Brian's Notes

You Can't Charge the US with Genocide Without the US Government's Consent

Fri, 06 May 2011 14:41:16 -0400

I noticed an interested Reservation in the US Ratification of the Convention on Genocide. If the Palestinian people, the indigenous communities of Guatemala, or any other victims of the US were to ever attempt to charge the US government with genocide in the International Court of Justice, it’s worth noting that the US has exempted itself from such charges.

Specifically, the first Reservation submitted with the US ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states:

That with reference to article IX of the Convention, be fore any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.

Coincidentally, the US government ratified the Convention on Genocide during the reign of the Reagan administration—-the administration that earned the US the condemnation of the International Court of Justice for its illegal “dirty war” against the Nicaraguan government. This is also why the US still refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

If torture is so wrong...

Thu, 05 May 2011 06:06:43 -0400

If torture is so wrong...

WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE INANIMATE OBJECT?

Wed, 04 May 2011 14:27:39 -0400

I can’t narrow the list to just one.

Crime, Punishment, and Neuroscience

Wed, 04 May 2011 06:41:01 -0400

Crime, Punishment, and Neuroscience:

Interesting speculations on the neurobiology of people’s reactions to news such as the death of bin Laden. Another interesting question this raises is that of group identification. In particular, is the sense of vindication stronger where one identifies with the offended party? More specifically, I’m wondering if this neurobiological reaction could account for people who view the 11 September attacks as attacks on their “way of life” feeling more strongly vindicated than those who view the attacks in the context of a larger pattern of injustice.

psydoctor8:

Another article that doesn’t entirely live up to it’s grabby headline from the WSJ. The findings are legit, but it only references one older study from ‘06, when there are newer, fresher studies to support the point - which is that research shows that we are neurally wired (especially young men) to seek a form of justice against rule breakers and it strikes at our reward zone when it does happen, providing a sense of relief and fairness - and this is also the case when the offence committed wasn’t directed at us.

Apparently, we are engineered to get pleasure from punishing those who deserve to be punished. As the scientists note:

The findings of enhanced activation in ventral striatum to a signal indicating that a defector is receiving pain are in agreement with the hypothesis that humans derive satisfaction simply from seeing justice administered, even if the instrument of punishment is out of their control.

Our level of empathic concern may be intrinsically related to our sense of fairness, but it seems the reward system is more powerful, as:

…empathic responses are shaped by valuation of other people’s social behaviour, such that they empathize with fair opponents while favouring the physical punishment of unfair opponents, a finding that echoes recent evidence for altruistic punishment. Via.

Most the studies agree finding the pattern of neural preferences suggest that “people like cooperating with fair opponents but also like punishing unfair opponents”. Via. So, the question is: what does it mean when you are having these internal negotiations with yourself not to feel relief over a rule breaker getting punished?

Update: Time does a similar piece citing one of the articles I offered up here.