Suchergebnisse

Contemporary international criminal law is largely concerned with holding individual defendants responsible for mass atrocities. Because the crimes usually involve the concerted efforts of many individuals, allocating responsibility among those individuals is of critical importance. This Article examines two liability doctrines – joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility – that play a central role in that allocation of guilt in international criminal tribunals. The Article posits a general framework for understanding the development of international criminal law, as an outgrowth of three legal traditions: domestic criminal law, international human rights law, and transitional justice. We explore the application of that framework to the joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility doctrines and argue that viewing joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility through the lens of our framework shows the need for certain doctrinal reforms. Finally, we discuss the application of liability doctrines developed in the context of inter-national criminal tribunals to prosecutions for international or transnational crimes in other fo-rums, such as domestic military tribunal prosecutions of terrorists, that do not share the same roots as international criminal law.

Intro -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- Table of Abbreviations -- Chapter 1 Emergence in Positive International Criminal Law -- Introduction -- The Making of the Charter: Law and Policy Considerations -- The Legislative History of Article 6(c) -- Formulations Arising as a Result of the Charter -- Conclusion -- Chapter 2 Sources: The Law of Armed Conflicts -- Introduction -- Historical Evolution -- Crimes Against Humanity" as an Outgrowth of War Crimes -- The Connection Between War Crimes and "Crimes Against Humanity -- Affirmation of the New Custom -- Conclusion -- Chapter 3 Threshold Issues of Legal Philosophy -- Introduction -- Historical Perspective -- Philosophical Underpinnings -- The Philosophy of International Law and the Law of the Charter -- The Charter's Dilemma: Between Law and Morality -- Pragmatism Prevails -- Chapter 4 Principles of Legality and the Law of the Charter -- Introduction -- Principles of Legality in the World's Major Criminal Justice Systems -- Principles of Legality in International Criminal Law -- The Charter and the Post-World War II Prosecution's Treatment of the Question -- Assessing the Arguments of Legality in the Law of the Charter -- Post-Charter Legal Developments -- Post-Charter Enunciations -- Chapter 5 Post-Charter Legal Developments -- Introduction -- Substantive Developments -- Codification of "Crimes Against Humanity:" The Work of the ILC -- The Statutes of the ICTY and ICTR: The Security Council's Formulations -- The ICC Statute: The Latest Development -- Other Normative Proscriptions Applicable to the Same Protected Interests -- 1948 Genocide Convention -- 1949 Geneva Conventions and 1977 Protocols -- 1973 Apartheid Convention -- 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

This report provides an overview of the corporate criminal liability on federal law. It also further discusses entities subject to corporate criminal liability, Imputed Intent and knowledge etc.

Violence Against Women is becoming more and more with specific domestic violence, as well as the cause hidden behind divorce. The issue of domestic violence is arranged by The Law Number 23 of 2004 on The Elimination of Domestic Violence which contains a summary of criminal act in Article 44 to Article 53. This study attempts to analyze the philosophy of regulation of domestic violence in Indonesia and the political law of the law number 23 Year 2004 on the elimination of domestic violence is related to the principles in the formulation of criminal law. This research is a normative legal research, and was obtained by studying documentation, discussion, and literature study and with collection data is literature study and analyzed prescriptively. The authors believe that the household paradigm that is in accordance with the objectives of this law is to realize the integrity of households, and it implies the formulation of criminal law is not appropriate, so it is a manifestation of overcriminalization/ penalization.

Large law firms have become a dominant feature of the legal landscape in the United States and elsewhere. This volume of Studies in Law, Politics, and Society examines the situation of large law firms. The articles collected here address the following questions: How has the large law firm altered, or adapted to, the ideals/ideology of the legal profession? How do law firms function as organizations? What happens to firms when they globalize their practices? What is the situation of scholarship on large law firms? Has the firm been incorporated into boarder interdisciplinary configurations? What, if any,new paradigms ofstudy of firms areon the horizon?.

The past and current criminal policy in the EU presents, like it does in many Member States, serious shortcomings, such as the extension of the Law and Order approach, expansion of Criminal Law, legislative improvisation, the continuous over-criminalisation and raising of penalties, subordination of substantive Criminal Law to police and judicial cooperation and technocratisation and petrification of criminal standards. For a long time, the continuous focus only on competence problems and effectiveness criteria –to strengthen the principle of mutual trust and improve judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters- did not contributed greatly to the formation of a more rational substantive Criminal Law. To sum up, all these shortcomings often end up causing an over-criminalisation and homogenisation of the diverse national criminal legal systems in terms of greater punitive rigor, increasingly infringing fundamental principles. Criminal lawyers and also other academic disciplines must address these problems by setting up mechanisms that could help to reduce or eliminate the current EU criminal policy rationality defects. Taking into account that many of the above-mentioned shortcomings of EU criminal policy could reasonably result from a lack of rationality in the EU criminal decision-making process, paying more attention to science of law-making and legislative procedures within the European Union would certainly be a good start. In the last few years we have seen an increase of interest in the study of Criminal Law-making processes as a way of improving law quality. There have been efforts to contribute to a more rational approach from different perspectives. Sometimes appealing to widely accepted concepts, such as legal interest, or important principia (proportionality, legality, subsidiarity, ultima ratio…). Despite the large importance of such works, none of them have the potentiality to support all the rationality contents needed for a European Criminal Law that provides all possible guarantees and complies with fundamental principles and legal safeguards. For these reasons I argue in favour to make a new and more comprehensive approach, focusing in the stage of creation of the laws. The proposal is to adopt a law rationality model –based in the previous works of Prof. Atienza and Prof. Díez Ripollés- that could act as guideline for EU law-makers. The law rationality model proposed aims to be an ambitious instrument to provide rationality criteria for the creation of law. It has 5 levels (ethic rationality, teleological rationality, pragmatic rationality, systematic rationality and linguistic rationality). Thus, a criminal provision can be said to be irrational when it does not comply with any of these levels of rationality. It is a great challenge but also would be of interest to adapt this theoretic model to the European stage. In my view it would be able to contribute to the creation of a more rational and guarantee-based EU criminal policy and to overcome the current fragmentary approach to substantive Criminal Law in the EU. ; Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech.