Chapter 10 provides an overview of the role and functions of private enforcement within regulatory regimes and the availability of redress. It draws attention to different ‘models of legal responsibility’ upon which regulatory regimes rely in allocating and distributing legal rights and duties between those who are subject to regulation and those whom regulation is intended to protect (‘regulatory beneficiaries’). This chapter is the most legally focused chapter in the volume, selectively highlighting several features of the institutional and enforcement context in which regulation occurs. Examples are private litigation, collective redress mechanisms, the role of courts as authoritative and final interpreters of the law and ‘alternative’ avenues for redress.

Abstract: Chapter 2 reflects on a key assumption about the “traditional Chinese family,” the “child-training” paradigm that emphasizes parenting and overlooks children. The chapter draws from interview and observational data with mothers and children to contrast an important local cultural model of parenting, that is, preventing children’s fights, with the reality of prevalent fighting and conflict among children. Weaving together qualitative, quantitative and machine learning analyses of texts, the chapter uncovers the experiences of “dis-obedient children” which departs from the parental ideal of training obedience. After debunking the myths of “Chinese parenting,” I explain the inefficacy of parental punishment through the lens of children’s sociomoral cognition, against the popular assumption and paradigm of reinforcement learning. These findings remind anthropologists to pay more attention to the ethical experience and reflections of young children, “the punished,” and urge adults to see the world through children's eyes.

In this chapter, we consider exemplary damages and aggravated damages, remedies with a strong vindicatory flavour, as recognised by the High Court of Australia in Lewis v Australian Capital Territory.

Exemplary damages vindicate the plaintiff’s interests, but also explicitly punish the defendant for the wrong in question. Punishment is not commonly recognised as a central aim of private law. Some commentators have argued that it should not be part of private law. However, exemplary damages are said to validate the plaintiff’s feelings of hurt and anger arising from the contumelious nature of the defendant’s wrong. Such damages also perform a vindicatory function. The fact that the law punishes a defendant for the manner of his interference with the plaintiff’s interests signals the importance of those interests.

The chapter addresses the penal regime of international criminal jurisdictions, focusing primarily on the law and practice of the UN ad hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court (ICC). It sets out the categories of penalties which may be imposed by international criminal courts and tribunals for the core crimes and the offences against the administration of justice. The chapter sets out the commonly-adduced general purposes for punishing perpetrators of international crimes (retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.) and addresses the extent to which the punishment rationales acknowledged at the national level remain valid within the international penal regime. It analyses the international jurisdictions’ sentencing principles and practice, in particular the need for the individualization of penalties while ensuring consistency in sentencing and the relative weight accorded to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in determining the appropriate sentence. The chapter also surveys the procedures at sentencing, in particular the option of following the unified or bifurcated process for the determination of the guilt or innocence and, if appropriate, the sentence, as well as the arrangements adopted for pardon, early release (commutation) and review of sentences.

When Lady Philosophy suggests that Boethius’ definition of himself as a rational mortal animal is inadequate, it implies that a superior self-understanding is contained within the Consolation. This chapter argues that this more adequate self-understanding – that Boethius, via participation in God, is himself divine – is implicit in the text and unpacks the profound implications and consolations of this interpretation of the self. Being a rational animal is more than being this specific living thing; it is also an opportunity to manifest divine intelligibility and goodness in the world. The chapter focuses on two perplexing arguments in Book IV that are unsatisfying without this interpretation of Boethius’ identity: that the punished are happier than those who escape punishment and that it is possible to attach ourselves to Providence and escape from Fate. The difficulties that most people will face in accepting these arguments are the direct result of the challenge of adopting this self-interpretation.

In this chapter, I examine whether punishment is morally permissible. Criminal prosecution and punishment are the main functions of international criminal justice and lie at the heart of what institutions of international criminal justice – such as the International Criminal Court – do. To begin, I reconstruct Locke’s argument for the permissibility of punishment. Locke argues that we have a moral duty to ‘preserve humanity’ and we can discharge that duty by exercising our ‘natural executive right’ – that is, a right to punish – in the state of nature. Punishments are effective in enforcing rights because they deter crimes. I discuss several objections against the consequentialist structure of Locke’s argument. To counter these objections, I argue for a mixed theory that distinguishes between justifying the practice of punishment and justifying the distribution of punishment within that practice. To explain the latter, we must take into account considerations of normative individualism, egalitarianism, and pragmatic considerations. Taken together, these arguments imply that coercive punishment is permissible for natural rights enforcement.

150 words: The books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah contain oracles that address problems in and around ancient Judah in ways that are as incisive and critical as they are optimistic and constructive. Daniel C. Timmer’s The Theology of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah situates these books in their social and political contexts and examines the unique theology of each as it engages with imposing problems in Judah and beyond. In dialogue with recent scholarship, this study focuses on these books’ analysis and evaluation of the world as it is, focusing on both human beings and their actions and God’s commitment to purify, restore, and perfect the world. Timmer also surveys these books’ later theological use and cultural reception. Timmer also brings their theology into dialogue with concerns as varied as ecology, nationalism, and widespread injustice, highlighting the enduring significance of divine justice and grace for solid hope and effective service in our world.

50 words: This volume examines the powerful and poignant theology of the books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. Daniel C. Timmer situates these books’ theology in their ancient Near Eastern contexts and traces its multifaceted contribution to Jewish and Christian theology and to broader cultural spheres, without neglecting its contemporary significance.

20 words: This volume draws out the theology of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, attending to their ancient contexts, past use and reception, and contemporary significance.

This chapter introduces the following corpus of texts from ancient Egypt, and outlines the differing meanings ascribed to slavery and dependence from antiquity to modern times. The terms used for dependents and slaves in the various languages of the texts translated here – Egyptian (Hieroglyphic, Hieratic, Demotic, and Coptic), Greek, and Arabic – are briefly presented, and defining features of the condition of those so labelled are discussed. How and from where such persons were acquired, their life experiences, and the different forms of exploitation in which they were involved are introduced, as are forms of slave resistance and limits to the archaeological and textual evidence available, and so to what we can learn from it.

The chapter discusses the field of cultural evolution, which emerged in the wake of sociobiology and alongside evolutionary psychology and human behavioral ecology in the 1970s. Cultural evolution theory can be divided into three parts: investigating the genetic evolution of psychological capacities underlying culture, studying how populations adapt to their environments, and exploring how genes and culture influence each other’s evolutionary dynamics. The first sections of the chapter examine how human culture differs from nonhuman culture, why and how culture evolved in humans during the Pleistocene, how our cultural capacity predisposed us to be cooperative, and how cultural group selection created the conditions for the genetic evolution of prosocial preferences. Addressing a common criticism that cultural evolution focuses too heavily on mathematical modeling, subsequent sections showcase the recent explosion of empirical research that has been inspired by cultural evolutionary theory. This research is divided into three methods: fieldwork, experiments, and phylogenetics. The chapter concludes by noting that the dividing lines between cultural evolution and human behavioral ecology are blurring, with students of each subfield increasingly borrowing from the other, suggesting that these labels may soon be obsolete.

This chapter explores the relationship between education and a school’s punishment and disciplinary practices. Distinct from discipline, punishment is defined partly in terms of its attempt to express moral disapproval. While there are serious criticisms of the use of punishment in educational settings, punishment is largely justified in school in terms of its ability to foster certain sorts of educative conversations. Not all punishment is justified: the particular sort of punishment, and the context that surrounds it, must match the educational nature of the school environment. The punishment must send the right educational messages and accomplish legitimate educational goals. The context of punishment that best supports these goals can be found in the restorative justice framework.