The end of the territorially-sovereign state? The case of crime control in the United States

1999 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Herbert
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sovereign State

scholarly journals Frontlash: Race and the Development of Punitive Crime Policy

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vesla M. Weaver
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
War On Drugs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Turn Of The Century ◽  
Federal Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
State Supervision ◽  
Capital Crimes

Civil rights cemented its place on the national agenda with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, fair housing legislation, federal enforcement of school integration, and the outlawing of discriminatory voting mechanisms in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Less recognized but no less important, the Second Reconstruction also witnessed one of the most punitive interventions in United States history. The death penalty was reinstated, felon disenfranchisement statutes from the First Reconstruction were revived, and the chain gang returned. State and federal governments revised their criminal codes, effectively abolishing parole, imposing mandatory minimum sentences, and allowing juveniles to be incarcerated in adult prisons. Meanwhile, the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965 gave the federal government an altogether new role in crime control; several subsequent policies, beginning with the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and culminating with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, ‘war on drugs,’ and extension of capital crimes, significantly altered the approach. These and other developments had an exceptional and long-lasting effect, with imprisonment increasing six-fold between 1973 and the turn of the century. Certain groups felt the burden of these changes most acutely. As of the last census, fully half of those imprisoned are black and one in three black men between ages 20 and 29 are currently under state supervision. Compared to its advanced industrial counterparts in western Europe, the United States imprisons at least five times more of its citizens per capita.

Civil Suits

2020 ◽  
pp. 315-339
Author(s):  
Beth Van Schaack
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Convention Against Torture

Rounding out the matrix of accountability, chapter 8 presents several nonpenal options to bring justice to Syria, including civil suits in domestic courts against responsible individuals and entities and options for exercising jurisdiction over the sovereign state of Syria. Because there is no notion of state criminality under international law, only civil claims seeking money damages can be advanced against sovereign states. Jurisdiction over Syria exists before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; however, so far no state has been willing to take Syria to task before the ICJ. And so, victims must bear this burden. In this regard, some tort law options exist in domestic courts, especially in the United States with its suite of statutes giving its domestic courts jurisdiction over certain international law violations in certain circumstances. This chapter features a groundbreaking suit against Syria under the United States’ Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which resulted in a $300 million judgment for the surviving family members of Marie Colvin, the intrepid war correspondent assassinated by the Syrian regime. The chapter observes that although civil remedies are no substitute for vigorous criminal liability, these suits do extend victims some dignitary benefits that may not accrue with participation in a criminal process, even as a partie civile, including the opportunity to control the litigation process and act where the public authorities may be unable or unwilling to do so.

Armed Guests

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Study ◽  
Valuable Insight ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Military Presence ◽  
Security Challenges ◽  
Second World

In the years around the Second World War, policymakers in the United States and Western Europe faced unique security challenges occasioned by the development of new technologies and the emergence of transnational ideological conflict. In coming to terms with these challenges, they developed the historically novel practice in which a state might maintain a long-term, peacetime military presence on the territory of another sovereign state without the subjugation of the latter. Such basing arrangements between substantive equals were previously unthinkable: under the inherited understanding of sovereignty, in which there was a tight linkage between military presence and territorial authority, such military presences could be understood only in terms of occupation or annexation. These “sovereign basing” practices, as I call them, are now central to many aspects of contemporary security politics. This book applies concepts derived from pragmatist thought to a historical study of the relations between the United States and its wartime allies to explain the origin of this phenomenon. A pragmatist lens draws attention to how the actors involved creatively recombined inherited practices in response to changes in the material and social context of action and thereby transformed the practice of sovereignty. The tools offered by pragmatism provide needed analytical leverage over the emergence of novelty and offer valuable insight into the dynamics of stability and change. The practice of sovereign basing, bound up as it is now with the constitution of interests and understanding of how states exercise power, is likely a durable feature of international politics.

Life Without Parole Sentencing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Seeds
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Local Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Life Without Parole ◽  
The Subject ◽  
State And Local

Life without parole sentencing refers to laws, policies, and practices concerning lifetime prison sentences that also preclude release by parole. While sentences to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole have existed for more than a century in the United States, over the past four decades the penalty has emerged as a prominent element of U.S. punishment, routinely put to use by penal professionals and featured regularly in public discourse. As use of the death penalty diminishes in the United States, life without parole serves as the ultimate punishment in more and more U.S. jurisdictions. The scope with which states apply life without parole varies, however, and some states have authorized the punishment even for nonviolent offenses. More than a punishment serving purposes of retribution, crime control, and public safety, and beyond the symbolic functions of life without parole sentencing in U.S. culture and politics, life without parole is a lived experience for more than 50,000 prisoners in the United States. Life without parole’s increasing significance in the United States points to the need for further research on the subject—including studies that directly focus on how race and racial prejudice factor in life without parole sentencing, studies that investigate the proximate causes of life without parole sentences at the state and local level, and studies that examine the similarities and differences between life without parole, the death penalty, and de facto forms of imprisonment until death.

“Imagined Territory: The Republic of China’s 1955 Veto of Mongolian Membership in the United Nations”

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-295
Author(s):  
Keith Allan Clark II
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The Public ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Republic

In 1955, Jiang Tingfu, representing the Republic of China (roc), vetoed Mongolia’s entry into the United Nations. In the 26 years the roc represented China in the United Nations, it only cast this one veto. The roc’s veto was a contentious move because Taipei had recognized Mongolia as a sovereign state in 1946. A majority of the world body, including the United States, favored Mongolia’s admission as part of a deal to end the international organization’s deadlocked-admissions problem. The roc’s veto placed it not only in opposition to the United Nations but also its primary benefactor. This article describes the public and private discourse surrounding this event to analyze how roc representatives portrayed the veto and what they thought Mongolian admission to the United Nations represented. It also examines international reactions to Taipei’s claims and veto. It argues that in 1955 Mongolia became a synecdoche for all of China that Taipei claimed to represent, and therefore roc representatives could not acknowledge it as a sovereign state.

scholarly journals REPRESENTATION OF THE UKRAINIAN DIASPORA'S SCHOLAR AND EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES IN THE USA IN THE PUBLICATIONS OF UKRAINIAN STUDIES

2017 ◽  
pp. 5-9
Author(s):  
T. Antoniuk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Building ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Independent State ◽  
Practical Research ◽  
Science And Culture ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Science And Education

In this paper we explore scholar and educational activities of the Ukrainian Diaspora in the United States. We showcase the role of the Ukrainian Diaspora's researchers in investigation of various aspects of knowledge about Ukraine. Their activities ensured the preservation of Ukrainian identity in the Diaspora and promoted the formation of Ukrainian national identity in Ukraine during the struggle for the Ukrainian independent state. The Ukrainian Diaspora in the USA plays a significant role in state-building processes in the independent Ukraine. Ukrainian educators and scholars had dedicated their lives to theoretical and practical research. Their indefatigable studies influenced a lot independent Ukraine, its science and culture. Studying Ukrainian centers for science and education in emigration, including those United States, is an important part Ukrainian studies in whole as it reveals the peculiarities of international experience of Ukrainians and Diaspora's role in the formation of the Ukrainian independent and sovereign state.

Emer de Vattel on the Society of Nations and the Political System of Europe

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Zurbuchen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political System ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Founding Father ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Modern Natural ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
The Law

This chapter aims to explain why considering Vattel as a founding father of positivism rests on a misunderstanding. Despite the continuous attention Vattel received in the scholarly literature as well as in the diplomatic and juridical practice, especially in the United States, his legacy remained highly contested ever since his treatise The Law of Nations was first published in 1758. One reason is its indebtedness to the modern natural law tradition but also to Vattel’s originality, mainly due to the significance he attributed to the sovereign state as a free and independent member of the society of nations. Vattel established many dualisms to develop his very broad notion of the law of nations: he applied the law of nations to the ‘political system’ of Europe, which he considered a kind of republic instituted for maintaining order and liberty and founded on the scheme of the balance of power.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document