Research Themes

Crime control, criminal law and criminal justice, given their traditional association with the sovereignty and jurisdiction of nation states, have been relatively slow to feel the effects of globalisation. As a consequence, supra-national institution-building in the fields of policing and criminal justice (and their integration) have only recently begun to emerge as prominent subjects of academic enquiry and research. International criminal justice as a normative framework for global governance is now influencing conflict resolution and peacemaking in a manner not known in domestic justice settings.

International terrorism, trans-national organised crime, illegal commercial and environmental activities that cut across national boarders, people trafficking, drug smuggling, money laundering are all becoming prominent concerns for global security and world order. The next decade is likely to see a significant expansion in co-ordinated control strategies directed at trans-national security and the global governance of crime. Hence, issues of internationalisation, comparative lesson-drawing and the role of supra-national institutions are likely to become more prominent, with considerable impact on global governance and local expressions of crime control. Aligned with this is the rapid expansion in alternative, indigenous and restorative justice paradigms to address victim community interests in post-conflict states. The manner in which transitional justice influences the transformation of more formal international criminal justice institutions and processes is also an important and emergent research direction.

Theme I - International Criminal Justice and Global Governance

The international criminal trial, with the activation of the ICC, is now the symbolic and institutional focus of international criminal justice. However, as the experience of the international criminal tribunals and the special criminal courts demonstrate, a focus on retributive trial justice has failed to satisfy the legitimate interests of victim communities. Questions of access, inclusion and integration are challenging the justice on offer through international criminal tribunals. At the level of process, the vagaries of international criminal law and procedure make the development of truly international trial professionalism problematic.

In order to determine questions of fairness as they relate to international criminal trials much more than an understanding of influential procedural traditions is necessary. The relationship between human rights and trial practice provokes engagement with communitarian considerations of global community. From this perspective, the position of the victim voice, and the availability of both restorative and retributive justice have fuelled the discussion of international trial transformation.

International criminal trials may be limited in the crimes before them and in their formal jurisdictions and constituencies. However, the recent governance imperative to direct international criminal justice more towards conflict resolution and peacemaking have brought trial and alternative justice processes closer together. Interests in fact/liability and truth/responsibility are moving international criminal justice beyond a retributive exercise. As a consequence, the challenge for international criminal justice, through trials in particular, is to provide an accountability mechanism in global governance, similar to the normative role of state-based trial justice.

Coordinator: Professor Mark Findlay (University of Sydney)
Contact: Mark.Findlay@usyd.edu.au

Theme II - Comparative penology and penal policies

It is now well-established that, despite the pressures of globalisation, there has been only a limited amount of convergence in terms of penal policy between different types of late modern societies and that differences within their political economies are likely to furnish the most plausible explanation for the resistance that some have shown. Cavadino and Dignan’s recent comparative analysis of imprisonment rates, youth justice arrangements and penal privatisation policies in a variety of countries has generated a typology of four distinct families of criminal justice system that are rooted in different kinds of political economy: neo-liberal, conservative corporatist, social democratic and oriental corporatist. The tendency to develop a ‘culture of control’ and to ‘govern through crime’ which some commentators suggest have global implications have in fact predominantly been associated to date with countries in the ‘neo-liberal’ camp and are much less prevalent in other types of polities.

The WUN network meeting provides an opportunity to develop and extend this analysis with specific reference to recent penal policy developments in a range of neo-liberal jurisdictions. Two broad themes are of particular interest. First, does the link between neo-liberalism and harsh penal policy apply at sub-national level - which Beckett and Western have shown to be the case in the United States - within other neo-liberal jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia and the constituent parts of the United Kingdom? And second, what kind of factors – cultural, structural, institutional - might help to explain this apparent link between harsh penal policies and neo-liberal tendencies? More specifically, is there any evidence to support the suggestion that welfare and punishment are functionally equivalent methods of social control and that cut-backs in welfare provision are likely to be associated with a heavier reliance on more formal methods of social control?

Coordinator: Professor Jim Dignan (University of Leeds)
Contact: J.Dignan@leeds.ac.uk

Theme III - Comparative urban governance and international policing agenda

Safety and security have become pre-eminent concerns of urban governance manifest in terms of policing both international security threats and local incivilities, anti-social behaviour and disorder. The events of 9/11, 7/7 and the Madrid bombings have focused considerable attention on ‘new’ security threats presented by international terrorism, whilst an emergent ‘politics of behaviour’ has alerted authorities to the policing of low level but persistent degradations of public space presented by certain disorders and behaviour that impact on ‘quality of life’. Often these distinct threats to peace and local social order are fused and confused in policy debates and technologies of control. Deriving from, and driving, both is an emphasis on managing public perceptions of (in)security which informs the work of, and has become a preoccupation for, municipal governments, the police and other public and private organisations. Regulating public (and quasi-public) spaces through security has become a significant force in shaping the physical and social environment and urban landscape.

The agenda of this stream will be to consider convergences and divergences with regard to urban governance and policing across different jurisdictions in order to draw out thematic trends and their explanations. It will also consider the extent to which an internationalisation of policing forms and styles is evident and, if so, provide insights into their possible implications. A number of key questions will be considered: to what extent is urban governance being refigured on the basis of preoccupations with (in)security and (dis)order? What forms do these modes of governance, regulation and policing take? What are their implications for social relations, established freedoms and notions of citizenship?

Coordinator: Professor Adam Crawford (University of Leeds)
Contact: A.Crawford@leeds.ac.uk