Suchergebnisse

Корупција представља једну од најважнијих тема међународне политике сузбијања криминалитета. Управо нас она упућује, заједно са савременим облицима коруптивног деловања, на потребу увођења одговорности правних лица за дела корупције. Дуго година владајућа максима societas delinquere non potest, која је одбацивала идеју о кривичној одговорности правних лица, у савременом кривичном законодавству је доведена у питање. О неопходности законског уређења проблематике одговорности правних лица за кривична дела говоре многобројни међународни документи које је наша земља ратификовала и на тај начин преузела обавезу имплементације норми међународног права. Овом приликом проблематизујемо питање које се односи на одговорност правних лица за кривична дела и кривичноправно сузбијање корупције. На овом месту размотрићемо да ли је потребно да се говори о кривичној одговорности правних лица, или је примереније терминолошки и са становишта теорије говорити о казненој одговорности правних лица. ; Corruption is considered a social problem not only in Serbia. This phenomenon is given more and more attention at the international level as well. This primarily means coordinated efforts in opposing this obstacle and threat to the development of every country. It is surprising how material-criminal legal norms were narrowly determined in the field of one of the most important topics of international and national policy of crime suppression. For decades, and particularly thanks to sensations of the last years, the practitioners, especially those in the field of judiciary and police, have been warning of corruption and the need of its suppression and limiting. The connection between corruption and organized crime has intensified even more the discussions on counter measures that could be incorporated into the existing laws and remove their weaknesses. Every country should undertake a number of measures and activities in the field of battle against corruption taking into account the international standards in this field. These measures may be of preventive or repressive character. This paper deals with criminal legal intervention that represents ultima ratio, i.e. the last resort that should not be used until all other means and manners to protect someone have been exhausted. Our legislator has responded in the meantime, removed the most important flaws that distort the picture about our criminal legal regulations and incriminated corruptive behaviour, taking into account at that the obligations undertaken based on international conventions. Very delicate field of the responsibility of legal persons for criminal act remains unregulated. In this paper we point out to the need and state the reasons, with parallel study of the achieved solutions in some countries and Anglo-Saxon and continental legal culture, why the issue of responsibilities of legal persons for acts of corruption and even more widely should be regulated by a separate law.

The author surveys the public activities of Slavko Kvaternik, one of the leading Croatian nationalists of the 1930s, and for a time, minister of the Croatian Home Army during the Second World War (1941- 1942). The article states that Kvaternik occupied a peculiar position with respect to the radicals grouped around Ante Pavelic, the leader of the Ustasha regime. Kvaternik was not an ideologue of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), nor did he agree with Pavelic's repressive internal policy or Pavelic's dependence on fascist Italy. Because of this conclict, Kvaternik was pushed out of office and left Croatia at the end of 1942. None of these facts prevented the communist Yugoslavian government from proclaiming him a "war criminal" and carrying out the death sentence in 1947. (SOI : CSP: S. 398)

The Lisbon Treaty has brought significant changes into the architecture of the European Union. The most important novelty, however, is the establishment of a full unity of the Union structure achieved by creating new and strengthening the existing elements. The new elements of this unity are the disappearance of the European Community, the 'independence' of the European Atomic Energy Community, constituting the European Union as a single entity and the introduction of EU values. At the same time, the Lisbon Treaty has strengthened the existing elements of the common institutional mechanisms, rules on amending the founding treaties and EU membership. However, constituting the Union as a single entity which has replaced and succeeded the European Communities has not abolished the EU elements of diversity. In the areas that differed, even before the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, from the community pillar, there remain significant differences in the nature and the scope of competences of the Union institutions. This mainly regards the common foreign and security policy, which now includes the defense policy, where the existing model of inter-state cooperation has been only slightly interfered with. In contrast, in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which has become part of a larger Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the inter-state model of cooperation has been abandoned in some of its most important elements. However, the implementation of some of the important elements of the supranational model has been postponed.

Crime and violence pose a serious challenge to Mexico. The problem appears to be growing worse, with 2011 on pace to become the most violent year on record. The rising violence in Mexico has resulted in a sharply heightened sense of fear among citizens, who now feel the presence of cartels in their every day lives. The use of extortion and kidnapping by cartels combined with a lack of trust in security forces terrorizes the population and makes them feel like they have no where to turn. Despite this fact, crime rates in Mexico remain lower than in other parts of Latin America. Venezuela, for example, has among the highest homicide rates in the world. Yet the pervasive infiltration of cartels into public life gives Mexicans a heightened sense of the severity of violent crime in their own country. Although accurate statistics are hard to come by, it is quite possible that 60,000 people have died in the last six-plus years as a result of armed conflict between the Mexican cartels and the Mexican government, amongst cartels fighting each other, and as a result of cartels targeting citizens. Mexico has been struggling with drug production and drug transit through its territory from South America to the U.S. for many decades, given the fact that it is the most important transit country for drug production originating from South America. In recent years, the escalating violence in Mexico has led to dramatic deterioration of the security situation. Recent wave of drug-war violence is associated with the beginning of the term of President Felipe Calderón in December 2006. The immediate implications of his assumption of the presidency and his hard-line policy, which he has applied against drug cartels and organized criminal groups across the country, were the deployment of Mexican army to fight cartels and the gradual weakening of the influence of local and state police at the expense of federal troops. This was done in order to combat corruption and collaboration of local law-enforcement institutions with drug trafficking organizations (DTOs). The consequence of such a policy, however, has been increased violence among rival cartels and between them and the federal police and military, resulting in a dramatic increase of the number of victims. The future of US-Mexican counter drug cooperation, as well as of the whole bilateral relation in the area of security, depends on the outcome of US presidential elections. As for Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto takes the office on December 1, 2012 that will mark a comeback of his party PRI after 12 years in opposition. As far as the security strategy of the future Mexican President is concerned, there are no significant changes to be expected. Peña Nieto seems to be aware of the current situation and its consequences as well as of the inevitability of an extremely close and dynamic mutual cooperation with the US.