspects of the judicial processing of facts including evidence at trial, fact-finding, appellate review and the law governing these aspects. The concept of “story” allows a broader perspective than the concept of “evidence” which is limited to the trial. This umbrella theory is therefore used to explain, organize and provide a united understanding of various aspects of the judicial system, such as the investigatory process, the laying of charges, the theory of a case, the cross-examinations, as well as how facts are chosen and organized before being presented and processed at trial as “evidence”. At trial, the global perspective of the narrative theory challenges the traditional (or rationalist) atomist approach to evidence, which explains fact-finding as a decision based on the truthfulness or the falseness of each individual piece of evidence adduced at trial. The narrative perspective, rather, suggests a holistic approach – fact-finding is a decision regarding the relative plausibility between two competing stories. Thus, these insights from the narrative theory call into question the traditional assumption that trials lead to accurate findings of fact. After her demonstration of the heuristic value of the narrative theory, the author applies the narrative framework to recent studies on miscarriages of justice. She concludes that the law enables triers of fact to reach only a hybrid truth, halfway between what happened in reality and an assessment of the consistency between the evidence adduced at trial.

職司審判之法院，其職權係為「認定事實」與「適用法律」。就事實之認定，我國採取「自由心證原則」，亦即事實應如何透過證據證明、推論而得，授權由法官於個案中認定，然該原則中「自由」之意義，係具有其具體之內在內涵與外在限制，並非由法官恣意判斷。過去之實務與學說並未就此為深入之闡釋，迭生審級平行與垂直判決之歧異，及人民對法院判決之非議。從而根本之道，應係完整建構自由心證原則之實質意義，由運用之主體、客體、內在內涵、外在限制及其作用等面向，並提出其運用之模組，具體化此立法者規範之不確定法律概念，使運用該原則之法官，得以有依循及參考之路徑。 而自由心證原則內涵中，最常於訴訟中運用者，即為「間接證明」，因主要事實由直接證據直接證明乃少見之情狀，而由間接證據證明間接事實，進而依間接事實之推理作用，推論主要事實存否之情形，乃訴訟中之常態。然間接證明之內涵中，「間接事實之內容與數量」、「推理作用之內涵」、「間接事實間推理作用所得證明主要事實之射程」，皆係高度個案裁量運用之認定，然現今實務之運作，卻出現審級間運用內容及結果極為歧異之現象，從而應探究其內涵，並嘗試提出運用之模組，供運用之法官思考。 自由心證與間接證明作為具有高度實務操作性格之訴訟法原則，其運用之 良窳，已實際影響具體個案事實認定之問題。為改善及斧正目前實務運作上出現之認定歧異、迭經發回之問題，亟須透過以上之研究，提出訴訟中運用之方式，以及其於事實審間、事實審與法律審間運用之審查、互動關係，使該二抽象原則具有一定法安定性，而有一定運用之軌跡可循。 / The court, to act as trial institute, has its major authority to “determine the fact” as well as “apply the law”. As for the fact-finding, our country adopts “Free Evaluation of Evidence Principle”, which authorizes the judge to determine case by case how the fact is proved and inferred through the evidences. However, the meaning of “Free” in that principle is constructed with concrete inner connotation and outer restriction, and not decided by the willfulness of the judge. In the past, courts and scholars didn’t elaborate that principle in depth, which has given a rise to the discrepant verdicts between different courts and criticisms from the people. Consequently, the fundamental solution is to build the substantial connotation of free evaluation of evidence principle, by means of the observations of its operating subject, object, inner connotation, outer restriction and function as well as its operating model, and to reify this uncertain concept of law regulated by legislator, so as to find a way to follow and refer to by the judge. The most commonly-adopted content of free evaluation of evidence principle is “Indirect Proof ”. Owing to proving the direct fact through direct evidence is rarely seen in lawsuit, the application of proving indirect fact by indirect evidence, and then inferring the existence of direct fact through the inferring function of indirect fact, is much common in each case. Nevertheless, in the meaning of Indirect Proof, the “content and amount of indirect fact”, “content of inferring function” and “scope which the direct fact could be inferred from the direct fact” are determined by large-scale discretion of the judge case by case. As a result of the discretion, the circumstances of divergent operating contents and consequences are emerged. Therefore, the connotation of that principle should be analyzed and the operating models are tried to addressed, hoping to provide for the judge to take into account. “Free Evaluation of Evidence Principle” and “Indirect Proof”, which are conducted as civil procedural principle in a highly individually case-operating nature, substantially influence the fact-finding in specific lawsuit with its odds and ends of operation. In order to improve and correct the discrepant fact-finding and constantly-verdict-reversing problems appearing in the courts at present, it is necessary to bring up the ways to operate the two principles as well as the reviewing and interacting relationships between trial courts and trial court and trial of law, and to establish specific legal certainty, legal steability and operation standards.