scholarly journals Klauzula norymberska siedemdziesiąt lat później

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 167-198
Author(s):  
Patryk Gacka
Keyword(s):  
Nulla Poena Sine Lege

W artykule analizie poddana została wyrażona w art. 7 ust. 2 EKPC, art. 15 ust. 2 MPPOiP oraz art. 49 ust. 2 KPP klauzula norymberska. W założeniu jej twórców miała ona za zadanie źródłowo uszczegółowić zakres zasady legalizmu, pełniąc przy tym funkcję swoistej „tarczy” przed potencjalnymi zarzutami naruszenia zasady nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege przez powojenne procesy karne zbrodniarzy wojennych. W artykule wykazano, iż wbrew formułowanym niekiedy twierdzeniom, nie stanowi ona jednak wyjątku od zasady lex retro non agit, lecz konstytuuje autonomiczny pod względem źródeł zakazów karnych standard wyrażany przez zasadę nullum crimen sine iure. W pracy zbadano ponadto stosowalność ogólnych zasad prawa uznanych przez społeczność międzynarodową w kontekście odpowiedzialności karnej, a także wykazano praktyczną nieoperatywność klauzuli norymberskiej. Krytycznej analizie poddano także konstrukcję klauzuli norymberskiej. Artykuł wykazuje jej merytoryczną i logiczną wadliwość. W podsumowaniu, autor sugeruje natomiast zastąpienie klauzuli norymberskiej klauzulą prawa natury.

Nulla Poena Sine Lege

1937 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome Hall
Keyword(s):  
Nulla Poena Sine Lege

scholarly journals Ne bis in idem, nulla poena sine lege and Domestic Prosecutions of International Crimes in the Aftermath of a Trial at the International Criminal Court

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-66
Author(s):  
Keilin Anderson ◽  
Adaena Sinclair-Blakemore
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Primary Role ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Nulla Poena Sine Lege ◽  
Limited Power ◽  
Significant Attention

Abstract The outcome of an icc trial – be it a conviction or acquittal – receives significant attention. However, what happens to a defendant in the aftermath of the proceeding garners little discussion. This article seeks to fill this gap in the literature by analysing how the ne bis in idem and nulla poena sine lege principles, enshrined in Articles 20(2) and 23 of the Rome Statute, protect defendants from subsequent prosecutions and punishments by states and regional courts following their trials at the icc. We argue that these provisions do not provide adequate protection. Further, we argue that given the icc’s limited power to enforce compliance with these provisions as well as the primary role that states enjoy in the enforcement of international criminal law, the most appropriate way to address this issue is through the inclusion of robust protections in domestic legislation and the constituent instruments of regional courts.

scholarly journals Subendrintos dalinio bausmių sudėjimo būdu bausmės skyrimas, tinkamai įgyvendinant... nulla poena sine lege principą

Teisė ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-45
Author(s):  
Kristina Chlebinskaitė
Keyword(s):  
Nulla Poena Sine Lege

Straipsnyje nagrinėjamos subendrintos bausmės skyrimo taisyklių taikymo problemos, susijusios su tin­kamu nulla poena sine lege principo įgyvendinimu. Some problems of aggregate punishment are covered in this article in order to implement nulla poena sine lege principle correctly.

scholarly journals Subendrintos dalinio bausmių sudėjimo būdu bausmės skyrimas, tinkamai įgyvendinant... nulla poena sine lege principą

Teisė ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 66 (66) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina Chlebinskaitė
Keyword(s):  
Nulla Poena Sine Lege

Straipsnyje nagrinėjamos subendrintos bausmės skyrimo taisyklių taikymo problemos, susijusios su tin­kamu nulla poena sine lege principo įgyvendinimu. Some problems of aggregate punishment are covered in this article in order to implement nulla poena sine lege principle correctly.

scholarly journals Binding Nature of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Explanations in Criminal Law

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 95-107
Author(s):  
I. A. Klepitskiy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Nulla Poena Sine Lege ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

The question of the legal nature and the binding nature of explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation remains debatable in the literature. When considering criminal cases, the courts do not always follow the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court. It seems that the explanations of the Supreme Court, while not being a source of criminal law, are nevertheless binding on courts and officials applying the norms of criminal law. This is a general rule, to which there are exceptions. First, there are erroneous explanations of the Supreme Court, which are not based on the established judicial practice and are not supported by it. Second, there are outdated explanations of the Supreme Court that do not meet modern legal realities. Third, there are explanations of the Supreme Court, which, in relation to a particular situation, require an expansive or restrictive interpretation. In these three situations, the Supreme Court’s explanations do not bind the law enforcement officer. The binding nature of the Supreme Court’s explanations is determined by the value of the law as such. Questions of law require a uniform resolution. An alternative to a uniform interpretation of the law is arbitrary administration. Arbitrary administration is not within the competence of the judge. There is no case law in Russia. The works of legal scholars in modern Russia also cannot satisfy the need for a uniform interpretation of the law. The significance of the explanations of the Supreme Court determines the high requirements for their quality. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not directly contradict the law. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not change unless there is an urgent need to do so. The rule nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, being an achievement of legal culture, binds the Supreme Court. By clarifying the practice of applying the law, the Supreme Court forms and preserves judicial doctrine, thereby providing legal certainty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document