Suchergebnisse

Preliminary Material /Christopher Greenwood and L.H. McCormack -- Chapter 1. From Ove to Bring /Marie Jacobsson -- Chapter 2. The Writings of Ove Bring /Marie Jacobsson -- Chapter 3. Legal Restraints on the Use of Armed Force /Hans Blix -- Chapter 4. Individual Responsibility under National and International Law for the Conduct of Armed Conflict /Iain Cameron -- Chapter 5. Reflections on the Security Council and Its Mandate to Maintain International Peace and Security /Hans Corell -- Chapter 6. National Sovereignty and Responsibility for Spent Nuclear Fuel /Per Cramr -- Chapter 7. The Developing Relationship between Law and Politics in the United Nations Human Rights Council /Gudmundur Eiriksson -- Chapter 8. The Future of Human Rights Law in Peace Operations /Ola Engdahl -- Chapter 9. Sense and Sensibility in Sentencing - Taking Stock of International Criminal Punishment /Frederik Harhoff -- Chapter 10. Submarine Operations and International Law /Wolff Heintschel Von Heinegg -- Chapter 11. Occupation and Sovereignty - Still a Useful Distinction? /Martti Koskenniemi -- Chapter 12. The Second Lebanon War: Reflections on the 2006 Israeli Military Operations against Hezbollah /Said Mahmoudi -- Chapter 13. Cluster Munitions, Proportionality and the Foreseeability of Civilian Damage /Timothy L. H. McCormack and Paramdeep B. Mtharu -- Chapter 14. Sacrificial Violence and Targeting in International Humanitarian Law /Gregor Noll -- Chapter 15. J.-J. Rousseau and the Law of Armed Force /Allan Rosas -- Chapter 16. Secession, Self-determination of 'Peoples' and Recognition - the Case of Kosovo's Declaration of Independence and International Law /Per Sevastik -- Chapter 17. Fighting for Justice: Ke Hammarskjld at the Permanent Court of International Justice /Ole Spiermann -- Chapter 18. Do We Need a World Court of Human Rights? /Geir Ulfstein -- Chapter 19. Neutrality, Impartiality and Our Responsibility to Uphold International Law /Pl Wrange -- Chapter 20. The Diluted, Dismantled, Disjointed and Resilient Old Collective Security System or Decision-making and the Use of Force - the Law as It Could Be /Inger Sterdahl -- Index /Christopher Greenwood and L.H. McCormack -- International Humanitarian Law Series /Christopher Greenwood and L.H. McCormack.

The standard work on the law on appeals on questions of law, which is now in its seventh edition, provides an excellent and thorough representation of the difficult legal area of ap-peals on question of law in criminal proceedings. Das bereits in 7. Auflage vorliegende Standardwerk zum Revisionsrecht bietet eine hervorragende und gründliche Darstellung des schwierigen Rechtsgebiets der Revision im Strafprozess. Das Werk wendet sich an alle mit der Revision in Strafsachen befassten Juristen in Praxis, Ausbildung und Wissenschaft, indem es insbesondere aus der Perspektive der Bearbeiter von Revisionsbegründungen den gesamten Gang des Rechtsmittels - von der Verkündung des anzufechtenden Urteils bis zur Entscheidung des Revisionsgerichts bzw. des neu mit der Sache befassten Tatgerichts - behandelt.

The policy of criminal law protection of the constitutional order as a part of the overall social policy has been greatly changed in the modern state. This rational and organized activity is focused on protection of the constitutional order by incriminating certain socially unacceptable behaviors. This is one of the social goals that has always been present, determined by socio-political forces. Although incrimination of certain behaviors, regardless of the immediate object of criminal law protection, indirectly serves the protection of society as a whole, the article emphasizes the features of incriminations that are directly aimed at protecting the constitutional order and political order of the state. This segment of criminal law protection, given the security challenges and threats to which the modern state is subject, has necessarily undergone certain changes. It is about expanding the zone of criminality, that is, the emergence of new incriminations, but also a much different position of the perpetrators of the so-called political criminal offences.

Even though Russia's new Code of Criminal Procedure of 2001 had from the very beginning contained the article titled 'Preclusive Effects,' it was not until a decision by the Constitutional Court of 2008 that the doctrine of issue preclusion was, in its proper sense, reinstated in Russian criminal law, barring facts definitively established in a civil trial from relitigation in criminal proceedings. Despite heavy criticism that came down on the Constitutional Court for what was seen by law enforcement agents as unwarranted judicial activism, the Russian Parliament soon amended the article in line with the interpretation offered by the Court. This, however, did not end the controversy as critics raised a valid point: an automatic transfer of facts from civil proceedings with a priori more lenient requirements of proof is likely to distort outcomes, harming defendants, the prosecution, and, ultimately, societal interests. This article will turn for apotential solution to common law, which has been able to avoid this problem by clearly distinguishing between different standards of proof applicable in civil v. criminal litigations. It will be shown, using the United States as an example, how courts can effectively use issue preclusion to pursue a number of legitimate objectives, such as consistency of judgments and judicial economy, with due account for the interests of parties in proceedings. At the same time, issue preclusion appears an inappropriate and ineffective means to combat arbitrariness of the judiciary – the end which Russia's Constitutional Court and law makers arguably had in mind when introducing the doctrine into Russian law.

Even though Russia's new Code of Criminal Procedure of 2001 had from the very beginning contained the article titled 'Preclusive Effects,' it was not until a decision by the Constitutional Court of 2008 that the doctrine of issue preclusion was, in its proper sense, reinstated in Russian criminal law, barring facts definitively established in a civil trial from relitigation in criminal proceedings. Despite heavy criticism that came down on the Constitutional Court for what was seen by law enforcement agents as unwarranted judicial activism, the Russian Parliament soon amended the article in line with the interpretation offered by the Court. This, however, did not end the controversy as critics raised a valid point: an automatic transfer of facts from civil proceedings with a priori more lenient requirements of proof is likely to distort outcomes, harming defendants, the prosecution, and, ultimately, societal interests. This article will turn for a potential solution to common law, which has been able to avoid this problem by clearly distinguishing between different standards of proof applicable in civil v. criminal litigations. It will be shown, using the United States as an example, how courts can effectively use issue preclusion to pursue a number of legitimate objectives, such as consistency of judgments and judicial economy, with due account for the interests of parties in proceedings. At the same time, issue preclusion appears an inappropriate and ineffective means to combat arbitrariness of the judiciary the end which Russia's Constitutional Court and law makers arguably had in mind when introducing the doctrine into Russian law.

This paper contributes to the literature on specific deterrence by addressing the issue of selecting adolescents into adult and juvenile law systems. In Germany, different from the U.S. and most other countries, turning a critical cutoff age does not cause a sharp discontinuity from juvenile to adult penal law, but rather implies a shift to a discretionary system of both adult and juvenile law, dependent on the courts' impression of moral and mental personal development of the adolescent at the time of the act. The German legal system draws the line of adulthood at some fuzzy age interval between 18 and 21, which is well above the thresholds prevailing in the U.S. (16 to 18 years, state specific) and other countries. Thus, the German evidence entails some external evidence to the previous literature mostly relying on U.S. data. Based on a unique inmate survey and Two-Equation Models controlling for selectivity problems, results show that application of adult criminal law instead of juvenile penal law decreases expected recidivism of adolescents. [Copyright Elsevier B.V.]