European Human Rights Law and the Regulation of European Criminal Law. Lessons Learned from the Salduz Saga

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-294
Author(s):  
Paul De Hert
Author(s):  
Thomas Kruessmann

Criminal law is often described as the field of law that expresses the strongest national characteristics of a given jurisdiction and is the least amenable to change. Naturally, social rules providing some kind of penalty when violated have existed throughout the history of mankind. In Europe, the current understanding of criminal law has been shaped by Enlightenment thought, the ideas of human rights, liberalism and finally the national movements which led, inter alia, to the famous codifications of criminal law of the 19th century. In Russia, criminal law has certainly (not been isolated from the developments that took place in 19th century Europe. For example, the abolition of corporal punishment is but one good marker of humanisation. But compared to Europe, codified criminal law in Russia has been much less understood as the magna charta of the offender (Franz von Liszt), eventually leading to the study of human rights in criminal law. Rather, it has been viewed as the expression of the Tsars unfettered power to mete out punishment, - a line of thinking which indicates the continuing difficulty in Russian criminal law doctrine to accept limitations on the power of the legislator to criminalize. This paper will not deal with Russian doctrinal approaches to criminal law in a direct way. Instead, its purpose is to demonstrate the European Unions (EUs) current thinking on the effects that human rights have on the development of criminal law. As of today, criminal law is under a variety of influences among which the changing understanding of human rights is a very important one. In the Western world, there is a large amount of literature dealing with human rights and criminal law in general1 [1; 2], and it is hardly possible to come to an overall systematization. To be sure, there are parts of criminal law which have experienced very little change in light of human rights. One central tenet of human rights, for example, is the equality of men2 (in a pre-modern reading to include also women) which leads to the criminalization of slavery, slave trade, forced labor and trafficking in human beings. The smuggling of humans, on the other hand, is a much more controversial topic due to the fact that states show a strong desire to criminalize irregular migration. Another pillar of human rights is the human right to property3 which informs a whole range of criminal law provisions for violations of the right to property on land (theft, robbery, etc.) and on water (piracy). By comparison, the right to life is a more difficult concept. Human rights are behind the global drive for abolishing the death penalty4, but a number of other life-related issues are determined less by human rights than by religious and ethical views, such as the criminalization of abortion, aiding and abetting suicide, and euthanasia. Finally, a number of human rights are experiencing a very lively debate, e.g. freedom of speech5 [3] and freedom of religion, consequently there is also a high impact on the development of criminal law. European criminal law, understood as the total of the harmonized national criminal law systems of the EU Member states, offers a good example to study the effects of human rights. In the literature, there is the argument that changes in the understanding of human rights can lead both to criminalization and to de-criminalization. This has also been described as the «sword» function of human rights (using human rights to call for criminalization) and the «shield» function (using human rights law to call for limits to the use of criminal law and even de-criminalization) [1]. Both functions can be observed in a nutshell when analyzing the European criminal law that has emerged in the course of the last decade. For Russia, this article represents a (hopefully timely) contribution to the still nascent discussion on the effects of human rights on criminal law. Despite the Preamble to the newly adopted Constitution of the Russian Federation (RF) which affirms the role of human rights, Article 15 (4) Constitution RF limits the direct impact of human rights law to the universally accepted norms and principles of international law as well as to treaties concluded by the RF. The Constitution therefore appears to be closing the door to cutting-edge developments in international human rights law which are still not universally accepted.


2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-102
Author(s):  
Hind Sebar ◽  
Shahrul Mizan Ismail

Flogging is one of the most widely-used corporal punishments in Islamic penology. Most countries that practice Islamic criminal law use flogging to punish a variety of crimes and offenses. Saudi Arabia is one of the countries that use flogging to punish various crimes and has faced immense backlash from the international community for gross violation of human rights. The goal of this article is to investigate the implementation of flogging as a punishment in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, it also examines how international human rights law has contributed to limiting flogging as a form of criminal punishment. This study has critically analysed several human rights documents in order to understand how flogging is viewed under international human rights law if compared to the position under the Shari‘ah. Focus on the implementation of flogging in Saudi Arabia is made in particular. In addition, it is found that the application of flogging in Saudi Arabia is overused and is uncodified. Hence, the article signifies the necessity of codifying Islamic law to ensure fair legal procedures. Interestingly, a recent announcement that abolishes flogging as a common form of punishment, indicates the willingness of the kingdom to implement judicial reforms, thereby creating a ray of hope in the form of amendment of laws.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-74
Author(s):  
MOHD HISHAM MOHD KAMAL

 This paper discusses the implementation of Islamic Criminal Law in Malaysia from the human rights perspectives. It looks at Syariah Criminal Offences Enactments and Syariah Criminal Procedure Enactments of States forming the Federation, and deals with the issues of the victimless Syariah offences of khalwat, fornication and drinking intoxicants, determining whether such criminalization is compatible with human rights. Discussion also deals with the issues of sanction and procedures, in finding out the extent to which Malaysia is complying with its International Human Rights Law obligations, if there is any. This paper finds that the Syariah statutory provisions are compatible with the human rights concept. In some extends, Syariah law can explore law uncertainty, because referring to God’s law not nature law. Most of human rights concept have come from the philosophy of nature law. Thus, the approach of nature law will always change depending of time period. However, Syariah law need to improve the training of religious enforcement officers on how to carry out their duties.


2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 482-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Farrell

The prohibition on torture in international human rights law seems a fairly straightforward candidate for productive use in international criminal law. The Convention against Torture contains an elaborate definition of torture and human rights institutions have developed substantial jurisprudence on the prohibition and definition of torture. Indeed, the ad hoc Tribunals and the drafters of the Rome Statute have employed the human rights law approach to torture to varying degrees. But the conception of torture reached by human rights bodies is problematic and unsuitable for usage where individual criminal responsibility is sought. It is unsuitable because the human rights law understanding of torture is subjective and victim-derived. Human rights bodies do not scrutinize intent, purpose and perpetration, central aspects of international criminal legal reasoning. The communication on torture between these bodies of law to date shows that cross-fertilisation, without detailed reasoning, is inappropriate - because rights are different to crimes.


2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 925-963 ◽  
Author(s):  
DARRYL ROBINSON

AbstractThe general narrative of international criminal law (ICL) declares that the system adheres in an exemplary manner to the fundamental principles of a liberal criminal justice system. Recent scholarship has increasingly questioned the adherence of various ICL doctrines to such principles. This article scrutinizes the discourse of ICL – the assumptions and forms of argumentation that are regarded as sound reasoning with appropriate liberal aims. This article argues that ICL, in drawing on national criminal law and international human rights law, absorbed contradictory assumptions and methods of reasoning. The article explores three modes by which the assumptions of human rights liberalism subtly undermine the criminal law liberalism to which the system aspires. These modes include interpretive approaches, substantive and structural conflation, and ideological assumptions. The identity crisis theory helps to explain how a system that strives to serve as a model for liberal criminal justice systems has come to embrace illiberal doctrines that contradict the system's fundamental principles.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan

Tort is the area of civil law which provides a remedy for a party who has suffered the breach of a protected interest. Different torts deal with different types of harm or wrongful conduct and the ‘ingredients’ for each of these torts are different; each with its own particular characteristics. This chapter discusses the types of loss or harm covered; competing interests; remedies; comparison of tort with contract law, criminal law, and human rights law; the aims of the law of tort (compensation and deterrence); and alternative routes to compensation. The influence of insurance and of the Compensation Act 2006 is included.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document