The Rome Statute saw the provision of three statutory rights for victims: the right to participation, protection, and reparations. The addition of these rights is an attempt to incorporate elements of restorative and reparative justice processes into a primarily retributive system. The emerging jurisprudence shows there are competing tensions developing in all areas. The right to participation saw initially broad decisions consistently scaled back by the Appeals Chamber to ensure a more streamlined approach. The right to protection, in contrast, has continued to be upheld by all Court levels resulting in significant trial challenges and delays. While the right to reparations remains untested, it is likely to only partially fulfill restorative aims. This thesis argues that while victim involvement has altered the traditional trial process, restorative aims will remain unmet. However, victim involvement has begun to shed light on the competing purposes of justice within the Rome Statute framework.

No description available.

abstract: Principles of climate mitigation in environmental ethics often draw on either considerations of fairness and forward-looking concerns, or on justice and backward-looking concerns. That is, according to some theorists, considerations of the current distribution of climate benefits and burdens are foremost, while others take repairing historic wrongs as paramount. Some theorists integrate considerations of fairness and justice to formulate hybrid climate principles. Such an integrative approach is promising particularly in the context of environmental harm to indigenous subsistence peoples, who are among those suffering the most from climate change. I argue that existing integrative climate principles tend not to sufficiently emphasize considerations of backward-looking justice. This is a problem for indigenous peoples seeking reparations for environmental harm and violations of their human rights. Specifically, indigenous people in the Arctic suffer a cultural harm from climate change as they lose their land, and their way of life, to erosion, cementing their status as climate refugees. I argue that the current climate situation facing Native Arctic people is unfair according to Rawls' second principle of justice. In addition, the situation is unjust as indigenous people suffer from emissions by others and few attempts are made for reparations. Thus, Rawlsian fairness combined with reparative justice provide a befitting theoretical framework. I conclude that an acceptable climate principle will adequately integrate considerations of both fairness and justice, both forward-looking and backward-looking considerations. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.A. Philosophy 2014

There has been an increase in the deadly violence with firearms and with that an increase in drug dealing. Because of that politicians have toughed up the debate on how to deal with it, where longer and harder punishments seem to be the way to go. The persons who are most likely to get caught up in the violence are men in the ages 15-29 years old, where not only drugs are the main reason, but also the socioeconomic- and demographic differences in our country will be a factor. The retributive justice system is still the dominating one, but reparative justice is getting bigger within Sweden too, it’s just not yet on the same level as in other countries. The purpose of this thesis was to know more about the experiences and challenges that the professionals have that work with reconciliation and mediation. A qualitative method with semi structured interviews has been used to interview two professionals working at Försoningsgruppen and two professionals working at Medlingsverksamheten in Lund. To analyze the results I used theories about shame, guilt, the other and theories about moral and empathy. The results from the interviews showed that to be able to reconcile, the person who has done wrong needs to be able to feel guilt and to take on genuine and full responsibility for their actions. It also showed that the person that has done wrong needs to take on a new identity, an identity of both being a human and a human that has done harm to another person. They need to become the other, and that is one hard thing to accept.

In this thesis I aim to build a normative argument for equality of access to advantage at the global level, and motivate action conducive to the realization of this ideal. The normative argument is presented over the course of the first two chapters. In Chapter One I ask, ‘How should we conceive of distributive equality?’ Following G.A. Cohen, I argue that equality is best conceived as equality of access to advantage. I interpret this to require equal access to both ‘worldly autonomy’—a term I invoke to describe a certain basic threshold level of autonomy—and subjective preference satisfaction. In Chapter Two, I establish a justificatory basis for equality on a global scale. I argue that equality is justified at the global level on the basis of justice as reciprocity for the mutual provision of the global system of state-enforced borders, in which the participation of all people is equally necessary, and that makes possible a wide variety of institutional goods predominately enjoyed by people in rich developed countries. In Chapter Three, I take up the second aim of the thesis: to motivate action conducive to the realization of this global distributive ideal. I engage the concern that global equality is a poor ideal, demanding too much change in the attitudes and lifestyles of the well-off to motivate them to pursue it. I aim to show that, even if most people are not motivated to pursue global equality, there are alternative grounds for immediately feasible global reforms and redistributions likely to have greater motivational purchase on people’s sensibilities. Alternative grounds for redistribution and reform include reparative justice, cooperative justice, respect for basic human rights, and self-interest. Making these redistributions and reforms would not only be desirable from the perspective of the alternative grounds that explain them, but will have the further happy result of bringing the world closer to the global distributive ideal of equality of access to advantage. Plausibly, it will bring the world sufficiently close to this ideal that people will be motivated to pursue it for its own sake.