In two studies, we tested the power of revenge as a justification mechanism thatenables people to cheat with a clear conscience. Specifically, we explored theeffects of prior dishonesty and unfairness towards participants on theirsubsequent moral behavior, as well as the physiological arousal associated withit. To this end, we employed a two-phase procedure. In the first phase,participants played one round of a bargaining game (the Ultimatum game in Study1 and the Dictator game in Study 2) in which we manipulated whether the playershad been treated (un)fairly and (dis)honestly by their opponent. In the secondphase, they did a perceptual task that allowed them to cheat for monetary gainat the expense of their opponent from the first phase. In Study 1, participantsalso took a lie detector test to assess whether their dishonesty in the secondphase could be detected. The behavioral results in both studies indicated thatthe opponent’s dishonesty was a stronger driver than theopponent’s unfairness for cheating as a form of retaliation. However, thephysiological arousal results suggest that feeling mistreated in general (andnot just cheated) allowed the participants to get revenge by cheating theoffender while dismissing their associated guilt feelings.

Political scientists often distinguish between two types of issues: moral versus non-moral issues or social-cultural versus economic issues. The implication is that these types of issues trigger different types of reasoning: while economic issues rely on pragmatic, consequentialist reasoning, social-cultural issues are said to be dependent on principles and deontological reasoning. However, it is not known whether this distinction is as clear-cut from a citizen's perspective. Scholars agree that understanding the morality of voters’ political attitudes has implications for their political behaviour, such as their willingness to compromise and openness to deliberation. However, few studies have analysed whether citizens reason in principled or pragmatic ways on different issues. This study takes an exploratory approach and analyses the determinants of principled versus pragmatic reasoning in direct democracy, in which citizens make direct policy decisions at the ballot box. Using a unique dataset based on thirty-four ballot decisions in Switzerland, it explores the justifications voters give for their ballot decisions in open-ended survey answers. It distinguishes between pragmatic (or consequentialist) arguments and principled (or value-based) arguments. The analysis shows that principled justifications are not tied to particular issues. Voters use both types of justifications almost equally frequently. Moral justifications are more likely when an issue is personally relevant, as well as when a proposition is accepted, while pragmatic justifications prevail when a proposition is rejected. Furthermore, right-wing voters more often argue in pragmatic terms. Finally, the framing of the issue during the campaign significantly affects moral versus pragmatic justifications.

In the context of the recent financial meltdown, the financial industry has frequently been accused of being indifferent to the irregular practices of its members or even to be criminogenic. But how do actors of the financial industry respond to such accusations and defend themselves? How do they justify their actions when facing legal charges as well as public blame? This article elucidates these questions through a rare ethnographic case: the first criminal trial of a trader involved in the manipulation of Libor, which took place in London in 2015. Tied to at least $300 trillion contracts, Libor is a benchmark that plays a key role in the financial industry. The paper offers a sociological framework to capture the justifications of financial wrongdoings, arguing that they are structured around three elements: (a) a conception of rules; (b) a narrative; (c) a form of responsibility. I distinguish three justifications: the one of the maker, of the interpreter and of the user. I finally discuss how these justifications contribute to the general tolerance towards white-collar crime.

In 1975, as part of a complete reform of divorce law, France eliminated traditional spousal support awards in favour of payment of a “compensatory allowance.” French law thus went counter to the solutions adopted by most European legal systems, which held with maintaining a support obligation between former spouses as the expression of a duty to assist that continues beyond the divorce.

This analysis examines that innovation and the debate it generated among French parliamentarians and the legal community alike, identifying the justifications advanced by the actors in the French legal system for post-divorce financial compensation itself. We see that in spite of the innovation sought, there is no consensus on the question of the basis for financial compensation after divorce. In the most recent period, however, there has been more openness to remedying inequality associated with differences in the spouses’ investments in household activities.

Unlike Western common-law jurisdictions where plea bargaining has been acknowledged, official discourse in Hong Kong denies the existence of plea bargaining. However, defence lawyers are staunch supporters of its use behind the scenes. Using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with Hong Kong criminal defence lawyers, it was found that lawyers’ justifications are based on four main grounds: it is non-coercive because the final decision is left to the accused; negotiations avoid the risks of trials; plea bargaining is a practical solution that is in the best interests of the client and the state; and the courts implicitly tolerate the practice. The findings can be explained by Eisenstein and Jacob’s (1991) courtroom workgroup model. The present study seeks to bridge the gap in the literature where plea bargaining has only been discussed predominately in the context of Western common-law jurisdictions.

This study tests the direct relevance of justifications and social comparisons (predictors of perceptions of fairness) on different types of household labour distribution, and the importance of masculinity ideology and neosexism on these variables. The participants were heterosexual dual-earner couples. Our results showed that both men and women use more justifications when their housework distribution is not equal, but only women use social comparisons associated with the ways of distributing domestic work. In addition, we observe that, in both men and women, justifications are related to a traditional masculine ideology, but a different model appears in relation to comparisons which are associated with neosexism in men and with traditional masculine ideology in women. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

This article analyzes the Iraq inquiry in The Netherlands as presented by the Davids Committee (Rapport Commissie van onderzoek besluitvorming Irak. Boom, Amsterdam, 2010). It discusses the so-called corpus theory that informed the Dutch position that the invasion in Iraq was in accordance with international law, and its deconstruction by the Davids Committee. However, this article also argues that the corpus theory was only part of the story. In the search for justifying its political support of the war, the corpus theory interacted with two other claims for legitimacy put forward by the Dutch government. These alternative strands of legitimacy moved beyond positive law to include extra-Charter values (notably with regard to state roguery in the New World Order) on the one hand, and to circumvent the politics within the Security Council (legitimacy through defiance), on the other hand. The analysis discloses how any legal argumentation and bids for legitimacy are based on a particular vision of the international society and how to safeguard law, peace, and freedom in the contemporary international order. Together this leads to a more nuanced view, which does not alter the conclusion that the Iraq war was illegal, but which does show that it can be deceptive to reduce international policy-making to a zero-sum choice between law and politics narrowly defined.

This chapter examines the relevance of the principle of necessity to the international rules on the use of force. It claims that necessity has been the source of the international rules on the use of force which as independent titles manifest themselves in institutional as well as in customary forms. It also claims that the use of force constitutes a special regime of international law which is distinct from the law of state responsibility with which it however interacts.