scholarly journals From the Person to the Institution: Religious Freedom and Institutions in Democratic States

2021 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Antonio Gómez García

Based on the assumption that the fundamental rights of people in most democratic states are governed by the personalist principle and that, of course, the religious freedom of the individual is an indisputable fundamental right, this paper reflects on the implications of these premises in the institutional field. The article consists of four chapters: the first two chapters are of a more general nature, and the next two chapters apply the general principles to the Spanish context. The first part discusses the personalist foundation that forms the basis of laws in democratic states. The author highlights the fact that the ethical value of the dignity of every human person provides an axiological foundation for the rules and fundamental laws enacted in the democratic constitutional order. The second part of the paper is devoted to the principle of subsidiarity, which – in a way – constitutes a bridge that makes it possible to transpose the dignity of the person to the functioning of the institutions that operate within a democratic state. Subsidiarity is an essential complement to personalism as it prioritizes the activity of the person that should be supported by the institutions of the State. The application of these general principles to the situation in Spain exemplifies them in the context of the understanding and enforcement of the right to religious freedom. By presenting specific legal solutions implemented in Spain in recent years, the author illustrates the challenges that the right to religious freedom is facing in modern democracies. The paper offers a compelling study of the joint effect of the principle of secularism in a democratic State and the principle of cooperation between the State and religious institutions (a concept referred to in the Spanish model as “positive secularism”) as they act upon social life to guarantee the implementation of a fundamental right of human persons: the right to religious freedom.

Author(s):  
George Sarmento ◽  
Lean Antônio Ferreira de Araújo

A VULNERABILIDADE DO DIREITO À INTIMIDADE NO ESPAÇO DAS FERRAMENTAS TECNOLÓGICAS: MANDADOS CONSTITUCIONAIS DE PROTEÇÃO DO DIREITO FUNDAMENTAL À INTIMIDADE POR INTERMÉDIO DO DIREITO PENAL  THE VULNERABILITY OF THE RIGHT TO INTIMACY IN THE SPACE OF TECHNOLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS: CONSTITUCIONAL WARRANTS FOR PROTECTION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INTIMACY THROUGH CRIMINAL LAW  George Sarmento*Lean Araújo**  RESUMO: O direito à intimidade integra o catálogo dos direitos fundamentais de proteção descrito no art. 5º, X, da Carta Constitucional, cuja essência é limitar a ação invasiva do Estado e dos demais indivíduos. No processo evolutivo do Estado é de se destacar a contribuição de Hobbes na formulação do Estado como ente responsável pela preservação dos indivíduos. Este momento instituiu a ruptura do indivíduo como ser que se realiza no outro para o ser empreendedor de seu próprio plano de vida, mas submetidas as ações as regras de condutas. A partir desta concepção absolutista evoluiu-se para a formulação de um Estado com delimitação de tarefas por intermédio de Órgãos autônomos e independentes visando à concretude de direitos de proteção ou defesa, direitos prestacionais e direitos de participação. A existência desse Estado Democrático de Direito e Social, constituído a partir da vontade dos seus indivíduos, exige a proteção dos direitos instituídos, dentre eles, à intimidade, e, para tanto, a própria ordem constitucional fixa mandados constitucionais de criminalização, para excepcionalmente coibir os abusos operados no espaço físico e no espaço das ferramentas tecnológicas, em razão da vulnerabilidade existente. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Direito à Intimidade. Ferramentas Tecnológicas. Vulnerabilidade. Proteção pelo Direito Penal. ABSTRACT: The right to intimacy integrates the catalog of privacy fundamental rights depicted in article 5 section X of the constitutional charter. Its essence is to limit the invasive action of the State and other individuals. Hobbes had an important role in State evolutionary process concerning the formulation of the State as responsible for individuals preservation. This moment established the rupture of the individual as a being that realizes itself on another, to an entrepreneur of its own life plan, but submitted to actions and rules of conduct. This absolutistic conception evolved to the formulation of a State with tasks bounded by autonomous and independent agencies aiming to concretize the protection or defense rights, benefit rights and social participation. The existence of this Democratic State and social rights established by the will of the individuals, demands the protection of the established rights, such as intimacy, and therefore the constitutional order itself provides criminal warrants to exceptionally restrain misconducts operated in the physical and technological  space, due to existing vulnerability. KEYWORDS: Right to Intimacy. Technological Tools. Vulnerability. Protection through Criminal Law. SUMÁRIO: Introdução 1 A Evolução do Estado no Pensamento Político. 2 A Unidade da Constituição. 3 A Classificação dos Direitos Fundamentais. 3.1 Os Direitos Fundamentais de Proteção. 3.2 Os Direitos Fundamentais Prestacionais. 3.3 Os Direitos Fundamentais de Participação. 4 O Agir Moral em Contexto. 5 O Espaço das Ferramentas Tecnológicas como meio de Ofensa ao Direito à Intimidade. 6 Mandados Constitucionais de Criminalização. 7 Alterações da Legislação Penal. Considerações Finais. Referências.* Pós-doutor pela Université Daix-Marseille, França. Doutor em Direito pela Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE). Professor do Mestrado do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da Universidade Federal de Alagoas (PPGD/UFAL). Promotor de Justiça.** Acadêmico de Direito da Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (UFMT). Pesquisador bolsista de Iniciação Científica da Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMT) e do Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ).


Author(s):  
Cleide Fermentão ◽  
Pedro Henrique Sanches Aguera

AUSÊNCIA DE EFICÁCIA DO DIREITO FUNDAMENTAL À SAÚDE E A VULNERABILIDADE DAS PESSOAS QUE DEPENDEM DA SAÚDE PÚBLICA: ONDE ESTÁ A INVIOLABILIDADE DA DIGNIDADE HUMANA?  THE LACK OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO HEALTH AND THE VULNERABILITY OF PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES: WHERE IS THE INVIOLABILITY OF HUMAN DIGNITY?   Cleide Fermentão*Pedro Henrique Sanches Aguera**  Resumo: Neste ensaio, inicialmente aborda-se o desenvolvimento de conceitos de pessoa e de indivíduo que aqui são utilizados. Dessa forma, é correto afirmar a dignidade da pessoa humana e não a dignidade do indivíduo. Também se fundamenta que a finalidade principal do Direito é a proteção dos valores humanos, porque a pessoa humana é centro do Direito, e, portanto, deve ser respeitada a sua dignidade. Depois, afirma-se que a segunda geração de direitos fundamentais corresponde aos direitos sociais, econômicos e culturais, estando ligada diretamente a direitos prestacionais sociais do Estado perante o indivíduo. A segunda geração difere das demais gerações pelo fato de o Estado passar a ter a obrigação de possibilitar à pessoa humana o seu desenvolvimento. A Constituição Federal brasileira de 1988 regulamentou os direitos de segunda geração, incluindo o direito à saúde como um direito social. É a saúde um direito fundamental de segunda geração e, ao mencionar o dispositivo que ele é um direito de todos, é ele tanto um direito individual como coletivo. Há o dever fundamental de prestação de saúde por parte do Estado, inclusive com  a formulação de políticas públicas, devendo o Estado criar meios para que todos possam usufruir do mesmo. Na medida em que ficou determinado pelo constituinte um sistema universal de acesso aos serviços públicos de saúde, foi reforçada a ideia de responsabilidade solidária entre os entes da federação. Surge o problema aqui apontado das questões ligadas à implementação e à manutenção das políticas públicas de saúde já existentes. Estando a dignidade da pessoa humana ligada aos direitos fundamentais de segunda geração e sendo ela o princípio norteador do ordenamento jurídico, poderia-se imaginar que qualquer pessoa teria sua dignidade garantida, se tivesse seus direitos sociais assegurados, incluído o direito à saúde. Palavras-chave: Direito à Saúde. Dignidade da Pessoa Humana. Direto fundamental de 2º Geração. Dever do Estado. Políticas Públicas. Abstract: In this essay, initially it is addressed the development of the concepts of person and individual that are used here. Thus, it is correct to affirm the dignity of the human person and not the dignity of the individual. Also, it is justified that the main purpose of the Law is the protection of human values, because the human person is the center of the Law, and therefore its dignity must be respected. Then it is said that the second generation of fundamental rights corresponds to the social, economic, and cultural rights, being bound directly to social rights to State positive actions to the individual. The second generation differs from other generations by the fact the State go on to have a duty to enable the human person to develop. The Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988 regulates the rights of second generation, including the right to health as a social right. The right to health is a fundamental right of second generation, and, by stating a constitutional clause that it is a right for everyone, it is both an individual and collective right. There is the fundamental duty of providing health care by the State, including the elaboration of public policies, and the State must provide for everyone to avail themselves of it. In the extent that the constituent determined a universal system of access to public health services, the idea of joint liability between the federal entities has been reinforced. The problem here pointed of the issues associated with implementation and maintenance of existing public health policies arises. Being human dignity bound to the fundamental rights of second generation, and being it the guiding principle of the legal system, one would imagine that anyone would have guaranteed their dignity if they had their social rights, including the right to health, ensured. Palavras-chave: Direito à Saúde. Dignidade da Pessoa Humana. Direto fundamental de 2º Geração. Dever do Estado. Políticas Pública. Sumário: Introdução. 1. Indivíduo e Pessoa Detentores do Direito à Saúde. 1.1. Indivíduo. 1.2 Pessoa. 2. Direito à Saúde como Direito Fundamental Social de 2º Geração. 3. Proteção Constitucional do Direito à Saúde. 4. Dignidade da Pessoa Humana, Direito da Personalidade e o Direito à Saúde. Considerações Finais. Referências.*  Doutora em Direitos Sociais pela Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR). Mestre em Direito Civil pela Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Paraná (UEM). Professora do Programa de Mestrado, Especialização e Graduação do Centro Universitário de Maringá, Paraná (Unicesumar), e da Faculdade Metropolitana de Maringá, Paraná (Famma).**  Mestrando do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Jurídicas (PPGCJ) do Centro Universitário de Maringá, Paraná (Unicesumar), com bolsa CAPES. Pós-Graduado em Direito Processual Civil pela Faculdade de Direito Damásio de Jesus.  Pós-Graduado em Direito Empresarial pelo Centro Universitário de Maringá, Paraná (Unicesumar).


Author(s):  
Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde ◽  
Mirjam Künkler ◽  
Tine Stein

In this article Böckenförde contrasts his concept of open encompassing neutrality (found in most Scandinavian countries and in Germany) with that of distancing neutrality, as practised in France. While the latter champions negative religious freedom, open encompassing neutrality aims for a balancing of negative and positive religious freedom. Religious freedom for Böckenförde is multidimensional and includes the right to have (or not) a religious faith (freedom of belief), to affirm (or not) this faith privately and openly (freedom to profess), to exercise (or not) one’s religion publicly (freedom of worship), and to join together (or not) in religious communities (religious freedom of association). The correlate to these individual and group rights is the open and overarching principle of the state’s neutrality towards religion and other worldviews, entailing a prohibition on the state justifying law on religious grounds. Furthermore, it requires the state not to privilege religion over non-religion and one religious faith over another. Siding with the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court (at a time when he was not a sitting judge), Böckenförde underlines that even religious communities who reject the democratic state have the right to be recognized and legally protected. What matters is not whether communities accept or reject the state, but whether they obey or violate its laws. This was the court’s view on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and it must also be applied, Böckenförde writes, to religious fundamentalists who do not accept the secular order, as long as they do not violate any laws.


Author(s):  
Cássio Guilherme Alves ◽  
Caroline Müller Bitencourt

O DIREITO FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL À SAÚDE NA CONSTITUIÇÃO DE 1988: A GARANTIA DA DIGNIDADE DA PESSOA HUMANA ENTRE O PODER JUDICIÁRIO E A PONDERAÇÃO DE PRINCÍPIOS  The FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL RIGHT to HEALTH IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION of 1988: the guarantee of HUMAN DIGNITY AMONG the judiciary and the BALANCE of PRINCIPLES  Cássio Guilherme Alves* Caroline Müller Bitencourt**  RESUMO: No presente estudo se buscará a análise da realização do direito fundamental social à saúde no Estado Democrático de Direito, haja vista sua proteção constitucional na Carta de 1988. Após o reconhecimento da saúde como direito fundamental social, imprescindível a criação de mecanismos que garantam sua concretização quando o Estado for ineficiente ou se negar à prestação material necessária. Para fins deste artigo será utilizado o método hipotético-dedutivo com análise das teorias da reserva do possível x mínimo existencial vinculado aos princípios de direitos fundamentais para a garantia do direito à saúde. Dessa forma, o Poder Judiciário enquanto poder constituído possui em sua natureza jurisdicional a competência e prerrogativa para compor conflitos, devendo decidir o caso concreto na esfera da jurisdição constitucional, evitando que sejam cometidos abusos e restrições contra os direitos fundamentais. Assim, o direito fundamental social à saúde possui estreita vinculação com a dignidade da pessoa humana, não sendo possível pensar em vida com dignidade com restrições a este direito. Nessa seara, o Poder Judiciário se apresenta como importante ator na concretização e garantia do direito à saúde quando o Poder Público for ineficiente na sua promoção, devendo agir através da jurisdição constitucional para, com o uso do instituto da ponderação, preservar os direitos fundamentais na garantia do mínimo existencial vinculado à dignidade da pessoa humana no Estado Democrático de Direito. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Dignidade da Pessoa Humana. Direito Fundamental Social à Saúde. Poder Judiciário. Ponderação de Princípios. ABSTRACT: In this study will seek to analyze the carry out of the fundamental social right to health in democratic State of law, its constitutional protection in 1988. After the recognition of health as a fundamental right, essential to the creation of mechanisms to ensure its implementation when the State is inefficient or refuse to provide necessary material. For the purposes of this article shall be used the hypothetical-deductive method with analysis of theories of possible x existential minimum linked to the fundamental rights to the guarantee of the right to health. In this way, the Judiciary while power constituted has the jurisdiction and prerogative Court nature to compose disputes, and decide the case in the sphere of constitutional jurisdiction, preventing are committed abuses and restrictions against fundamental rights. Thus, the fundamental social right health has close linkage with the dignity of the human person, it is not possible to think of life with dignity with restrictions on this right. In this field, the Judiciary presents itself as an important actor in the implementation and guarantee of the right to health when the Government is inefficient in its promotion and should act through the constitutional jurisdiction to, with the use of weighting Institute, preserving fundamental rights in existential minimum guarantee linked to the dignity of the human person in the democratic State of law. KEYWORDS: Dignity of the Human Person. Fundamental Social Right to the Health. Judiciary. Balance of Principles.  SUMÁRIO: Introdução. 1 A Saúde como um Direito Fundamental Social e sua Vinculação com a Dignidade da Pessoa Humana. 2 A Colisão de Direitos Fundamentais e a Ponderação de Princípios. Considerações Finais. Referências.* Mestrando do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul (UNISC), Rio Grande do Sul.   ** Doutora em Direito pela Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul (UNISC), Rio Grande do Sul. Professora do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul (UNISC), Rio Grande do Sul.


2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Barnert ◽  
Natascha Doll

On January 15th 1958, the German Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court - FCC) pronounced a judgement deemed to be a prime example for the Court's early jurisprudence concerning the scope of fundamental rights in Germany: The Court's famous “Lüth”-decision resulted from a constitutional complaint brought by Erich Lüth, former member of the Hamburg senate.* In the early 1950s, Lüth had called upon film distributors and the public to boycott Veit Harlan's tearjerker movie Unsterbliche Geliebte (Immortal Beloved). Cause for his appeal was Harlan's prominent role in the Nazi propaganda machinery as Goebbels' protégé and director of the movie Jud Süss in 1940, which counts as one of the worst anti-semitic films released during the Nazi regime. After having lost several civil lawsuits, Lüth asserted the violation of constitutional rights. Over six years later, he was to be proved correct: The Federal Constitutional Court ruled that Lüth's complaint was covered by the right to freedom of speech guaranteed in Art. 5 of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz). The Court stated that the fundamental rights as laid down in the Grundgesetz are not only of importance as subjective rights protecting the individual against state intrusions on the private sphere. As a whole they also unfold an objective dimension in representing society's crucial values. Therefore, they govern the entire legal order - including civil law and private law relations! This was indeed understood as a staggering conclusion with which the Court went far beyond the issue at stake. Since Lüth, German legal discourse characterizes this phenomenon as the third-party or horizontal effect of basic rights (Drittwirkung).


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (57) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Sidney GUERRA

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this research is to present and discuss the paradox of the right of asylum for refugees, considering that on one hand there is a right of protection of the human being, giving priority to the fundamental values of freedom and the protection to be afforded to political refugees and persons persecuted for political reasons and, on the other hand, there is the prerogative and sovereignty of each State. Methodology: The research was developed in deductive method, in bibliographic research, through interpretation of scientific articles, studies and jurisprudence, also seeking a historical perspective, as well as the interpretation of Brazilian legislation, comparative law and international bodies such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Asylum Convention, signed in Havana in 1928, the Cartagena Declaration, the Caracas Convention of 1954 and others. Results: The study reaches the conclusion that the right to asylum still has a very incipient treatment, as it is still considered a right of the State and not the right of the individual, despite its essential purpose of protecting the individual, which is considered a contradiction. This paradox is more evident when the prerogative of the State to grant asylum or not is confronted with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Contributions: Undoubtedly, this matter is currently relevant as it deals with international human rights and the expectation of millions of migrants hoping to obtain an asylum. As a contribution, this article reports several difficulties associated with the granting of an asylum in the national perspective as well as international cases and all efforts exercised by international bodies in favor of the refugees. KEYWORDS: Right of asylum; territorial asylum; political asylum; Interamerican Human Rights Court. RESUMO Objetivo: O objetivo desta pesquisa é apresentar e discutir o paradoxo do direito de asilo para refugiados, considerando que, por um lado, há o direito à proteção do ser humano, priorizando os valores fundamentais da liberdade e da proteção à saúde, a ser concedido a refugiados políticos e pessoas perseguidas por razões políticas e, por outro lado, há a prerrogativa e a soberania de cada Estado. Metodologia: A pesquisa foi desenvolvida com método dedutivo, em pesquisa bibliográfica, através da interpretação de artigos científicos, estudos e jurisprudência, buscando também uma perspectiva histórica, bem como a interpretação da legislação brasileira, direito comparado e organismos internacionais como o Interamericano Tribunal Interamericano de Direitos Humanos, a Convenção de Asilo, assinada em Havana em 1928, a Declaração de Cartagena, a Convenção de Caracas de 1954 e outras. Resultados:O estudo conclui que o direito de asilo ainda tem um tratamento muito incipiente, pois ainda é considerado um direito do Estado e não um direito do indivíduo, apesar de seu objetivo essencial de proteger o indivíduo, o que é considerado um contradição. Esse paradoxo é mais evidente quando a prerrogativa do Estado de conceder ou não asilo é confrontada com a Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos. Contribuições: Sem dúvida, este assunto é relevante no momento, pois trata dos direitos humanos internacionais e da expectativa de milhões de migrantes que esperam obter um asilo pelos mais variados motivos. Como contribuição, este artigo relata várias dificuldades associadas à concessão de asilo em perspectiva nacional, bem como casos internacionais e todos os esforços exercidos por organismos internacionais a favor dos refugiados. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Direito de asilo; asilo territorial; Asilo político; Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos.


Author(s):  
Corey Brettschneider

How should a liberal democracy respond to hate groups and others that oppose the ideal of free and equal citizenship? The democratic state faces the hard choice of either protecting the rights of hate groups and allowing their views to spread, or banning their views and violating citizens' rights to freedoms of expression, association, and religion. Avoiding the familiar yet problematic responses to these issues, this book proposes a new approach called value democracy. The theory of value democracy argues that the state should protect the right to express illiberal beliefs, but the state should also engage in democratic persuasion when it speaks through its various expressive capacities: publicly criticizing, and giving reasons to reject, hate-based or other discriminatory viewpoints. Distinguishing between two kinds of state action—expressive and coercive—the book contends that public criticism of viewpoints advocating discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation should be pursued through the state's expressive capacities as speaker, educator, and spender. When the state uses its expressive capacities to promote the values of free and equal citizenship, it engages in democratic persuasion. By using democratic persuasion, the state can both respect rights and counter hateful or discriminatory viewpoints. The book extends this analysis from freedom of expression to the freedoms of religion and association, and shows that value democracy can uphold the protection of these freedoms while promoting equality for all citizens.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (10(79)) ◽  
pp. 12-18
Author(s):  
G. Bubyreva

The existing legislation determines the education as "an integral and focused process of teaching and upbringing, which represents a socially important value and shall be implemented so as to meet the interests of the individual, the family, the society and the state". However, even in this part, the meaning of the notion ‘socially significant benefit is not specified and allows for a wide range of interpretation [2]. Yet the more inconcrete is the answer to the question – "who and how should determine the interests of the individual, the family and even the state?" The national doctrine of education in the Russian Federation, which determined the goals of teaching and upbringing, the ways to attain them by means of the state policy regulating the field of education, the target achievements of the development of the educational system for the period up to 2025, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 4, 2000 #751, was abrogated by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of March 29, 2014 #245 [7]. The new doctrine has not been developed so far. The RAE Academician A.B. Khutorsky believes that the absence of the national doctrine of education presents a threat to national security and a violation of the right of citizens to quality education. Accordingly, the teacher has to solve the problem of achieving the harmony of interests of the individual, the family, the society and the government on their own, which, however, judging by the officially published results, is the task that exceeds the abilities of the participants of the educational process.  The particular concern about the results of the patriotic upbringing served as a basis for the legislative initiative of the RF President V. V. Putin, who introduced the project of an amendment to the Law of RF "About Education of the Russian Federation" to the State Duma in 2020, regarding the quality of patriotic upbringing [3]. Patriotism, considered by the President of RF V. V. Putin as the only possible idea to unite the nation is "THE FEELING OF LOVE OF THE MOTHERLAND" and the readiness for every sacrifice and heroic deed for the sake of the interests of your Motherland. However, the practicing educators experience shortfalls in efficient methodologies of patriotic upbringing, which should let them bring up citizens, loving their Motherland more than themselves. The article is dedicated to solution to this problem based on the Value-sense paradigm of upbringing educational dynasty of the Kurbatovs [15].


Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 40
Author(s):  
Susana Mosquera

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments established important restrictions on religious freedom. Due to a restrictive interpretation of the right to religious freedom, religion was placed in the category of “non-essential activity” and was, therefore, unprotected. Within this framework, this paper tries to offer a reflection on the relevance of the dual nature of religious freedom as an individual and collective right, since the current crisis has made it clear that the individual dimension of religious freedom is vulnerable when the legal model does not offer an adequate institutional guarantee to the collective dimension of religious freedom.


Author(s):  
I. Mytrofanov

The article states that today the issues of the role (purpose) of criminal law, the structure of criminal law knowledge remain debatable. And at this time, questions arise: whose interests are protected by criminal law, is it able to ensure social justice, including the proportionality of the responsibility of the individual and the state for criminally illegal actions? The purpose of the article is to comprehend the problems of criminal law knowledge about the phenomena that shape the purpose of criminal law as a fair regulator of public relations, aimed primarily at restoring social justice for the victim, suspect (accused), society and the state, the proportionality of punishment and states for criminally illegal acts. The concepts of “crime” and “punishment” are discussed in science. As a result, there is no increase in knowledge, but an increase in its volume due to new definitions of existing criminal law phenomena. It is stated that the science of criminal law has not been able to explain the need for the concept of criminal law, as the role and name of this area is leveled to the framework terminology, which currently contains the categories of crime and punishment. Sometimes it is not even unreasonable to think that criminal law as an independent and meaningful concept does not exist or has not yet appeared. There was a custom to characterize this right as something derived from the main and most important branches of law, the criminal law of the rules of subsidiary and ancillary nature. Scholars do not consider criminal law, for example, as the right to self-defense. Although the right to self-defense is paramount and must first be guaranteed to a person who is almost always left alone with the offender, it is the least represented in law, developed in practice and available to criminal law subjects. Today, for example, there are no clear rules for the necessary protection of property rights or human freedoms. It is concluded that the science of criminal law should develop knowledge that will reveal not only the content of the subject of this branch of law, but will focus it on new properties to determine the illegality of acts and their consequences, exclude the possibility of using its means by legal entities against each other.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document