- Table View
- List View
Judging in the Islamic, Jewish and Zoroastrian Legal Traditions: A Comparison of Theory and Practice (Cultural Diversity and Law)
by Janos JanyThis book presents a comparative analysis of the judiciary in the Islamic, Jewish and Zoroastrian legal systems. It compares postulations of legal theory to legal practice in order to show that social practice can diverge significantly from religious and legal principles. It thus provides a greater understanding of the real functions of religion in these legal systems, regardless of the dogmatic positions of the religions themselves. The judiciary is the focus of the study as it is the judge who is obliged to administer to legal texts while having to consider social realities being sometimes at variance with religious ethics and legal rules deriving from them. This book fills a gap in the literature examining Islamic, Jewish and Zoroastrian law and as such will open new possibilities for further studies in the field of comparative law. It will be a valuable resource for those working in the areas of comparative law, law and religion, law and society, and legal anthropology.
Judging Insanity, Punishing Difference: A History of Mental Illness in the Criminal Court (The Cultural Lives of Law)
by Chloé DeambrogioIn Judging Insanity, Punishing Difference, Chloé Deambrogio explores how developments in the field of forensic psychiatry shaped American courts' assessments of defendants' mental health and criminal responsibility over the course of the twentieth century. During this period, new psychiatric notions of the mind and its readability, legal doctrines of insanity and diminished culpability, and cultural stereotypes about race and gender shaped the ways in which legal professionals, mental health experts, and lay witnesses approached mental disability evidence, especially in cases carrying the death penalty. Using Texas as a case study, Deambrogio examines how these medical, legal, and cultural trends shaped psycho-legal debates in state criminal courts, while shedding light on the ways in which experts and lay actors' interpretations of "pathological" mental states influenced trial verdicts in capital cases. She shows that despite mounting pressures from advocates of the "rehabilitative penology," Texas courts maintained a punitive approach towards defendants allegedly affected by severe mental disabilities, while allowing for moralized views about personalities, habits, and lifestyle to influence psycho-legal assessments, in potentially prejudicial ways.
Judging Insanity, Punishing Difference: A History of Mental Illness in the Criminal Court (The Cultural Lives of Law)
by Chloé DeambrogioIn Judging Insanity, Punishing Difference, Chloé Deambrogio explores how developments in the field of forensic psychiatry shaped American courts' assessments of defendants' mental health and criminal responsibility over the course of the twentieth century. During this period, new psychiatric notions of the mind and its readability, legal doctrines of insanity and diminished culpability, and cultural stereotypes about race and gender shaped the ways in which legal professionals, mental health experts, and lay witnesses approached mental disability evidence, especially in cases carrying the death penalty. Using Texas as a case study, Deambrogio examines how these medical, legal, and cultural trends shaped psycho-legal debates in state criminal courts, while shedding light on the ways in which experts and lay actors' interpretations of "pathological" mental states influenced trial verdicts in capital cases. She shows that despite mounting pressures from advocates of the "rehabilitative penology," Texas courts maintained a punitive approach towards defendants allegedly affected by severe mental disabilities, while allowing for moralized views about personalities, habits, and lifestyle to influence psycho-legal assessments, in potentially prejudicial ways.
Judging International Human Rights: Courts of General Jurisdiction as Human Rights Courts
by Thilo Rensmann Stefan Kadelbach Eva RieterThis book attempts to establish how courts of general jurisdiction differ from specialized human rights courts in their approach to the implementation and development of international human rights. Why do courts of general jurisdiction face particular problems in relation to the application of international human rights law and why, in other cases, are they better placed than specialized human rights courts to act as guardians of international human rights? At the international level, this volume focusses on the International Court of Justice and courts of regional economic integration organizations in Europe, Latin America and Africa. With regard to the judicial implementation of international human rights and human rights decisions at the domestic level, the contributions analyze the requirements set by human rights treaties and offer a series of country studies on the practice of domestic courts in Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia. This book follows up on research undertaken by the International Human Rights Law Committee of the International Law Association. It includes the final Committee report as well as contributions by committee members and external experts.
Judging Justice: How Victim Witnesses Evaluate International Courts
by James D Meernik Kimi L KingSome injustices are so massive, so heinous, and so extraordinary that ordinary courts are no longer adequate. The creation of international courts and tribunals to confront major violations of human rights sought to bring justice to affected communities as well as to the entire world. Yet if justice is a righting of the imbalance between what has happened and what is reflected in the law, no amount of punishment and no judgment could compensate for that suffering and loss. In order to understand the meaning of justice, James David Meernik and Kimi Lynn King studied the perspective of witnesses who have testified before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Using a unique survey, Meernik and King look at the identity of the victims and their perception of the fairness of ICTY. Because of the need to justify the practical and emotional difficulties involved in testifying before an international tribunal, witnesses look not just to the institution to judge its effectiveness, but also to their own contribution, by testifying effectively. The central elements of the theory Meernik and King develop—identity, fairness, and experience—transcend specific conflicts and specific countries and are of importance to people everywhere.
Judging Law and Policy: Courts and Policymaking in the American Political System
by Robert M. Howard Amy SteigerwaltTo what extent do courts make social and public policy and influence policy change? This innovative text analyzes this question generally and in seven distinct policy areas that play out in both federal and state courts—tax policy, environmental policy, reproductive rights, sex equality, affirmative action, school finance, and same-sex marriage. The authors address these issues through the twin lenses of how state and federal courts must and do interact with the other branches of government and whether judicial policy-making is a form of activist judging. Each chapter uncovers the policymaking aspects of judicial process by investigating the current state of the law, the extent of court involvement in policy change, the responses of other governmental entities and outside actors, and the factors which influenced the degree of implementation and impact of the relevant court decisions. Throughout the book, Howard and Steigerwalt examine and analyze the literature on judicial policy-making as well as evaluate existing measures of judicial ideology, judicial activism, court and legal policy formation, policy change and policy impact. This unique text offers new insights and areas to research in this important field of American politics.
Judging Law and Policy: Courts and Policymaking in the American Political System
by Amy Steigerwalt Robert M. HowardTo what extent do courts make social and public policy and influence policy change? This innovative text analyzes this question generally and in seven distinct policy areas that play out in both federal and state courts—tax policy, environmental policy, reproductive rights, sex equality, affirmative action, school finance, and same-sex marriage. The authors address these issues through the twin lenses of how state and federal courts must and do interact with the other branches of government and whether judicial policy-making is a form of activist judging. Each chapter uncovers the policymaking aspects of judicial process by investigating the current state of the law, the extent of court involvement in policy change, the responses of other governmental entities and outside actors, and the factors which influenced the degree of implementation and impact of the relevant court decisions. Throughout the book, Howard and Steigerwalt examine and analyze the literature on judicial policy-making as well as evaluate existing measures of judicial ideology, judicial activism, court and legal policy formation, policy change and policy impact. This unique text offers new insights and areas to research in this important field of American politics.
Judging Positivism
by Margaret MartinJudging Positivism is a critical exploration of the method and substance of legal positivism. Margaret Martin is primarily concerned with the manner in which theorists who adopt the dominant positivist paradigm ask a limited set of questions and offer an equally limited set of answers, artificially circumscribing the field of legal philosophy in the process. The book focuses primarily but not exclusively on the writings of prominent legal positivist, Joseph Raz. Martin argues that Raz's theory has changed over time and that these changes have led to deep inconsistencies and incoherencies in his account. One re-occurring theme in the book is that Razian positivism collapses from within. In the process of defending his own position, Raz is led to support the views of many of his main rivals, namely, Ronald Dworkin, the legal realists and the normative positivists. The internal collapse of Razian positivism proves to be instructive. Promising paths of inquiry come into view and questions that have been suppressed or marginalised by positivists re-emerge ready for curious minds to reflect on anew. The broader vision of jurisprudential inquiry defended in this book re-connects philosophy with the work of practitioners and the worries of law's subjects, bringing into focus the relevance of legal philosophy for lawyers and laymen alike.
Judging Positivism
by Margaret MartinJudging Positivism is a critical exploration of the method and substance of legal positivism. Margaret Martin is primarily concerned with the manner in which theorists who adopt the dominant positivist paradigm ask a limited set of questions and offer an equally limited set of answers, artificially circumscribing the field of legal philosophy in the process. The book focuses primarily but not exclusively on the writings of prominent legal positivist, Joseph Raz. Martin argues that Raz's theory has changed over time and that these changes have led to deep inconsistencies and incoherencies in his account. One re-occurring theme in the book is that Razian positivism collapses from within. In the process of defending his own position, Raz is led to support the views of many of his main rivals, namely, Ronald Dworkin, the legal realists and the normative positivists. The internal collapse of Razian positivism proves to be instructive. Promising paths of inquiry come into view and questions that have been suppressed or marginalised by positivists re-emerge ready for curious minds to reflect on anew. The broader vision of jurisprudential inquiry defended in this book re-connects philosophy with the work of practitioners and the worries of law's subjects, bringing into focus the relevance of legal philosophy for lawyers and laymen alike.
Judging Regulators: The Political Economy of Anglo-American Administrative Law (Elgar Monographs in Constitutional and Administrative Law)
by Eric C. IpDrawing insights from economics and political science, Judging Regulators explains why the administrative law of the US and the UK has radically diverged from each other on questions of law, fact, and discretion. This book proposes an original interdisciplinary theory that integrates the concept of veto-gates into a strategic model of judicial review of administrative action. It argues that long-term changes in the number of effective veto-gates in the US and the UK are the key to understanding the antithesis that emerged between their administrative jurisprudence. It then forecasts the future of Anglo-American administrative law in light of recent destabilizing political developments, such as attempts by the US Congress to abolish Chevron deference and the UK Supreme Court’s interventionist decision in R (on the application of Miller) v. The Prime Minister. A crucial overview of the history and future of administrative law, this book is critical reading for scholars and students of public law and comparative law, particularly those focusing on comparative administrative law in common law contexts. Its theoretical insights will also be useful for political scientists and economists interested in judicial politics and regulation.
Judging Statutes
by Robert A. KatzmannIn an ideal world, the laws of Congress--known as federal statutes--would always be clearly worded and easily understood by the judges tasked with interpreting them. But many laws feature ambiguous or even contradictory wording. How, then, should judges divine their meaning? Should they stick only to the text? To what degree, if any, should they consult aids beyond the statutes themselves? Are the purposes of lawmakers in writing law relevant? Some judges, such as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe courts should look to the language of the statute and virtually nothing else. Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit respectfully disagrees. In Judging Statutes, Katzmann, who is a trained political scientist as well as a judge, argues that our constitutional system charges Congress with enacting laws; therefore, how Congress makes its purposes known through both the laws themselves and reliable accompanying materials should be respected. He looks at how the American government works, including how laws come to be and how various agencies construe legislation. He then explains the judicial process of interpreting and applying these laws through the demonstration of two interpretative approaches, purposivism (focusing on the purpose of a law) and textualism (focusing solely on the text of the written law). Katzmann draws from his experience to show how this process plays out in the real world, and concludes with some suggestions to promote understanding between the courts and Congress. When courts interpret the laws of Congress, they should be mindful of how Congress actually functions, how lawmakers signal the meaning of statutes, and what those legislators expect of courts construing their laws. The legislative record behind a law is in truth part of its foundation, and therefore merits consideration.
Judging Statutes
by Robert A. KatzmannIn an ideal world, the laws of Congress--known as federal statutes--would always be clearly worded and easily understood by the judges tasked with interpreting them. But many laws feature ambiguous or even contradictory wording. How, then, should judges divine their meaning? Should they stick only to the text? To what degree, if any, should they consult aids beyond the statutes themselves? Are the purposes of lawmakers in writing law relevant? Some judges, such as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe courts should look to the language of the statute and virtually nothing else. Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit respectfully disagrees. In Judging Statutes, Katzmann, who is a trained political scientist as well as a judge, argues that our constitutional system charges Congress with enacting laws; therefore, how Congress makes its purposes known through both the laws themselves and reliable accompanying materials should be respected. He looks at how the American government works, including how laws come to be and how various agencies construe legislation. He then explains the judicial process of interpreting and applying these laws through the demonstration of two interpretative approaches, purposivism (focusing on the purpose of a law) and textualism (focusing solely on the text of the written law). Katzmann draws from his experience to show how this process plays out in the real world, and concludes with some suggestions to promote understanding between the courts and Congress. When courts interpret the laws of Congress, they should be mindful of how Congress actually functions, how lawmakers signal the meaning of statutes, and what those legislators expect of courts construing their laws. The legislative record behind a law is in truth part of its foundation, and therefore merits consideration.
Judging the Judges, Judging Ourselves: Truth, Reconciliation and the Apartheid Legal Order
by David DyzenhausWith a Foreword by the South African Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, Kader Asmal.The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established in South Africa after the collapse of apartheid, was the bold creation of a people committed to the task of rebuilding of a nation and establishing a society founded upon justice, equality and respect for the rule of law. As part of its historic, cathartic, mission, the TRC held a special hearing, calling to account the lawyers - judges, academics and members of the bar -who had been crucial participants in the apartheid legal order. This book is an account of those hearings, and an attempt to evaluate, in the light of theories of adjudication, the historical role of the judiciary and bar in the apartheid years.This book offers us the spectacle of an entire legal system on trial. The echoes from this process are captured here in a way which will appeal to all readers, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, interested in the relationship between law and justice, as it is exposed during a period of transition to democracy.
Judging the Jury
by Valerie P. Hans Neil VidmarIn this work, Hans and Vidmar review the historical evolution of the trial jury, the contemporary role of the jury in the American criminal justice system, and future prospects for the jury as an institutional force. (Choice)
Judging the Law of the Sea
by Natalie Klein Kate ParlettThe dispute settlement regime in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has been in operation for well over twenty years with a steadily increasing number of important cases. This significant body of case law has meaningfully contributed to the development of the so-called 'constitution of the oceans'. Judging the Law of the Sea focusses on how Judges interpret and apply UNCLOS and it explores how these cases are shaping the law of the sea. The role of the Judge is central to this book's analysis. The authors consider the role of UNCLOS Judges by engaging in an intensive study of the their decisions to date and assessing how those decisions have influenced and will continue to influence the law of the sea in the future. As the case law under UNCLOS is less extensive than some other areas of compulsory jurisdiction like trade and investment, the phenomenon of dispute settlement under UNCLOS is under-studied by comparison. Cases have not only refined the parameters for the exercise of compulsory jurisdiction under the Convention, but also contributed to the interpretation and application of substantive rights and obligations in the law of the sea. In relation to jurisdiction, there is important guidance on what disputes are likely to be subjected to binding third-party dispute resolution, which is a critical consideration for a treaty attracting almost 170 parties. Judging the Law of the Sea brings together an analysis of all the case law to the present day while acknowledging the complex factors that are inherent to the judicial decision-making process. It also engages with the diverse facets that continue to influence the process: who the Judges are, what they do, and what their roles might or should be. To capture the complex decision matrix, the authors explore the possible application of stakeholder identification theory to explain who and what counts in the decision-making process.
Judging the Law of the Sea
by Kate Parlett Natalie KleinThe dispute settlement regime in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has been in operation for well over twenty years with a steadily increasing number of important cases. This significant body of case law has meaningfully contributed to the development of the so-called 'constitution of the oceans'. Judging the Law of the Sea focusses on how Judges interpret and apply UNCLOS and it explores how these cases are shaping the law of the sea. The role of the Judge is central to this book's analysis. The authors consider the role of UNCLOS Judges by engaging in an intensive study of the their decisions to date and assessing how those decisions have influenced and will continue to influence the law of the sea in the future. As the case law under UNCLOS is less extensive than some other areas of compulsory jurisdiction like trade and investment, the phenomenon of dispute settlement under UNCLOS is under-studied by comparison. Cases have not only refined the parameters for the exercise of compulsory jurisdiction under the Convention, but also contributed to the interpretation and application of substantive rights and obligations in the law of the sea. In relation to jurisdiction, there is important guidance on what disputes are likely to be subjected to binding third-party dispute resolution, which is a critical consideration for a treaty attracting almost 170 parties. Judging the Law of the Sea brings together an analysis of all the case law to the present day while acknowledging the complex factors that are inherent to the judicial decision-making process. It also engages with the diverse facets that continue to influence the process: who the Judges are, what they do, and what their roles might or should be. To capture the complex decision matrix, the authors explore the possible application of stakeholder identification theory to explain who and what counts in the decision-making process.
Judging the Past: Ethics, History and Memory
by Geoffrey ScarreThis book presents an extended argument for the thesis that people of the present day are not debarred in principle from passing moral judgement on people who lived in former days, notwithstanding the inevitable differences in social and cultural circumstances that separate us. Some philosophers argue that because we can see things only from our own peculiar historical situation, we lack a sufficiently objective vantage point from which to appraise past people and their acts. If they are correct, then the judgements passed by twenty-first-century people must inevitably be biased and irrelevant, grounded on moral standards that would have seemed alien in that 'foreign country' of the past. This book challenges this relativistic position, contending that it seriously underestimates our ability to engage imaginatively with people who, however much their lifestyles may have differed from our own, were our fellow human beings, endowed with the same basic instincts, aversions, desires and aspirations. Taking a stand on a naturalistic theory of human beings, coupled with a Kantian conception of the equal worth of all human members of the Kingdom of Ends, Scarre argues that historical moral judgements can be sensitive to circumstances, fitting and fair, and untainted by anachronism. The discussion ends by examining the implications of this position for the practice of historians and for the ethics of memory and commemoration.
Judging the State in International Trade and Investment Law: Sovereignty Modern, the Law and the Economics (International Law and the Global South)
by Leïla ChoukrouneThis book addresses concerns with the international trade and investment dispute settlement systems from a statist perspective, at a time when multilateralism is deeply questioned by the forces of mega-regionalism and political and economic contestation. In covering recent case law and theoretical discussions, the book’s contributors analyze the particularities of statehood and the limitations of the dispute settlement systems to judge sovereign actors as autonomous regulators.From a democratic deficit coupled with a deficit of legitimacy in relation to the questionable professionalism, independence and impartiality of adjudicators to the lack of consistency of decisions challenging essential public policies, trade and investment disputes have proven controversial. These challenges call for a rethinking of why, how and what for, are States judged. Based on a “sovereignty modern” approach, which takes into account the latest evolutions of a globalized trade and investment law struggling to put people’s expectations at its core, the book provides a comprehensive framework and truly original perspective linking the various facets of “judicial activity” to the specific yet encompassing character of international law and the rule of law in international society. In doing so, it covers a large variety of issues such as global judicial capacity building and judicial professionalism from an international and domestic comparative angle, trade liberalisation and States' legitimate rights and expectations to protect societal values, the legal challenges of being a State claimant, the uses and misuses of imported legal concepts and principles in multidisciplinary adjudications and, lastly, the need to reunify international law on a (human) rights based approach.
Judging War Criminals: The Politics of International Justice
by Y. BeigbederIn June 1998, diplomats met in Rome to draft the Statute of an International Criminal Court. Based on the precedents of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals and of the War Crimes Tribunals for Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the new Court will judge individuals, not States. Unpunished mass slaughters have occurred in many countries. National justice is often ineffective. Truth and reconciliation commissions complement but do not replace justice. International 'Peoples' Tribunals have no international legitimacy. It is hoped that a permanent, international criminal court may combat impunity and deter more crimes.
Judging War, Judging History: Behind Truth And Reconciliation (pdf) (Stanford Studies In Human Rights Ser.)
by Pierre Hazan Sarah Meyer De StadelhofenIn the aftermath of violence and war, justice for crimes committed may be the only possibility for restoring and healing communities. This book documents both the strengths and limitations of truth commissions and international criminal law in reconciling divided societies.
Judgment: A Novel
by Joseph FinderTHE NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLING AUTHOR 'STUNNING' Peter James. 'FANTASTIC' Martina Cole. 'TERRIFIC' Ian Rankin. 'TIMELY' Karin Slaughter. 'TWISTY' J.P. Delaney. 'EXQUISITE' David Baldacci. It was just one night. But it was a night that would destroy everything. Judge Juliana Brody is a woman with principles. She is happily married, she doesn't drink, she doesn't lose control. She definitely doesn't sleep with a handsome stranger at a law convention. Except that, last night, that is exactly what she did. Matias understands that if anyone found out about their one-night stand, it would destroy Juliana's marriage and, most likely, her career. They agree that they will never see each other again. And then, a week later, he walks into her courtroom. Julia knew that her latest brief, a high-profile sex discrimination case, would make her some powerful enemies. But she didn't expect her own life, and the lives of her family, to be put in mortal danger... 'Gripping, trenchant and human. One of the best novels I've read this year' Stav Sherez. 'Stunning... I cannot remember when I last read a book so gripping and so satisfying' Peter James. 'A masterclass in tension, with complex characters and a twisty plot' J.P. Delaney.
Judgment: New Trajectories in Law (New Trajectories in Law)
by Thomas GiddensJudgment is simple, right? This book begs to differ. Written for all students of the law—from undergraduate to supreme court justice—it opens the reader to a broad landscape of ideas surrounding common law judgment. Short and accessible, it touches upon the many pathways that lead out from the phenomenon of judgment in common law jurisdictions. This book is unique in its brevity and scope. It engages not only with the core operation of judgment as legal decision, but considers questions of authority and reason, and broader issues of interpretation, rhetoric, and judicial improvisation. The aim of this book is not to present a summary of research or a comprehensive ‘theory’ of judgment, nor is it bounded by the divisions of different legal subjects. Instead, it is a handbook or companion for students of the law to read and return to in their studious journeys across all common law topic areas, providing readers with a robust and open-ended set of tools, combined with selected further readings, to facilitate their own discovery, exploration, and critical analysis of the rich tapestry of common law judgment.
Judgment: New Trajectories in Law (New Trajectories in Law)
by Thomas GiddensJudgment is simple, right? This book begs to differ. Written for all students of the law—from undergraduate to supreme court justice—it opens the reader to a broad landscape of ideas surrounding common law judgment. Short and accessible, it touches upon the many pathways that lead out from the phenomenon of judgment in common law jurisdictions. This book is unique in its brevity and scope. It engages not only with the core operation of judgment as legal decision, but considers questions of authority and reason, and broader issues of interpretation, rhetoric, and judicial improvisation. The aim of this book is not to present a summary of research or a comprehensive ‘theory’ of judgment, nor is it bounded by the divisions of different legal subjects. Instead, it is a handbook or companion for students of the law to read and return to in their studious journeys across all common law topic areas, providing readers with a robust and open-ended set of tools, combined with selected further readings, to facilitate their own discovery, exploration, and critical analysis of the rich tapestry of common law judgment.
Judgment and Mercy: The Turbulent Life and Times of the Judge Who Condemned the Rosenbergs
by Martin J. SiegelIn Judgment and Mercy, Martin J. Siegel offers an insightful and compelling biography of Irving Robert Kaufman, the judge infamous for condemning Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to death for atomic espionage.In 1951, world attention fixed on Kaufman's courtroom as its ambitious young occupant stridently blamed the Rosenbergs for the Korean War. To many, the harsh sentences and their preening author left an enduring stain on American justice. But then the judge from Cold War central casting became something unexpected: one of the most illustrious progressive jurists of his day. Upending the simplistic portrait of Judge Kaufman as a McCarthyite villain, Siegel shows how his pathbreaking decisions desegregated a Northern school for the first time, liberalized the insanity defense, reformed Attica-era prisons, spared John Lennon from politically motivated deportation, expanded free speech, brought foreign torturers to justice, and more. Still, the Rosenberg controversy lingered. Decades later, changing times and revelations of judicial misconduct put Kaufman back under siege. Picketers dogged his footsteps as critics demanded impeachment. And tragedy stalked his family, attributed in part to the long ordeal. Instead of propelling him to the Supreme Court, as Kaufman once hoped, the case haunted him to the end.Absorbingly told, Judgment and Mercy brings to life a complex man by turns tyrannical and warm, paranoid and altruistic, while revealing intramural Jewish battles over assimilation, class, and patriotism. Siegel, who served as Kaufman's last law clerk, traces the evolution of American law and politics in the twentieth century and shows how a judge unable to summon mercy for the Rosenbergs nonetheless helped expand freedom for all.
Judgment At Istanbul: The Armenian Genocide Trials
by Vahakn N. Dadrian Taner AkçamTurkey’s bid to join the European Union has lent new urgency to the issue of the Armenian Genocide as differing interpretations of the genocide are proving to be a major reason for the delay of the its accession. This book provides vital background information and is a prime source of legal evidence and authentic Turkish eyewitness testimony of the intent and the crime of genocide against the Armenians. After a long and painstaking effort, the authors, one an Armenian, the other a Turk, generally recognized as the foremost experts on the Armenian Genocide, have prepared a new, authoritative translation and detailed analysis of the Takvim-i Vekâyi, the official Ottoman Government record of the Turkish Military Tribunals concerning the crimes committed against the Armenians during World War I. The authors have compiled the documentation of the trial proceedings for the first time in English and situated them within their historical and legal context. These documents show that Wartime Cabinet ministers, Young Turk party leaders, and a number of others inculpated in these crimes were court-martialed by the Turkish Military Tribunals in the years immediately following World War I. Most were found guilty and received sentences ranging from prison with hard labor to death. In remarkable contrast to Nuremberg, the Turkish Military Tribunals were conducted solely on the basis of existing Ottoman domestic penal codes. This substitution of a national for an international criminal court stands in history as a unique initiative of national self-condemnation. This compilation is significantly enhanced by an extensive analysis of the historical background, political nature and legal implications of the criminal prosecution of the twentieth century’s first state-sponsored crime of genocide.