Your search
Results 7 resources
-
This article examines the reasonable suspicion requirement in the entrapment defence as applied in Canadian terrorism prosecutions. Although designed as an objective safeguard against state overreach, reasonable suspicion has proven highly malleable in practice, often shaped less by concrete conduct than by institutional narratives of threat, vulnerability, and deviance. Drawing on all five terrorism-related entrapment cases in Canada to date, the article demonstrates how courts have permitted markers of ideology, religion, and identity to serve as proxies for criminal intent. While Canadian jurisprudence has formally rejected the American subjective predisposition test, the case law reveals a troubling drift toward a distinct form of subjectivity: one grounded in perceived ideology or motive. In this way, suspicion attaches to who a defendant is imagined to be--because of their beliefs--rather than to what they have done.
-
As Darryl Li writes in the Universal Enemy, this new world order is characterized by two forms of armed conflicts: national ethnic wars and a "globally threatening militant Islam." The latter characterization is attributed to the attacks of September 11, 2001 against the United States, after which the figure of the 'Muslim' evil 'terrorist' was designated as the enemy of all humankind. In light of this, the present paper tells a story of the development of the international legal regime in the realm of counter-terrorism, focusing on the doctrine of anticipatory self-defence that was introduced by the United States' National Security Strategy in 2002. The paper argues that the novel doctrine of anticipatory self-defence introduced by the Bush administration not only undermines the principles of necessity and proportionality that govern the use of force under international law, but it also represents a neo-colonial extension of earlier colonial legacies of domination.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
The overarching objective of this paper is to shine a Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) torchlight on the ILO’s social justice discourse and praxis to find out what can be seen, or seen in a new light, or seen in a different way, when the TWAIL approach is adopted, and to comment on the significance of our findings, if any. To this end, the paper pursues two specific and intertwined goals, namely: (i) to analytically tease out the similarities and differences between TWAIL’s avowedly (global) social justice discourse and praxis and its ILO counterpart; and (ii) to, in the light of the findings of the preceding exercise, reflect on what (if anything) the ILO’s and TWAIL’s social justice discourses and praxis can learn from each other. In the light of these goals, the paper will necessarily begin with a brief explanation of what TWAIL stands for as an intellectual social justice movement and as a ‘networked’ school of thought in international legal studies. This exercise will be followed by an examination of what we see as the ‘commanding heights’ of the ILO’s social justice discourse and praxis (workers’ rights, other economic and social rights, and the rights of indigenous peoples). Thereafter, a number of preliminary insights from an engagement between the TWAIL and ILO social justice discourses and praxis will be offered. The paper ends with some brief concluding comments.
Explore
Author / Editor
Resource type
- Journal Article (2)
- Newspaper Article (3)
- Preprint (1)
- Thesis (1)