By analysing intelligence-gathering reform legislation this article discusses access to justice for communications interception by the intelligence and security services. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, sophisticated oversight systems for bulk communications surveillance are being established across the globe. In the Netherlands prior judicial consent and a binding complaint procedure have been established. However, although checks and balances for targeted communications interference have been created, accountability mechanisms are less equipped to effectively remedy indiscriminate interference. Therefore, within the context of mass communications surveillance programs, access to justice for complainants remains a contentious issue.
MULTIFILE
In this paper, we analyse the development of the term “legal capabilities”. More specifically, we do three things. First, we track the emergence and development of the notion of legal capabilities. The term legal capabilities was used in legal research long before the capability approach was introduced in that field. Early on, its conceptualisation mainly reflected elements of legal literacy. In more recent writings, it is claimed that the notion is based on the capability approach. Second, we critically analyse the current use of the term legal capabilities and show that there is no proper theoretical grounding of this term in the capability approach. This is problematic, because it might give rise to misunderstandings and flawed policy recommendations. Third, we suggest some first steps towards a revision of the notion of legal capabilities. Starting from the concept of “access to justice”, legal capabilities have to be understood as the real opportunities someone has to get access to justice, rather than merely as formal opportunities or internal capabilities.
MULTIFILE
This paper outlines the main differences between ecocentric and anthropocentric positions in regard to justice, exploring university students’ perceptions of the concepts of social and ecological justice and reflecting on how values assigned to humans and the environment are balanced and contested. Putting justice for people before the environment is based on evidence that biological conservation can disadvantage local communities; the idea that the very notion of justice is framed by humans and therefore remains a human issue; and the assumption that humans have a higher value than other species. Putting justice for the environment first assumes that only an ecocentric ethic guarantees protection of all species, including humans, and therefore ecological justice already guarantees social justice. This research shows that many students emphasize the convergence of social and ecological justice where human and environmental interests correspond. While not wishing to diminish the underlying assumptions of either ethical orientation, the common “enemy” of both vulnerable communities and nonhuman nature, as identified by students, is an ideology of economic growth and industrial development. http://dx.doi.org/10.13135/2384-8677/2688 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
This article discusses, from the local professional perspective, access to justice for person-specific interventions to prevent or counter (violent) extremism in Europe. Using a Dutch case study it focusses on legal protection for hand-tailored interferences that are part of a wider-ranging counter-terrorism policy. While the so-called person-specific interventions, carried out by professionals, target designated high-risk individuals and groups, it is primarily the municipal authority that coordinates these criminal –, administrative – or social based measures. Furthermore, although researchers and human rights advocates have repeatedly sounded the alarm over access to justice for those affected, little research has been done into how those responsible for implementation perceive the necessity of legal protection. Also, the potential side-effects such as executive arbitrariness are modestly reflected in the literature. Henceforth, by reviewing policy documents and conducting semi-structured interviews, this exploratory study concludes that as far as legal protection for hand-tailored interferences are concerned, local professionals have faith in the checks and balances of the criminal justice system. Yet from their perspective this was less self-evident in cases of administrative – or social measures. Therefore, one may wonder if legal protections for person-specific interventions that deal with (potential) extremists are sufficient in practice.
MULTIFILE
Accessible legal assistance is crucial to ensuring access to justice for all and essential for the rule of law and a functioning democracy. Many people in the Netherlands, especially vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, rely on frontline legal services at a local level for access to justice. Frontline legal assistance provides information and advice, while secondary legal assistance offers procedural assistance. When people face barriers, for example due to limited language proficiency or limited digital skills, in seeking assistance from frontline professionals, they may not be referred to a lawyer or a court, and thus be limited in their access to justice. Based on recent (empirical) research on the accessibility of (frontline) legal assistance, the authors reflect on the question how research can contribute to access to justice and the rule of law in the Netherlands.
DOCUMENT
The realization of human rights standards depends in part on the commitment of local actors. It can be argued that local public service professionals such as social workers can also be regarded as key players. The possible role of social workers becomes imperative if these professionals are working in a policy context that is not congruent with human rights. If existing laws or policies cause or maintain disrespect for human rights, social workers are in a position to observe that this is having an adverse impact on clients. When social workers are regarded as human rights actors, the question arises how they can or should respond to law and policy that impedes them in carrying out their work with respect for human rights. This article adds to existing theories on social workers as human rights actors by examining the practices of social professionals working in such a challenging policy context. The research took place among professionals in social district teams in the city of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Following a series of decentralizations and austerity measures the social care landscape in the Netherlands has changed drastically over the last few years. As a result, social workers may find themselves on the one hand trying to realize the best possible care for their clients while on the other hand dealing with new laws and policy expectations focused on self-reliance and diminished access to specialist care. The article explores how social professionals’ responses to barriers in access to care affect human rights requirements. In doing so, this socio-legal study provides insight into the ways in which everyday social work relates to the realization of human rights at the local level.
DOCUMENT
As many in society work towards global sustainability, we live at a time when efforts to conserve biodiversity and geodiversity, and combat climate change, take place simultaneously with land grabs by large corporations, food insecurity, and human displacement through an ecological breakdown. Many of us seek to reconcile more-than-human nature and human nature and to balance intrinsic value and the current human expansion phase. These and other challenges will fundamentally alter the way people, depending on their worldview and ethics, relate to communities and the environment. While environmental problems cannot be seen as purely ecological because they always involve people, who bring to the environmental table their different assumptions about nature and culture, so are social problems connected to environmental constraints. Similarly, social problems are fundamentally connected to environmental constraints and ecological health. While nonhumans cannot bring anything to this negotiating table, the distinct perspective of this book is that there is a need to consider the role of nonhumans as equally important stakeholders – albeit without a voice. This book develops an argument that human-environmental relationships are set within ecological reality and ecological ethics. Rather than being mutually constitutive processes, humans have obligate dependence on nature, not vice versa. We argue that over-arching ecological ethics is necessary to underpin conservation in the long-term. This requires a holistic ‘justice’, where both social justice (for humans) and ecological justice (for nature) are entwined. However, given the escalating environmental crisis and major extinction event we face, and given that social justice has been dominant for centuries, we believe that in many cases ecojustice will need to be prioritized. This will depend on the situation, but we feel that under ecological ethics, holistic ethics cannot always allow social justice to dominate, hence there is an urgent need to prioritize ecojustice today. Accordingly, this book will deal with questions of both social and ecological justice, putting forth the idea that justice for both humans and nonhumans and their habitats can only be achieved simultaneously. This book will explore the following questions: What is the relationship between social and ecological justice? How might we integrate social and ecological justice? What are the major barriers to achieving this simultaneous justice? How can these barriers be overcome? What are the major debates in conservation relevant to this? doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-13905-6 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
Attending to the emergent debates on tourism and (in)justice, this study critically examines the role of the Walled Off Hotel, Banksy's tourism-artistic intervention in Palestine, in constructing justice. Utilising the evidence from 15 in-depth empathetic interviews, it explores the ways in which local residents make sense of the Hotel and how they frame and experience (in)justices. While demonstrating how these interpretations are entangled with the broader geographic, social and political context, the paper discusses how different forms of justice circulate in this particular context. The new knowledge generated contributes to our further understanding of achieving justice-through-tourism as an affirmative praxis, while addressing the broader humanitarian, earthly, or otherwise existential crisis.
MULTIFILE
The transition towards sustainable and just food systems is ongoing, illustrated by an increasing number of initiatives that try to address unsustainable practices and social injustices. Insights are needed into what a just transition entails in order to critically engage with plural and potentially conflicting justice conceptualisations. Researchers play an active role in food system transitions, but it is unclear which conceptualisations and principles of justice they enact when writing about food system initiatives. To fill this gap this paper investigates: Which conceptualisations of justice emerge from the literature related to food system initiatives and which principles of justice do authors use? We developed an initial framework for which we drew on political philosophy literature. We then undertook an extensive review of the food system transitions literature using this framework and were able to identify a range of recognition, distributive, and procedural justice conceptualisations and associated principles of justice. Recognised as subjects of justice were those with a particular role in the food system, people who are marginalised, Indigenous communities, those with experiences of negative consequences of the food system, future generations, and nonhumans. The identified conceptualisations and the developed framework can be used by those involved in food system initiatives to reflect on how they conceptualise justice. We challenge them to be more explicit about who they do and do not recognise as subjects of justice and which principles of justice they use. Such clarity is needed to reflexively enact a just transition towards sustainable and just food systems.
LINK
In this article we focus upon a division between generalized schools of philosophical and ethical thought about culture and conservation. There is an ongoing debate playing out over conservation between those who believe conservation threatens community livelihoods and traditional practices, and those who believe conservation is essential to protect nonhuman species from the impact of human development and population growth. We argue for reconciliation between these schools of thought and a cooperative push toward the cultivation of an environmentally-focused perspective that embraces not only social and economic justice but also concern for non-human species. Our goal is to underline the ethics and tangible benefits that may result from combining the cultural data and knowledge of the social sciences with understanding of environmental science and conservation. We highlight instances in which social scientists overlook their own anthropocentric bias in relationship to ecological justice, or justice for all species, in favor of exclusive social justice among people. We focus on the polemical stances of this debate in order to emphasize the importance of a middle road of cooperation that acknowledges the rights of human and nonhuman species, alike. In conclusion, we present an alternative set of ethics and research activities for social scientists concerned with conservation and offer ideas on how to reconcile the conflicting interests of people and the environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.030 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
