Yes / This chapter focuses on the forms of legality and illegality produced by, and within, prison systems in Latin America where prison populations have risen five-fold, leading to a serious structural crisis in the criminal justice system. The chapter develops the concept of “prisoner capture”, a double-sided phenomenon of illegality in the state’s practices of detention, on the one hand, and informal, or parallel, governance exercised by those that it detained, on the other. State authorities held tens of thousands of people in extended and legally unjustifiable pretrial detention, and frequently denied convicted prisoners their legal rights, including timely release. This officially sanctioned form of kidnapping created such overcrowding and under-investment in prisons that national, constitutional, and international minimum norms on detention standards were routinely, systematically and grossly violated. These multiple illegalities on the part of the state in turn encouraged the emergence of prisoner self-defence and self-governance organizations. This resulted in “prisoner capture” of a different kind, when inmates took over the day-to-day ordering of prison life. In turn, this produced a parallel normative and pseudo-legal world in which inmates adjudicated on and disciplined other inmates in the absence of state officials within the prison walls. The chapter further examines what the study of Latin American prisons and penal practices can add to the field of socio-legal studies in the region and the implications of this phenomenon of prison capture for the dominant socio-legal literature on prisons and imprisonment.

The purpose of this study is to examine the status of academic freedom and, more specifically, intramural and extramural speech at universities in the U.S. since 2000. Court opinions and briefs from benchmark court cases and the faculty's perspective of current academic freedom issues are analyzed to determine dominant trends and themes that have evolved since 2000. While others have studied the relationship between the First Amendment and academic freedom, this analysis brings current the discourse concerning the effect First Amendment court decisions have on the faculty speech. The central research question is to determine the effect court decisions have on the intramural and extramural speech of faculty and specifically to study how federal, state, and local events since 2000 have affected (a) the academic freedom of faculty in general, (b) the way universities handle faculty intramural speech, (c) the way universities handle faculty extramural speech when they speak both as a citizen and a public university employee, and (d) the ability of faculty to defend their academic freedom. Using post-modern theory, the two-phased mixed methods study deconstructs and analyzes (a) the six First Amendment court opinions and briefs and (b) the 19 interviews of public university faculty members. The first phase identified 11 dominant themes, which were used as the basis for the coding and the 19 interviews of public university faculty members. The interview coding and analysis identified 15 themes. Based on the Pearson Correlation Coefficient, four themes were identified in the court opinions and six in the interviews are discussed. The second phase also included surveys of the faculty interviewed and a quantitative analysis of the responses in order to classify the sample. The study found that public universities have complete control over academic freedom, and that it is a privilege granted to faculty based on their scholarly association with the university, not a right. Public university administrators, general counsels, deans, department chairs, and faculty will benefit from the study as it provides an intensive analysis of post-2000 court case logic and the current perceptions and apprehensions that faculty have concerning their intramural and extramural speech rights. / text

According to the United States Department of Defense (DOD), as of 2013 there were over 12,000 DOD contractors supporting the U.S. mission in Iraq (DASD, 2013). This thesis explores the laws and legal systems that operate to keep contractors, and the companies that employ them, resistant to legal oversight. I ground my analysis in the 2007 Nisour Square massacre, exploring how every attempt to prosecute those responsible was doomed due to Blackwater’s legal position of being American-headquartered, hired by the State Department, privately owned, and operating in Iraq. I conclude that the legal indeterminacy of the US deployed security contractor normalizes violence towards Iraqi civilians while simultaneously downloading the risk and responsibility associated with the US war efforts onto the shoulders of individual contractors. Moreover, I suggest that this legal indeterminacy is of particular interest to geographers as it arises, in part, out of overlapping legal systems, jurisdictions, and authorities.

According to the United States Department of Defense (DOD), as of 2013 there were over 12,000 DOD contractors supporting the U.S. mission in Iraq (DASD, 2013). This thesis explores the laws and legal systems that operate to keep contractors, and the companies that employ them, resistant to legal oversight. I ground my analysis in the 2007 Nisour Square massacre, exploring how every attempt to prosecute those responsible was doomed due to Blackwater’s legal position of being American-headquartered, hired by the State Department, privately owned, and operating in Iraq. I conclude that the legal indeterminacy of the US deployed security contractor normalizes violence towards Iraqi civilians while simultaneously downloading the risk and responsibility associated with the US war efforts onto the shoulders of individual contractors. Moreover, I suggest that this legal indeterminacy is of particular interest to geographers as it arises, in part, out of overlapping legal systems, jurisdictions, and authorities.

Bibliographic note STRAATSMA, Wietse. China's Maritime Lawfare in the South China Sea. Prague, 2018. 83 pages. Master's thesis (Mgr.) Charles University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Political Studies. Department of Security Studies. Supervisor PhDr. Vít Střítecký, M.Phil., Ph.D. Abstract The primary aim of this thesis is to examine if and how the People's Republic of China uses legal warfare to strengthen its maritime power in the South China Sea. To examine this, Dunlap's interpretation of lawfare has been combined with a lawfare typology from Kittrie to create a framework from which China's behavior has been examined. The paper posits that China's behavior in and related to the South China Sea meets the criteria of lawfare. China utilizes both instrumental lawfare and compliance-leverage disparity lawfare to justify its legal claims on the South China Sea's maritime sphere and the landforms that lie within it. This lawfare combined with enforcement has led to China gaining substantial maritime power. The islands China occupies and their militarization have granted it marine resources, naval power, and bases to project power from. The thesis contributes to the literature on China's behavior in the South China Sea by providing a lens through which to view its actions. Moreover, it contributes...

No description available.

In the period from 2009-2020, South Africa has witnessed the rise of "lawfare". Lawfare is understood as the judicialisation of politics - turning to the courts and the use of the law to resolve broadly political matters. This thesis explores the unfolding implications of the judicialisation of politics for judicial legitimacy. In the displacement of the political into the judicial the reach of the courts is expanded and the legitimacy of courts engaging in a "political" role is questioned. Situated in the field of judicial-political dynamics, the interplay between law and politics is observed through the adoption of a historical-institutionalist model. This thesis identifies the causes of the judicialisation of politics and then traces its consequences for broader constitutional stability and the impact on the judicial institution. Guidelines for the Court to navigate lawfare to achieve institutional resilience and maintain judicial legitimacy are then proposed. Judicialisation of politics is caused primarily through the failures of the other branches of government to fulfil their assigned constitutional role. Institutional imbalance in a dominant party democracy means that opposition parties and civil society organisations are left with little recourse but to appeal to the Court to be a constitutional bulwark. The Court is then compelled to step into the breach and fill the accountability vacuum. In identifying the causes of judicialisation, a fuller understanding of Lawfare emerges, expanding current scholarship beyond its traditionally abusive characterisation. It posits a duality to Lawfare in that it can be both an abuse of law and a last line of defence. Through observing the judicial political interactions, a trajectory from the judicialisation of politics to the politicisation of law is mapped. The politicisation of law sees political power refocused on the courts, exposing them to political aggression and attack by the dominant party. The judicialisation of politics that seeks accountability from recalcitrant political actors asks much of the courts, at a time when ensuring executive oversight is the most dangerous, because of the ease with which a hostile executive in a dominant party democracy can implement measures that may undermine the independence of the judiciary. The Constitutional Court has shown a remarkable ability to navigate this era of Lawfare, remaining resolute under fire. However, the more successful the Court is in holding the line against executive abuse of power, the more the judicial route is identified as a powerful weapon to achieve more abusive political objectives. The relationship between Lawfare and legitimacy is identified as a wicked problem that demands expanding boundaries to observe the courts influence on the political environment, and the political environment's influence on the judicial role and its legitimacy. Through advancing a multi-dimensional paradigm of judicial legitimacy, the dialectics of judicial legitimacy are shown to be aggravated by the judicialisation of politics. In this respect it is argued that where the foundations and assumptions on which legitimacy is predicated shift, legitimacy must be re-examined. It is therefore argued that in a culture marked by an impunified disregard of non-judicial regulatory enforcement and increasing non-compliance with judicial orders, the impulse to preserve legitimacy through a detached, formalist stance will not be sufficient. Judicial legitimacy must be relocated in the ability of the Court to be responsive. Pulled into the role of judicial statesmanship, the Court must adopt a robust approach to assertively uphold the rule of law. In tracking the unfolding consequences of the judicialisation of politics, the Court is asked to resolve matters beyond its institutional capabilities. Absent the normative commitment to the rule of law, the internationalisation of constitutional norms, and the political interest to implement remedial orders, the Court is unable to effect workable relief. In tracing the dangers of the continued trend of Lawfare, the thesis sketches a downward spiral of reputational strength of the Court and a decline in democratic responsibility. This leads to an inability to achieve effective reform that ends in disenchantment, questioning the faith placed in the Constitution. It depicts how the Constitutional Court as 'constitutional saviour' can unravel into constitutional blame. The Constitutional Court has been able to hold the line in this era of Lawfare and repel assaults on its integrity and efforts to undermine its independence. However, without a broader culture of commitment to the rule of law, civil education and a suffusion of constitutional responsibility beyond the judiciary, the Court will not be able to continue to shoulder the weight of what is asked of it. This research depicts a circular model of Lawfare and legitimacy, where Lawfare is predicated on judicial legitimacy, but an overreliance on Lawfare will destroy judicial legitimacy.

[pt] A presente dissertação investiga e analisa a instrumentalização do processo penal, convertido em arma de guerra – lawfare -, para viabilizar práticas autoritárias punitivas amparadas no casuísmo, no âmbito da chamada Operação Lava Jato, bem como analisa o manejo/utilização/implementação de mecanismos de exceção dentro da rotina democrática brasileira com o fim de eliminar um inimigo personificado na figura do ex-presidente Lula, objetivando retirá-lo da corrida eleitoral de 2018, estabelecendo, assim, a consolidação do golpe iniciado em 2016, com a derrubada da Presidenta Dilma Rousseff. O trabalho discute a Operação Lava Jato abordando o fenômeno do intercruzamento entre direito e política (ativismo judicial, judicialização da política e politização da justiça), analisando criticamente a atuação da grande mídia hegemônica oligopolista brasileira. Desta forma, esta pesquisa enfrenta essa questão a partir do fenômeno identificado como lawfare. No capítulo introdutório, é apresentado o tema, problema, hipóteses, objeto da pesquisa, a justificativa do trabalho, referencial teórico e metodologia da pesquisa. No segundo capítulo são apresentadas algumas abordagens conceituais sobre o termo lawfare, desenvolvidas por diversos intelectuais que se debruçaram sobre o tema, trazendo a discussão para o contexto brasileiro. No terceiro capítulo, analisase o lawfare para fins geopolíticos e empresariais, a extraterritorialidade coercitiva universal estadunidense e como esse emaranhado de legislação internacional impacta na soberania econômica do Brasil. No quarto capítulo defende-se que a Operação Lava Jato foi um maxiprocesso jurídico-político-midiático utilizado como instrumento de lawfare, interferindo no realinhamento de forças políticas no país e abrindo caminho para implantação de um governo neoliberal extremado, com suporte da mídia hegemônica oligopolista e da ofensiva restauradora do campo neoliberal ortodoxo. No Anexo 1, apresenta-se parte das mensagens periciadas pela Polícia Federal no bojo da Operação Spoofing. No anexo 2, apresenta-se a decisão favorável ao ex-Presidente Lula, proferida pelo Comitê de Direitos Humanos da ONU. / [en] The present dissertation investigates and analyzes the instrumentalization of the criminal process, converted into a weapon of war - lawfare -, to enable punitive authoritarian practices supported by casuism, within the scope of the so-called Operation Car wash, as well as analyzing the management/use/implementation of mechanisms of exception within the Brazilian democratic routine in order to eliminate an enemy personified in the figure of former President Lula, aiming to remove him from the 2018 electoral race, thus establishing the consolidation of the coup that began in 2016, with the overthrow of President Dilma Rousseff. The paper discusses Operation Car Wash addressing the phenomenon of the intersection between law and politics (judicial activism, judicialization of politics and politicization of justice), critically analyzing the performance of the Brazilian oligopolistic hegemonic media. Thus, this research addresses this issue from the phenomenon identified as lawfare. In the introductory chapter, the theme, problem, hypotheses, research object, work justification, theoretical framework and research methodology are presented. The second chapter presents some conceptual approaches to the term lawfare, developed by several intellectuals who have focused on the subject, bringing the discussion to the Brazilian context. In the third chapter, we analyze lawfare for geopolitical and business purposes, the universal coercive extraterritoriality of the United States and how this tangle of international legislation impacts Brazil s economic sovereignty. In the fourth chapter it is argued that Operation Car Wash was a legal-political-media maxi-process used as an instrument of lawfare, interfering in the realignment of political forces in the country and opening the way for the implantation of an extreme neoliberal government, with the support of the oligopolistic hegemonic media. and the restorative offensive of the orthodox neoliberal camp. In Annex 1, part of the messages examined by the Federal Police in the context of Operation Spoofing is presented. Annex 2 presents the decision in favor of former President Lula, delivered by the UN Human Rights Committee.