This is a reprinting of Bohr’s response to the EPR paper, wherein Bohr relies on his principle of complementarity to demonstrate an ambiguity in the criterion of reality as described by EPR and to argue that quantum mechanics is in fact a complete description of reality given the bounds of complementarity.

This is a translation of the excerpts published in Naturwissenschaften of Grete Hermann’s 1935 essay on philosophy of quantum mechanics, recently translated into English. Her main thesis, in line with her natural-philosophical training and neo-Kantian commitments, is to argue that quantum mechanics does not refute the principle of causality. Quantum mechanics cannot be completed by, hidden variables, because it is already causally complete (albeit retroductively). In establishing this provocative thesis, she makes important use of Bohr’s principles of correspondence and complementarity and of Weizsäcker's version of the gamma-ray microscope, arguing that the lesson of quantum mechanics is the impossibility of an absolute description of nature independent of the context of observation.

This chapter describes: the creation of the ICC; its main features (such as its jurisdiction and its rules for selecting cases); opposition and criticisms; and a brief assessment of its work, including its controversial and sometimes disappointing early efforts, and the challenges that the Court confronts. The chapter discusses the Court’s jurisdiction – including personal and territorial jurisdiction, temporal jurisdiction, and subject matter jurisdiction. It discusses the ‘trigger mechanisms’: State Party referrals (including self-referrals), Security Council referrals, and initiation by the Prosecutor. It explains preliminary examination, investigation, and prosecution, as well as the selection criteria of admissibility (complementarity and gravity), and the interests of justice. It discusses opposition to the ICC, including the criticisms from the United States and the African Union, as well as key developments, such as US attacks on the ICC and threats of withdrawal from the African Union. The chapter reviews the Court’s record, including problems of collapsed cases, slow proceedings, the early focus on Africa, and accusations of selectivity and bias, as well as recent indications of progress.

The chapter situates the class of institutions variously referred to as internationalized, hybrid, mixed or special tribunals in the system of international criminal justice and highlights their main rationales and features. It addresses the known strengths and weaknesses of the hybrid institutional model as compared to purely international criminal jurisdictions. Using the classification based on these courts’ legal nature as defined by the primary basis for their establishment and functioning, the chapter surveys the main hybrid courts (including some which are yet to be established), including but not limited to the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Extraordinary African Chambers, the African Criminal Court, the UNTAET and UNMIK Special Panels (in East Timor and in Kosovo, respectively), the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, and the Special Criminal Court in the Central African Republic. It outlines the factual background to these courts’ emergence and addresses their subject-matter jurisdiction and applicable law, institutional and procedural features, and noteworthy contributions to international criminal jurisprudence. This overview is followed by the discussion of the issues raised by the hybrid courts’ (potential) relationship with the ICC and reflections on their achievements, deficiencies, and (the prospects of) wider impact.

This paper revisits the concept of reasonabilism, which subsumes a form of reconfiguration of an holistic conception of consciousness in a manner that ties contingent rational expressions or the principle of consistency to corresponding enabling sets of affectivities and conatus (degrees of beneficence or their negation as contained in volitional states) and vice versa, such that they become two sides of the same coin. The paper explores the basis of reasonability and reasonabilism in African thought, showing that African thought is not as long on the formal radial scale as it is deep on the substantive relational scale, including the relationalities and sociality of pure consciousness (self-reflecting intensionality, its representations and levels of reality) and the implications of these for the scale and depth of conceptions of justice, especially intergenerational justice as it relates to the environment and development generally. Contemporary Africa faces the challenge of retaining and deepening the conatal depth of beneficence in its Indigenous philosophical resources and heritage while expanding its radial of consistency to meet the global challenges of looming environmental disaster and the question of environmental sustainability, poverty, disease, etc. This paper also tries to point towards the necessary reconceptualization and reinvigorations that would further enrich African thought along the required lines.

In 2019, ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II decided not to open an investigation into potential Taliban and US crimes in Afghanistan on the grounds that it would not be in the ‘interests of justice’. In arriving at this conclusion, the judges relied upon management concerns about organisational sustainability and the proposed use of resources to justify their position. While heavily criticised by scholars at the time, the judges’ reasoning alludes to the pervasiveness of management ideas and reasoning throughout the court, even in the realm of legal argumentation. This chapter takes the Afghanistan decision as the starting point for a discussion on management’s relationship to core argumentative dilemmas comprising the ICC legal field. Whether in framing case selection as a matter of court capacity or fashioning past obstacles to victim participation as ‘lessons learnt’, management ideas and practices enact a flight from the dilemmas and complexities of ICC-style justice by experts, deferring critique and sustaining the institutional project of global justice.

This chapter argues that protecting rights in a constitutional democracy is a collaborative enterprise between all three branches of government, where each branch has a distinct but complementary role to play, whilst working together with the other branches in the constitutional scheme. At the heart of the chapter is a collaborative conception of the separation of powers, where the branches are situated within a heterarchical relationship of reciprocity, recognition, and respect. Grounded in the key values of comity, collaboration, and conflict management, this chapter sketches out the contours of the collaborative constitution. Instead of a conflictual dynamic of ’constitutional showdowns’, the chapter marks out a preference for ’constitutional slowdowns’. Whilst accepting the inevitability and, indeed, the legitimacy of constitutional counterbalancing and tension between the branches of government, the collaborative constitution attends to the collaborative norms which frame and shape the interaction between the branches in a well-functioning constitutional order.

The final substantive discussion looks at the idea of authority rooted in both justice and rights, discussing the development of international criminal justice alongside the human rights movement, and the way in which the justification for following such rules in rooted in an understanding of the rules serving the international population, particularly those vulnerable to atrocity crimes and victims of previous crimes. It examines the implications for a theory of authority based on rights for areas such as positive complementarity and UNSC referrals, and how these areas may need to adjust to conform to an understanding of authority which supports the legitimate exercise of power in this area. As is frequently noted, the Court’s main aim is to end impunity. If this is truly the case, it should move towards a complete approach to complementarity. This completeness should involve the generalised support for domestic prosecutions to ensure that its exercises of power are truly legitimate.

This chapter deals with an analysis of sovereignty and complementarity, including the political idea of ‘sovereignty costs,’ in which powerful actors will commit to actions which limit their power to achieve overarching aims. The exercise of complementarity in both postcolonial States and wealthy, Western States are also examined to determine whether such exercises of complementarity undermine the Court, or if these could reinforce the Court’s authority. The issue of shielding, as the protection of citizens from international prosecution through obfuscation, as a natural corollary to the preceding discussion, is then analysed, taking the examination of the situation in the UK/Iraq as a prime example. This serves as a precursor to a discussion of the examination of Afghanistan, which may confront the same issues and should be considered given that the UK/Iraq examination by the Court has now been concluded.

This chapter aims to offer certain concluding thoughts and remarks, based on the conceptual framework used and the case-studies presented throughout the book. More specifically, it critically reviews whether organisational resilience is an adequate conceptual tool to describe the modes of evolution of transnational private regulation: its birth, development, consolidation and dissolution. After reviewing certain definitional issues relating to transnational private regulation, the chapter explores the interaction between public and private authority as well as certain conceptual issues that arose from previous chapters when discussing the resilience of private rulemakers. The chapter concludes with certain directions for future research

Chapter 2 discusses “systemic effect,” which refers to the impact of the Rome Statute and the ICC on domestic legal systems. The systemic effect of the Rome Statute is presumed to be mainly through the application of the “complementarity” framework. The chapter argues that complementarity is not the main avenue to systemic effect, mainly because it is a court-centric notion that has often resulted in an adversarial relationship between the Court and national authorities. This has meant that at times the Court and national authorities compete for cases, as the national authorities seek to avoid the Court’s intervention. Instead of true complementarity, it may be more accurate to speak of “parallelism”: If national authorities are not able to arrest suspects (Uganda) or investigate (Afghanistan), neither is the ICC. Complementarity does not address wider rule of law challenges, and in some cases, it allows for unfair trials on the domestic level, as was the case in Libya. The flaws of complementarity may inhibit the Court’s impact.

The International Criminal Court seeks to end impunity for the world’s worst crimes, in order to contribute to their prevention. But what is its impact to date? This book takes an in-depth look at four countries under scrutiny of the ICC: Afghanistan, Colombia, Libya and Uganda. It puts forward an analytical framework to assess the impact of the ICC on four levels: on the domestic legal systems (systemic effect); on peace negotiations and agreements (transformative effect); on victims (reparative effect); and on the perceptions of affected populations (demonstration effect). It concludes that the ICC, through its expressive function, is having a normative impact on domestic legal systems and peace agreements, but it has brought little reparative justice for victims and it does not necessarily correspond with affected populations view justice priorities. The book concludes that justice for the world’s worst crimes has no “universal formula” that can easily be captured in law.

The International Criminal Court seeks to end impunity for the world’s worst crimes, in order to contribute to their prevention. But what is its impact to date? This book takes an in-depth look at four countries under scrutiny of the ICC: Afghanistan, Colombia, Libya and Uganda. It puts forward an analytical framework to assess the impact of the ICC on four levels: on the domestic legal systems (systemic effect); on peace negotiations and agreements (transformative effect); on victims (reparative effect); and on the perceptions of affected populations (demonstration effect). It concludes that the ICC, through its expressive function, is having a normative impact on domestic legal systems and peace agreements, but it has brought little reparative justice for victims and it does not necessarily correspond with affected populations view justice priorities. The book concludes that justice for the world’s worst crimes has no “universal formula” that can easily be captured in law.

This chapter brings into dialogue the insights of the three partial theory frames on legitimation, repression, and co-optation. Instead of looking at their individual functions and effects, this chapter proposes a conjunctural perspective. The conceptual cement that holds together these three frames is the concept of “complementarity.” Borrowing from the Varieties of Capitalism debate, it puts forward that complementarity can follow an understanding of contrast (A serves as the missing ingredient for B), of similarity (A and B are synergetic), or an economic approach of complementary goods (negative cross-price elasticity of A and B). The relationship between forms of legitimation, repression, and co-optation is assessed against these three understandings of complementarity. The chapter demonstrates why certain factors go together better than others, making the case for the two logics of over-politicization and de-politicization.

Methods to estimate evaporation from natural land surfaces can generally be subdivided into three broad categories. Mass transfer methods make use of measurements of wind velocity, temperature, and humidity; energy-budget methods require the same measurements in addition to measurements of radiation and heat conduction into the ground; water-budget methods rely on inflow, outflow, and storage change measurements in control volumes in the lower atmosphere, in the near surface soil, or in entire watersheds.

Partnerships are crucial for fostering change in society, particularly in the solving of complex problems such as climate change. They are particularly important for researchers interested in societal change, given that research in the strictest sense is only about knowledge generation. Given partnerships are crucial for outcome-focused research, the selection of diverse strategic partners is key and must be guided by theories of change. Complementary visions are important but do not always need to be tightly structured. From farmers and producer groups to international agencies, multi-level partnerships help promote action at different levels. Collaborative arrangements are important but can be informal and flexible; many successful longer-term partnerships are deep and trustful at their core, often with informal relationships.