Search

When crimes are being organized, there are often more than one person involved in the planning, setting up and execution of the offence. The person who performs the actus reus of the offence is the principal perpetrator of the crime. Such person often has accomplices who assist or encourage him or her in the commission of the offence, who are known as secondary parties or accessories to the crime. In criminal law, the doctrine of criminal complicity consists in the body of principles governing the joint implication of each of two or more persons in a criminal offence. The chief focus of this paper is on the discussion of the main aspects of the law relating to criminal complicity in New Zealand. The analysis of the substantive law relating to accomplices includes consideration of the subjective and objective requirements for accessorial liability as expressed in the relevant legislation and judicial decisions, as well as the substantive and procedural reasons for distinguishing the traditional categories of criminal participation. The references to leading authorities from England and other common law jurisdictions add a useful comparative perspective to the discussion of the issues.

The civil law tradition is the oldest and most prevalent legal tradition in the world today, embracing the legal systems of Continental Europe, Latin America and those of many African and Asian countries. Despite the considerable differences in the substantive laws of civil law countries, a fundamental unity exists between them. The most obvious element of unity is the fact that the civil law systems are all derived from the same sources and their legal institutions are classified in accordance with a commonly accepted scheme existing prior to their own development, which they adopted and adapted at some stage in their history. The civil law tradition was the product of the interaction among three principal forces: Roman law, as transmitted through the sixth century codification of Emperor Justinian; Germanic customary law; and the canon law of the Church, which in many respects derived from Roman law but nevertheless constituted a distinct system. Particularly important in this process was the work of the medieval jurists who systematically studied, interpreted and adapted Roman law to the conditions and needs of their own era. From the fifteenth century onwards the relationship between the received Roman law, Germanic customary law and canon law was affected in varying degrees by the rise of the nation-state and the increasing consolidation of centralized political administrations. The present paper traces the common history of European civil law from its beginning in the High Middle Ages to the emergence of national codifications in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A significant part of the work will be devoted to the discussion of the historical factors that facilitated the preservation, resurgence and subsequent reception of Roman law as the basis of the ‘common law’ (ius commune) of Continental Europe.

Over the past three decades, a new approach to society’s response to crime and criminality has been gaining ground around the world. Known as‘restorative justice’, this innovative approach revolves around the ideas that crime is primarily a violation of a relationship among victims, offenders and the community ; that the chief aim of the justice process should be to reconcile those most directly affected by the offending behaviour while addressing the injuries they suffered ; and that the resolution of crimerelated conflicts demands a positive effort on the part of victims and offenders, and the assumption of responsibility by the community. A restorative justice practice that has attracted much attention in recent years is conferencing. Conferencing is essentially an extension of the victimoffender mediation process involving not only offenders and victims but also their wider‘communities of care’, such as their respective families and other community members. It aims to involve the young offender, the victim, and their families in a decision-making process with the objective of reaching group-consensus on a‘just’outcome. At the same time, it seeks to increase the offender’s awareness of the human impact of his or her behaviour and to enable both the offender and victim to reconnect with key community support systems. Conferencing in New Zealand, referred to as‘Family Group Conferencing’（FGC）, was incorporated into the youth justice system in 1989 with the introduction of the Children, Young Persons and 38 Family Conferencing for Young Offenders : Some Lessons from New Zealand（MOUSOURAKIS）Their Families Act（CYPFA）. The Act emerged partly as a response to Maori demands for a system of justice more sensitive to their traditional cultural values, and it introduced significant changes to the approach for addressing issues of juvenile justice and family welfare. This paper analyses the function of Family Group Conferencing in New Zealand in relation to the broader resto

The current condition for human rights violations in Bangladesh has already reached in an alarming state to attract both national and international focus on it. Critics sometimes indicate the religious values of its people, where the majority of people are Muslim, to be the root cause of such type of violations. To make this criticism futile, this paper would discuss about various major types of human rights violations in Bangladesh and how Islam recognize these human rights in its core values. Then, a conclusion has been drawn showing that it is not Islam rather its unscrupulous abuse, illiteracy and poverty of the people, weak law and order situation, and corruption etc. those can be attributed as the root causes of human rights violations in Bangladesh.

論文タイトルの「外観」は「概観」の間違い