An "ongoing conversation": Method and substance in Robinson's justice in extreme cases
It is important for any discipline to keep in touch with developments and ideas in other disciplines that would be considered relevant or connected to it. This proposition is as often stated as it is overlooked in academic research. There is often little appetite to genuinely engage in a fair, open,...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2021 |
| País: | Argentina |
| Institución: | Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| Repositorio: | CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/154807 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/11336/154807 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Responsabilidad del mando Castigo Derecho penal internacional https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.5 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5 |
| Sumario: | It is important for any discipline to keep in touch with developments and ideas in other disciplines that would be considered relevant or connected to it. This proposition is as often stated as it is overlooked in academic research. There is often little appetite to genuinely engage in a fair, open, and thorough exchange between disciplines (even when closely connected), and part of it has to do with the difficulty of the task. It needs a scholar with a deep understanding of the different relevant areas to make this actually work. Darryl Robinson is one such person. He has written an insightful and important book about how international criminal law (ICL) can learn from—mainly—criminal law theory (and how criminal law can also be enriched by the kind of challenges that ICL presents).1 Robinson offers a didactic, sober, interesting account about how reasoning in ICL should be conducted, which includes a plea for the need to take structural principles of criminal law more seriously. In doing so, he also provides much-needed clarity to the convoluted doctrine of command responsibility. His writing is characteristically clear and engaging. He pays careful attention both to the nuance and granularity of philosophical argument and to the concrete practical implications of each of his positions. In this brief reaction piece, I situate this book in the broader literature, highlight a few of its main contributions, and offer a few critical thoughts. The latter are very tentative, and are intended only to pursue the broader conversation he has kicked off... |
|---|