Principles of Legality in Criminal Law from Perspective Fair Enforcement

This study discusses the principle of legality in criminal law from the perspective of fair law enforcement. The formulation of the problem put forward is how to regulate the principle of legality in current criminal law and how the principle of legality in criminal law is currently from the perspective of law enforcement that is just. The conclusion of this study is that the regulation of the principle of legality in criminal law is currently regulated in Article 1 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code which is the principle of formal legality, which requires an act committed to be determined as a criminal act if it is first stated in the legislation that valid at the time the act was committed, from the perspective of fair law enforcement, the legality principle in criminal law currently cannot be used as a basis for carrying out fair law enforcement, because in this legality principle it implies that an act is qualified as a mere criminal act. only based on legislation (written legal regulations). In the opinion of the author, that law enforcement that adheres to the principle of legality can only achieve legal certainty, but has not been able to realize justice. Justice should be realized through law enforcement which is not just formal justice according to the formulation of the law, but also substantial justice, namely justice that is truly in accordance with the sense of community justice based on the living law.

Toolbox of the Public Administration Entity. Intersection of the Principle of Legality and Administrative Discretion in Exercising the Revocation of an Administrative Decision

For some, revocation of an administrative decision arises doubts, for others, it is a legal measure ensuring that public administration entities are able to respond to changing circumstances and adopt not only legitimate, but also fair decisions by striking a balance between private and public interests. This paper aims to analyse the choice of Lithuania with respect to the implementation and application of the public administration entities right to revoke its previously adopted administrative decision. In order to achieve this goal, the results of analysis of the role of the principle of legality and administrative discretion in the decision-making process, legal regulation of public administration and case-law are revealed. The analysis will show that there is room for the possible systematisation of the administrative procedures, aiming to ensure that public administration entities are able to respond to the ongoing changes in order to fulfil the objectivities based on which the particular public administration entities were established.

THE RULE OF LAW IN INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW VERSUS THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY IN SOUTH AFRICAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: SOME OBSERVATIONS

The rule of law is expressly mentioned in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. The principle of legality has flourished in South African administrative law since its recognition and reception into our law in Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council 1999 (1) SA 374 (CC). The Indian Constitution does not contain an equivalent expression of the rule of law. Notably, how persons and societies in India govern themselves is premised upon beliefs akin to the rule of law. Moreover, Indian administrative law has been strongly influenced by the theory of the rule of law as advocated by Dicey. Whilst Indian administrative law relies heavily upon the rule of law to judicially review conduct that is capricious, South African administrative law has come to rely on the incident of the rule of law, namely the principle of legality. This contribution inspects some of the reasons why the rule of law is heavily relied on in Indian administrative law – where it essentially mirrors the South African administrative law principle of legality. This contribution also suggests reasons as to why the principle of legality is so prevalent in South African administrative law as opposed to merely the rule of law as employed by the Indian courts in Indian administrative law.

Preventing the Forcibly Displaced from Returning as Persecution and Inhumane Act under International Criminal Law and the Rome Statute

Preventing the forcibly displaced from returning to the territory from which they were unlawfully expelled has not received adequate attention under international criminal law. This article addresses this gap by focusing on denial of return as a crime against humanity. It evaluates international criminal jurisprudence including the proceedings concerning the Rohingya and evolving human rights standards to show that prevention from returning is a serious and continuing denial of fundamental human rights which inflicts great suffering. As such, it may qualify as persecution and/or an inhumane act under the Rome Statute. The ramifications of this on the temporal and territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the principle of legality are important especially in situations of protracted displacement. The article demonstrates that although criminalisation of denial of return is not a panacea, it is instrumental in tackling forced displacement which affects millions across the world.

Democracy, Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law: Beholden to Constituent Power

<p>Democratic government serves two purposes, both requiring that the substantive element of the rule of law be adhered to. A living constitution is required by a government to able to maintain civil society, which is the main occupation of the rule of law and, secondly, the rule of law also vouchsafes rights and freedoms. Hence, the rule of law enforced by the courts is the factor that controls the constitution, and increasingly this includes controlling the government, both the legislature and executive. This paper considers the capacities of democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, in the context of both New Zealand’s unwritten and America’s written constitutions, with the view of locating the constitution making power (constituent power). The power that makes and changes the constitution was originally found with the people, parliament, and the executive. However, a modern formulation of the rule of law that seeks to replace parliamentary supremacy as the ultimate principle of legality appears to be arising. An egalitarian society is becoming the preferred option by all parties. In this context, the constitution making power will be with the vessel that is working towards creating such a society. To that end, the paper recommends a Constitutional Commission for New Zealand that would review legislation for constitutionality, including adherence to the rule of law. The objective of the Constitutional Commission would be to recommend the review of law for constitutionality, including adherence to the rule of law.</p>

Democracy, Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law: Beholden to Constituent Power

<p>Democratic government serves two purposes, both requiring that the substantive element of the rule of law be adhered to. A living constitution is required by a government to able to maintain civil society, which is the main occupation of the rule of law and, secondly, the rule of law also vouchsafes rights and freedoms. Hence, the rule of law enforced by the courts is the factor that controls the constitution, and increasingly this includes controlling the government, both the legislature and executive. This paper considers the capacities of democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, in the context of both New Zealand’s unwritten and America’s written constitutions, with the view of locating the constitution making power (constituent power). The power that makes and changes the constitution was originally found with the people, parliament, and the executive. However, a modern formulation of the rule of law that seeks to replace parliamentary supremacy as the ultimate principle of legality appears to be arising. An egalitarian society is becoming the preferred option by all parties. In this context, the constitution making power will be with the vessel that is working towards creating such a society. To that end, the paper recommends a Constitutional Commission for New Zealand that would review legislation for constitutionality, including adherence to the rule of law. The objective of the Constitutional Commission would be to recommend the review of law for constitutionality, including adherence to the rule of law.</p>

Limits to Measures of Confiscation of Property Linked to Serious Criminal Offences in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

In the past thirty years, a growing number of international agreements and acts of international institutions has resorted to different kinds of confiscation (“direct confiscation”, “value confiscation”, “enlarged confiscation” or “nonconviction based confiscation”) to contrast and suppress international and transnational crimes. It can be considered that the flexibility – in terms of variety of measures and functions – of confiscation, together with the forced and permanent deprivation of property to which it always leads, significantly affect the favor towards this measure by States and international organisations. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), taking into account the aforementioned proliferation of international acts and agreements concerning the fight to criminal activities, maintains that common “European and even universal legal standards” can be said to exist which encourage the confiscation of property linked to serious criminal offences. Moreover, the Court has gone so far as to maintain that, in accordance with such “universal legal standards”, States Parties to the European Convention of Human Rights must be given “a wide margin of appreciation with regard to what constitutes the appropriate means of applying measures to control the use of property such as the confiscation of all types of proceeds of crime”. However, the implementation of such measures by States authorities must conform with human rights guarantees – inter alia the principle of legality in criminal matters, due process rights and property rights – provided for in customary and conventional international law. This essay seeks to examine the relevant case law of the ECtHR and to focus on the possibility of reconciling, on the one hand, international obligations on the protection of human rights and, on the other hand, international agreements and acts – concerning the fight against criminal activities – that provide for the various types of confiscation measures.

Legal Certainty on The Implementation of Death Criminal Decisions that have Permanent Law Power in Indonesia(A Review of the Death Criminal Decision on Narcotics in 2014-2018)

The principle of legal certainty applied to the principle of extra ordinary crime is contrary to the respect for humanity as the most fundamental human rights principle and the principle of legality is associated with positive law and international conventions. The results of this study are intended to seek or find arguments for the certainty of the execution of the death penalty for the community, family, convicts and the state, so that the research on death penalty decisions in narcotics cases that occurred from 2014 to 2018. This research method is included in normative juridical law research. The conclusion is, sentencing with the threat of the death penalty can still be applied in Indonesia in narcotics crime cases is appropriate. Therefore, the death penalty, of course, state law does not conflict with religious law/teachings, in other words, the death penalty does not conflict with the first precepts because the first principle of Pancasila is Belief in One God, which means based on the beliefs/religions of each person who in carrying out/believes His religion is also guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which is contained in Article 28 E paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) and Article 29 paragraph (2).

Simulated Legal Phenomena in the System of Principles of the Administrative Process

With the inclusion of the category “simulation” in the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences an interest arose in studying “simulation” in the system of principles of the administrative process. The purpose of the study is to formulate general recommendations for neutralizing the negative consequences of manifestations of feign in the system of principles of the administrative process. The methodological basis of the research is materialistic dialectics and elements of conceptual analysis. The methods of analogy and generalization allow us to justify the use of the construction of “simulated legal phenomenon” for the study of the principles of the administrative process. The survey revealed obstacles to the implementation of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence. The comparative legal analysis allows us to establish the comparability of the volumes of state repression in the measures of administrative and criminal responsibility, a clearly negative assessment of simulation in administrative law compared to its neutral assessment in civil law, to identify a number of obstacles to the functioning of the principles of the administrative process. Other standard research methods are also used. The expediency of analyzing the simulation of the system of principles of the administrative process is justified; a simplified model of the system of principles of the administrative process is used for the analysis; from the standpoint of assessing legal simulation, the analysis of the principle of legality, the principle of procedural equality, the principle of guilt, the principle of presumption of innocence, as well as the principle of respect for the honor and dignity of the individual was carried out. In order to reduce the level of obvious simulation in the system of principles of the administrative process, in particular, it is recommended: in the doctrine of the administrative process to consider the principle of legality not as a reality, but as a goal; in the laws, replace the term “legality” with the term “lawfulness”; in the laws, the wording “the principle of equality before the law” and the like should be replaced with “the principle of equality of rights”; part 1 of Article 1.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences should be amended as follows: “a person is subject to administrative responsibility only for those socially harmful actions (acts of inaction) in respect of which his guilt is established”; part 3 of Article 1.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences after the words: “...is not obliged to prove his innocence” should be supplemented with the words “but has the right to disagree with all or part of the arguments confirming his guilt, or to refute them”. It is also recommended to amend the legislation in order to unify the approach to the differentiation of administrative offenses and crimes.