I am honoured to be asked to write a short Foreword to this Issue of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art. I was an enthusiastic contributor to the first Issue.
If you read that Issue, I welcome you back and feel sure that you will be pleased with the varied content of this Issue too.
If you are a new reader, you may already know why you have taken up this Issue. If not, I would like to explain in brief why I think its subject matter is important, and why it might be important to you.
It seems to me that the Journal is likely to expand our horizons because it brings together three subjects which often sit in splendid isolation from each other, namely the Law, Politics, and Art. We tend to think about issues and debate them only within their separate silos. The combination can give us new insights for many reasons.
It can shed new light on the strengths and weaknesses of each of those subjects. Literature and art, in particular, can be used to expose deficiencies in the law which are open to criticism and debate. The combination of law and literature is also an effective way of explaining the law. In addition, the combination of all three topics can be used to advocate change in the law. An obvious example of these points is the work of Charles Dickens.
By like token, the law itself can be used to uncover the boundaries of our unwritten constitution. It is sometimes used by litigants for exactly that purpose. In turn, politics must make judgments on matters which are in general beyond legal expertise, but it is often beneficial for there to be a rich discussion outside politics as well.
Space does not permit me to take more than a sample of the contributions to this Issue. Some articles focus on one of the three subjects or leave the possibilities for cross-fertilisation between them unspoken. Others confront the combination of some or all the subjects directly. A striking example of this is Alejandro Posada Téllez’s thought-provoking contribution, ‘Is Peace Merely about the Attainment of Justice?’, on transitional justice. When conflict ends, war criminals may be made accountable by being prosecuted in domestic courts or (post the Second World War) in international courts and tribunals. Another solution is an official reconciliation process aimed at allowing the society to heal. Téllez points out that a reconciliation process may bring about justice for the individual and accountability, which is highly valuable in itself, but it will not necessarily produce a permanent political solution or lasting peace for the society. With the war in Ukraine, these questions are timely and apposite.
Another example is the topic of individual identity and autonomy, which arises in more than one contribution. If we truly believe in the importance of individual expression and personality, we should, I think, be very concerned to know about society’s failings in this regard. These failings may be because politics and the law, operating within their respective domains, have not kept up with social change and expectations. We need to know more about what makes us different from one another and how to adjust for those differences. Contributions in this Issue are helpful to that end.
This is a new journal which is probably unique in making its focus the combination of the three separate subjects of the Law, Politics and Art. I congratulate the Founder, the editors, and the contributors on the excellence of their respective contributions.
Happy reading!