Suchergebnisse

"W maju 2020 roku Profesor Witold Kulesza obchodził 70. rocznicę urodzin. Z tej okazji postanowiliśmy skierować zaproszenie do wybitnych przedstawicieli najważniejszych ośrodków naukowych w Polsce i za granicą, by wspólnie uhonorować Jubilata. Efektem naszej współpracy jest prezentowana księga jubileuszowa, zawierająca pięćdziesiąt artykułów o szerokiej tematyce. Zostały one pogrupowane w obrębie czterech rozdziałów - O sprawiedliwości, O prawie karnym w ogólności, O prawie karnym w szczególności, O kryminologii i polityce kryminalnej - by nawiązać do najistotniejszych wątków dorobku naukowego Jubilata. Wśród nich znajdują się prace z pogranicza prawa karnego oraz filozofii państwa i prawa, a także dotyczące poszczególnych typów przestępstw. Autorzy artykułów zarówno sięgają wstecz, jak i odnoszą się do współcześnie wprowadzonych rozwiązań z zakresu prawa penalnego. Pro dignitate legis et maiestate iustitiae, żywiąc głęboki szacunek wysokie uznanie dla Profesora Witolda Kuleszy, składamy tę księgę Jubilatowi w hołdzie i darze."--

The issue analysed by the author is that of the institution of Presidential immunity pertaining to the President of the Republic of Poland, and operating in such a way that a sitting President cannot be held criminally liable before a common court for acts tantamount to offences. Inclining towards the essence of this solution and its consequences when it comes to respect for constitutional principles of legalism and equality before the law, the author at the same time seeks to assess the completeness of the provisions in effect in Poland, in so doing identifying a lack of clear directives as to how a former President (i.e. one who has left office) is to be held criminally liable. The conclusion reached by the author can be said to boil down to a recognition that the liability of a former President before Poland's Tribunal of State for offences or crimes committed is of an accessory nature where common courts are concerned, with the condition underpinning recognition of the Tribunal's primacy in matters of jurisdiction being the National Assembly's adoption of a Resolution holding a former President liable constitutionally, and potentially at the same time initiating action in respect of given offences. Any lack of such a National Assembly Resolution must give rise to a particular kind of reactivation – in respect of the former President – of jurisdiction in the dispensing of justice by common courts, given the fact that one of the negative procedural premises has ceased to be non-applicable. Thus, unlike in the case of a President still holding office, the cognition of the Tribunal of State in relation to a former President is neither exclusive nor automatic. Such observations have also stimulated work by the author to develop de lege ferenda postulates regarding the subject matter, as set against the wider background of Poland's political and constitutional system.

Međunarodni kazneni sud novo je međunarodno tijelo kojem je glavni cilj istraga i suđenje slučajeva genocida, ratnih zločina, te zločina protiv čovječnosti u zemljama članicama. Iako su Sjedinjene Američke Države u 2000. potpisale Rimski statut, međunarodnu povelju iz 1998. koja predstavlja osnovicu Međunarodnog kaznenog suda, Busheva vlada napravila je velik zaokret godinu dana kasnije, potpuno se ograđujući od svake ideje o suđenju Amerikancima izvan zemlje. Tekst analizira glavne argumente američke vanjske politike povezane s Međunarodnim kaznenim sudom, od navodne pristranosti Suda, te odnosa između Suda i Ujedinjenih naroda, pa sve do pitanja američkog suvereniteta. Također, ponuđena je i međunarodnopravna politička kritika nedavnih poteza američke vlade, koji štete i američkim nacionalnim interesima, i međunarodnoj sigurnosti. ; The International Criminal Court is a new international body constituted with the aim of prosecuting and trying cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Although in 2000 the United States signed the 1998 Rome Statute, which is the foundation of the International Criminal Court, the Bush Administration took a radically different position the following year, protecting itself from any idea of trying American citizens abroad. This text analyses the main U.S. foreign policy arguments pertaining to the ICC, from the alleged impartiality of the Court and the relationship between the Court and the United Nations, to the question of American sovereignty. In addition, the text offers an international legal and political critique of the recent U.S. policy actions, which harmed both American national interests, as well as international security.