Search

The article describes the peculiarities of the manifestation of the favor rei principle in the American judicial doctrine of void-for-vagueness (invalidity due to incomprehensibility). It is stated that the corresponding principle, despite the absence of its consolidation in the legislation of Ukraine, is widely used by courts, including courts of criminal jurisdiction, during enforcement. The study of this principle allowed us to come to such basic conclusions. The principle of favor rei has a criminal procedural and criminal law nature and can be applied by courts when interpreting criminal law norms if, in the uncertainty of the criminal law prescription, it does not allow choosing the correct interpretation result in a particular case. This principle can be applied during the interpretation of the criminal legislation of Ukraine in view of the requirement of predictability of the criminal law, which follows from the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which means clarity for the addressee of the essence of the criminal law prescription. The interpretation by the courts of Ukraine of criminal law prescriptions using the favor rei principle is a kind of guarantee for the accused that in case of incomprehensibility of the criminal law prescription that can be applied to him, the court will choose in this case the interpretation option that will be most favorable for the accused. The principle of favor rei should be important in the process of law enforcement, given that the accused must be convinced that the court will not correct the flaws of the legislator when applying the norms of law, that is, it will not put itself in the place of the legislator. The principle of favor rei can make the interpretation of the criminal law more predictable, since the essence of this principle is that in the case when several interpretations follow from the law equally, but there are no significant legal arguments in favor of choosing one of them, one should choose the interpretation result that is more favorable, that is, the most predictable for the accused. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is dedicated to the study of the structural flaws and deficiencies of Article 435-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, "Insult to the Honor and Dignity of a Serviceman, Threat to a Serviceman," which, under the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Strengthening Criminal Liability for the Manufacture and Distribution of Prohibited Information Products" No. 2110-IX, which came into force on March 16, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 2110-IX), was included in Section XIX of the Criminal Code of Ukraine "Criminal Offenses Against the Established Order of Military Service (Military Criminal Offenses)." The author analyzed the disposition of Article 435-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and highlighted several contentious issues, in particular: the placement of the article in Section XIX of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which does not correspond to the generic object of this criminal offense and its subject composition, as a result of which the jurisdiction of the criminal offense provided for in Article 435-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine falls simultaneously under two pre-trial investigation bodies, such as the Security Service of Ukraine and the State Bureau of Investigation; the presence in the disposition of the article of an unnecessary limitation regarding the duration and the range of servicemen to whom this article applies. The impact and consequences of the existing shortcomings on the practical application of the examined provision are described, such as the violation of the principle of legal certainty and the ambiguity of the legal norm, as well as the unclear mechanism for the application of such a norm in practice. Based on the analysis, the author provided recommendations for eliminating the shortcomings described in the article through legislative improvement of this norm, namely: moving the norm to Section I of the Criminal Code of Ukraine by supplementing it with an independent article; adjusting the disposition of the article by expanding the range of persons who can be victims of this criminal offense, as well as removing the wording "armed aggression of the Russian Federation" from the disposition and supplementing it with more general formulations like "armed aggression" and "armed conflict.". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is indicated that the problem of determining and changing the jurisdiction of a specific body of pre-trial investigation has always been relevant among Ukrainian procedural scientists and practical workers. In recent years, this topic has become extremely important, because the number of bodies authorized to conduct pre-trial investigations has increased in Ukraine. The author analyses the approaches of various procedural scholars to the definition of the category of «subject matter jurisdiction». The author notes that jurisdiction makes it possible to distribute criminal proceedings both between separate pre-trial investigation bodies and between separate units within one pre-trial investigation body. The jurisdiction of criminal proceedings is only one of the elements of competence which determines the subject matter of jurisdiction of a particular pre-trial investigation body. The relevance of the study of the investigative jurisdiction of criminal proceedings is due to the fact that in the science of criminal procedure there are numerous differences in approaches to understanding the essence of this legal category in general and ways to solve certain problems of delimitation of the competence of pre-trial investigation bodies in particular. The problems existing in law enforcement practice in determining the jurisdiction of criminal proceedings can hardly be explained solely by subjective factors, namely, by the misapplication of criminal procedure legislation by individual officials. The author focuses on the rulings of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court, which set out clear criteria for recognising a pre-trial investigation as effective. In addition, the author summarises the approaches proposed by scholars to the application of the provisions of the criminal procedure law regulating the institute of jurisdiction over criminal proceedings. The author examines the main components of the legal institute of criminal proceedings’ jurisdiction, their features and properties. It is also necessary to introduce restrictions on challenging the jurisdiction of criminal proceedings by participants to criminal proceedings, since this contradicts the general principles of criminal proceedings [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is the property of Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is the property of Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article explores the implementation of the Special Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction (STCJ) by the Nez Perce Tribe in Idaho under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Topics discussed include provisions of VAWA, sovereignty of tribal nations and their right to safeguard their members and uphold justice within their communities, criminal code and rules of procedure necessary to exercise STCJ for the Nez Perce Tribe, and collaboration and coordination with the Intertribal Working Group.

This article employs the ecological theory of "boundary work and exchange" to elucidate the latest reforms in China's procuratorial system, delineating the expanding remits of the procuratorates both within and beyond their traditional domain of criminal justice. Following the national supervision system pilot reform in 2016, which stripped the procuratorial bodies of their authority to investigate official crimes, China's procuratorates have endeavored to expand their jurisdictions in areas such as criminal, civil, administrative, and public interest litigation. By examining how China's procuratorates leverage their respective institutional advantages to broaden their functions, we find that they have not only strengthened their role in criminal proceedings but have also continuously expanded their functions beyond criminal litigation. These reforms follow a well-defined trajectory shaped by boundary work and exchange. However, in contrast to boundary work and exchange as usually theorized, which usually starts in ambiguous and elastic areas, China's procuratorial reforms are notably confined to a fixed sphere. This can be attributed to the procuratorate's pursuit of state support, which has, in turn, led to its constrained expansion. This enhanced theoretical framework sheds light on the evolving role of China's procuratorates and underscores the potential significance of ecological theory for understanding broader institutional reforms in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Direito Internacional is the property of Revista de Direito Internacional and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The German Federal Court of Justice ruled out functional immunity for crimes under international law, stating that it does not apply to foreign state officials, regardless of their rank. This decision is part of customary international law and differs from personal immunity granted to high-ranking state officials. The Court's decision is clear and unambiguous, marking the end of a long debate and prompting legislative action to explicitly exclude functional immunity for international crimes in Germany. [Extracted from the article]

The article examines trends in revising the concept of crimes against humanity by adding signs of actions that include damage to the natural environment. It is established that the possibility of expanding the concept of crimes against humanity to include damage to the natural environment is based on criticism of the provisions of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of June 8, 1977 and the Statute of the International Criminal Court on damage to the natural environment only in the context of armed conflicts, and also about the signs of such damage as widespread, long-term and severe, which made it practically impossible to implement the norms of the mentioned acts. On such grounds, the position is substantiated that crimes against humanity that encroach on the natural environment should include environmental degradation, exploitation of natural resources, and other actions that lead to pollution or destruction of the environment or climate change. The processes of developing provisions on harming the natural environment as a crime against humanity, which are related to the policy of states or other government institutions, aimed at the exploitation of natural resources and the forced resettlement of the civilian population, are being studied. It is noted that the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is studying the possibility of revising the elements of crimes covered by the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and including directly those related to environmental damage. Proposals which are sent to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court are subject to registration in a single Policy Paper. The proposals of certain scientific and international non-governmental organizations regarding amendments to the Statute of the International Criminal Court are summarized, which include the introduction of the concept of crimes against humanity as a sign of an attack on the environment or its individual elements; addition to Art. 7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court by the provisions on the commission of actions specified in items «a», «b», «d», «k» by committing damage to the natural environment, etc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to analyze not only the inclusion of ecocide as the fifth category of crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court but also to examine the potential paradigm shift towards expanding criminal sanctions. Currently, these sanctions are individual, but there is a growing call to hold societies, including national and international companies and corporations, accountable. The goal is to move from individual criminal penalties for those causing significant environmental damage --which have proven ineffective thus far-- to holding societies and corporations criminally liable at both national and international levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The publication is dedicated to the scientific analysis of the problems of identifying and qualifying criminal offenses against the environment in order to develop appropriate countermeasures at the national and international legal levels. It is noted that an important step towards preserving the environment, ensuring the safety of life and health of people and other living organisms is the development of effective mechanisms for prosecuting criminal offenses against the environment, in particular the expansion of international responsibility for environmental damage, as well as the establishment of cooperation in the prosecution of criminals. It was established that crimes related to environmental pollution and depletion of ecosystems, etc., remain outside the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It is noted that in the practice of the said court and criminal tribunals, there are no court decisions related to damage to the environment. The expediency of revising the provisions of international legislation and the relevant directive on environmental crimes, creating the operation of the International Registry of Damages was emphasized. In the opinion of the author, the introduction of appropriate changes to international legislation will allow to create a comprehensive system of measures to combat environmental crime, to ensure the unification of national legislative systems in terms of terminology, composition of crimes, as well as sanctions applied for their commission in the conditions of armed conflicts. Arguments are presented regarding the need for Ukraine to develop a unified state policy to counter ecocide and other war crimes, in particular criminalization of the specified socially dangerous acts, establishment of an effective system for monitoring the state of the environment and fixing the amount of damage caused by the aggressor country, creating a special tribunal for criminals involved in ecocide in conditions of armed conflict. It is noted that the environmental direction of the National Post-War Recovery Plan should be based on the monitoring of regulatory acts in the field of environmental protection and contain a list of measures to restore and preserve ecosystems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study is a continuation of the presentation of some practical hypotheses for sending the criminal cases for retrial in consideration of the principle of the double degree of jurisdiction in criminal matters, as they were retained in the relevant jurisprudence consulted, in this matter. Thus, the following main situations are analyzed: the omission of the court to rule on some claims (other than those concerning the civil action) or applications, raised even ex officio, possibly following the omission of the correct (re)qualification of the object of the application in law; the wrong admission by the first court of the defendant's application for trial in the simplified procedure of the recognition of guilt or the absence of the judicial investigation in general; the non-compliance with the provisions of Article 406 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the drafting of the decision at the time of the pronouncement, following the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania No 233/2021; the existence of some irreconcilable contradictions between different parts of the judgment or its pronouncement prior to the finalization of the procedural phase of the preliminary chamber; the non-inclusion in the case of some interested persons, in order to ensure the opposability of the jurisdictional act; the settlement of the case in the absence of the file or in the absence of any means of evidence subsequently referred to in the considerations of the decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-acquittal retrials for substantially the same offence are possible in jurisdictions that have provided statutory modifications to the common law double jeopardy principle. The pleas in bar of prosecution, autrefois acquit (previously acquitted) and autrefois convict (previously convicted), are predicated on a final verdict of acquittal or conviction by a court of competent criminal jurisdiction for substantially the same offence. Differentiating similarities between the increasing volume of overlapping offences is the most litigated aspect of the double jeopardy principle. Seminal common law jurisdictions have adopted variations of the same elements approach that examines whether two or more offences arising out of the same prohibited conduct are the same based on an assessment of whether there is an element in one offence not in the comparable offence. Through doctrinal analysis of superior court jurisprudence in the Unites States, England and Wales, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, this article evaluates judicial formulations for determining the sameness of offences in comparative perspective. While the analysis is intrinsic to each jurisdiction, judicial formulations may nonetheless shed light on similar issues coming before courts of criminal justice in cognate jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On Tuesday 25 October 2016, four people were killed on the popular Thunder River Rapids Ride (TRRR) at Dreamworld, Australia. Ardent Leisure Ltd pleaded guilty to three charges under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) and was fined $A3.6 million with convictions recorded. This article analyses the charges, penalties and ways in which the responsibility of Ardent Leisure Limited for these deaths has been framed by the criminal jurisdiction – essentially, to minimise and neutralise the criminality. The article contends that the legal framework for governing corporate crime in Australia does not reflect the culpability of corporations or provide sentences of deterrence, as illustrated in the case of Guilfoyle v Ardent. The article explores the ways in which the Inquest and sentencing remarks in relation to Ardent demonstrate the failure of the legal system to grapple with the personhood of corporations, specifically in terms of agency and the implications for culpability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes the perception of the restorative justice teams in judicial settings in Basque Country about the operating protocol of the Intrajudicial Mediation Service of Basque Country in the penal mediation procedure. Through a qualitative and group study by territories (Araba, Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia), the definition, the feelings, the benefits, the difficulties and risks about the operating protocol are addressed. The research project also studies the new proposals made by the facilitators on the reform of the protocol.

Copyright of Jordanian Journal of Law & Political Science is the property of Mutah University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Kırıkkale Law Journal (KLJ) is the property of Kirikkale Law Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The offence of sedition in Hong Kong, a colonial relic that has languished in a state of dormancy since the 1960s, has made an abrupt return to the city's legal landscape following the enactment of the Hong Kong National Security Law. The confluence of these two regimes has engendered myriad nuanced legal intricacies that belie straightforward resolution, one of which occupies the focal point of this article: whether or not the District Court, an intermediate trial court with limited criminal jurisdiction, can hear sedition cases. This article engages this issue and contends that a coherent reading of the now multitude of legislative instruments constituting Hong Kong's national security and criminal procedural regime yields a negative answer. Only the Court of First Instance, a superior court of record with unlimited criminal jurisdiction, is competent to hear sedition cases. In reaching this conclusion, this article engages with and diagnoses the errors in the diverse strands of reasoning put forward in the cases of HKSAR v Tam Tak Chi and HKSAR v Chan Tai Sum in defence of the District Court's jurisdiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the challenges faced by Indigenous women in seeking justice for crimes on tribal lands, due to jurisdictional complexities. It discusses landmark cases shaping tribal sovereignty and laws like the Violence Against Women Act and Public Law 280 affecting tribal jurisdiction. Recent Supreme Court cases, such as McGirt v. Oklahoma and Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, have reaffirmed tribal sovereignty while expanding state jurisdiction over tribal lands. The text suggests strengthening tribal sovereignty by eliminating state criminal jurisdiction, restructuring federal jurisdiction, and addressing funding and infrastructure needs for tribal justice systems to combat violence against Indigenous women. [Extracted from the article]

The International Criminal Court usually must rely on the States Parties to the Rome Statute to arrest and surrender suspects. Since the Court can assume jurisdiction over Non-State Parties' officials, a dilemma thus arises of their immunity when this occurs as it did in the recent arrest warrant for Putin. This article primarily examines one of the avenues explored by the Court to remove immunity, specifically the Customary International Law Avenue. First, under this Avenue, the Court removes "vertical immunity" by arguing that either (1) international courts gradually constitute exceptions to traditional customary immunity rules, or (2) traditional customary immunity rules are never applicable in international courts. However, this article contends that both approaches are difficult to justify. The former fails as relevant evidence does not meet the threshold of constituting exceptions to existing customary rules. The latter is similarly untenable as it does not provide a convincing definition of what is known as "international courts" which could legitimately justify the different application of immunity rules in these and in domestic courts. Second, this Avenue proceeds to remove "horizontal immunity" by recharacterizing States Parties as surrogates of international criminal jurisdiction rather than exercising domestic criminal jurisdiction which renders "horizontal immunity" irrelevant. This article argues instead that there is a difference between States Parties assuming an international obligations and implementing them domestically. Additionally, the Rome Statute grants considerable deference to States Parties for arrest and surrender within their own territory which makes it inappropriate to regard these as mere "jurisdictional surrogates" of international criminal jurisdiction. If the Customary International Law Avenue is ultimately adopted, it would have a profound impact on the practice of the International Criminal Court and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article uses criminal jurisdiction to describe tribal political status in our national constitutional order. In 2022, Congress and the Supreme Court altered the already byzantine scheme of criminal jurisdiction on tribal land through the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA") and Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, respectively. By instating both tribal and state jurisdiction over a common class of offenders without any structure for coordinating prosecutions, VAWA and Castro-Huerta have jeopardized the rule of law and necessitated a new kind of inter-sovereign cooperation--in other words, they created a federalism problem. The Article adapts existing theories of federalism to understand the import of these federal interventions, illuminate tribal political status in American constitutionalism, and suggest federalism values (e.g. innovation, local self-determination, minority empowerment, effective dissent) to resolve tribe-state conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International criminal law (ICL) has traditionally overlooked sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and struggles to understand it. Prosecutions have been largely inefficient and not reflective of gender harms. The Rome Statute requires interpreting SGBV as a social construction (article 7(3)), in consistency with international human rights law (IHRL) and without discrimination (article 21(3)). There is, however, little guidance to implement these approaches. This article argues that intersectionality, an IHRL-based approach that reveals compounded discrimination, is an efficient tool to interpret SGBV and, therefore, should be integrated in ICL. The article traces the origins of intersectionality in feminism and its recognition by IHRL dealing with violence against women. It establishes the applicability of intersectionality in ICL that it demonstrates with a comparative analysis of the Lubanga and Ntaganda cases. The findings show that intersectionality suits ICL's specific needs which allows labelling and explaining some of those contributions throughout the judicial process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article critically examines the options for prosecuting Russian leaders for their involvement in the invasion of Ukraine. It explores the violation of the UN Charter and the potential criminal responsibility of Russia for aggression. The article discusses different international options for prosecution, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), a special tribunal, and a hybrid tribunal. It concludes that ICC prosecution would be the most practical and symbolically beneficial option, but acknowledges the jurisdictional limitations of the ICC in this case. The text also discusses concerns and challenges associated with establishing a Special Tribunal or a hybrid tribunal. Overall, each option has its advantages and drawbacks, and the choice of which option to pursue depends on various factors. [Extracted from the article]

Courts in many jurisdictions remain indifferent to criticisms for their overly harsh or unequal treatments. There has been a debate whether this is attributed to judges' individual dispositions or rather their environments. This article contributes to this debate by offering evidence from Thai courts about their indifference to inequality generated by the wealth-insensitive fine and fine-default custody. It argues that judges are situationally driven to adopt rigid framing about justice when performing duties, as a result of which judges develop indifference to the 'side-effects' of their frame-influenced decisions. The findings imply the possibility that the same mechanisms may exist in other jurisdictions and underline the need to address indifference to prevent failure in reforming for a more egalitarian system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a violence epidemic plaguing the Native American population across the country. Native women are disproportionality victimized by both sexual and non-sexual violence—over eighty-five percent of Native women are expected to be victims of intimate partner violence, stalking, or sexual violence at some point in their life. Most often, the perpetrators are non-Native, which creates jurisdictional issues. In most states, the only sovereign with the authority to prosecute non-Indian-on-Indian crimes is the federal government. Yet, federal law enforcement often does not investigate these crimes, and federal prosecutors ultimately decline to prosecute many sexual assault and domestic violence crimes in Indian Country. The 2013 and 2022 reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) allow Tribal governments to exercise “special Tribal criminal jurisdiction” if they satisfy a laundry list of requirements. But, in practice, many Tribes are unable to satisfy the requirements, leaving the federal government as the sole prosecutorial authority. However, in 2020, the Supreme Court set the stage for criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country to take a major shift. After deciding in McGirt v. Oklahoma that parts of northeastern Oklahoma are actually the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation and thus part of Indian Country, defendants convicted by state courts seized the opportunity to challenge the validity of their convictions. Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, a non-Indian convicted by an Oklahoma state court for neglecting his five-year-old Indian stepdaughter, challenged his conviction on the ground that the crime was committed in Indian Country. Thus, the federal government would possess the sole prosecutorial power. However, the Supreme Court remarkably held in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta that the federal government and states now have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians in Indian Country. The Castro-Huerta decision, viewed in conjunction with the 2022 reauthorization of VAWA and additional measures granting states criminal jurisdiction, further complicates criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country over non-Indian abusers. Now, there are three prosecutorial authorities: the state, federal, and Tribal governments. But past experiences indicate that expanding the number of agencies with prosecutorial power in Indian Country is not always better. Generally, the consensus from tribal leaders is that Castro-Huerta is an unwarranted attack on tribal sovereignty that will inhibit the effective prosecution of crime in Indian Country. This Note explores potential solutions to address the ongoing injustice following McGirt and Castro-Huerta. Congress needs to restore Tribal governments’ authority to promote public safety and provide justice for victims in Indian Country. A simple amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act can reaffirm that Tribes have criminal jurisdiction to punish non-Indian offenders by recognizing that Tribes can exercise jurisdiction over all persons located on or within Indian Country. Another amendment can remove all Tribal sentencing limitations and empower Tribes to adequately protect victims. These amendments will be most effective when Congress also increases appropriations to better fund Tribal criminal justice systems and their fight against the domestic and sexual violence crisis. While the aforementioned solutions would be politically challenging to achieve, there is also an opportunity to improve relationships under the current post-Castro-Huerta scheme. Tribes should be the primary gatherers of evidence to address the cultural barriers between Native victims and non-Tribal law enforcement personnel. Additionally, Tribes should collaborate openly with federal and state law enforcement agencies. This Note emphasizes that any path forward needs to center Tribal voices and focus on restoring Tribal sovereignty to effectively address the violence epidemic faced by Native women in Indian Country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After twenty years of operation, we know that the International Criminal Court (ICC) works in practice. But does it work in theory? A debate rages regarding the proper conceptualization of the Court's jurisdiction. Some have argued that the ICC's jurisdiction is little more than a delegation by states of a subset of their own criminal jurisdiction. They contend that when states ratify the Rome Statute, they transfer some of their own prescriptive or adjudicative criminal jurisdiction to the Court, meaning that the Court cannot do more than the state itself could have done. Moreover, they argue that these constraints are imposed by international law itself. This Article disagrees, contending that states "confer upon" or "accept" the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals like the ICC not to transfer a subset of their own power to those entities, but because they often want and need those courts and tribunals to do things that they cannot do in their national systems. International law not only allows them to do this: it encourages it. This is true for many international courts and tribunals created by treaties and by the United Nations; this Article contends that it is equally true for the ICC. This Article demonstrates that this theory of "collective conferral" supports the ICC's recent caselaw on jurisdiction and immunities, which is consonant with principles of general international law, the Rome Statute itself, and the values and concerns that drove states to establish the Court in 1998. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In our interconnected society, crime persists, demanding joint efforts by national and international authorities to detect, prevent, and prosecute criminal activities. Jurisprudential evolution mandates lawmakers to possess a comprehensive legal vision, adapting laws to changing social contexts and emerging criminal methods, especially in technology, including computer technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI). This article comments on the escalating vulnerability of sovereign states and their economies to cyber-attacks. The radical evolution of computer systems has led to new modes of aggression, targeting not only traditional legal assets but also individuals familiar with advanced technology. The emergence of "cyberwarfare" prompts inquiries into potential categorizations within international legal frameworks. Recent global conflicts highlight the potential classification of cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure as war crimes or acts of aggression, urging the International Criminal Court (ICC) to consider incorporating cybercrimes into its core interests. While normative references may lack in existing conventions, the Martens Clause emphasizes treating attacks using technology as equivalent to conventional means. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter implies that cyber weapons could be deemed equivalent to conventional weapons under international law. The article stresses the importance of education and advanced training for legal personnel skilled in identifying cybercrime perpetrators, challenging the ICC to recruit or train individuals with the necessary legal and technical expertise for effective cybersecurity responses. The article briefly explores challenges in conceptualizing and categorizing cybercrimes within existing legal frameworks. The intersection of law and technology necessitates harmonious collaboration between legal and technical experts, acknowledging the intricate web of cyberspace and the implications of cyber threats on global stability and security. In conclusion, the article advocates a fundamental shift in the approach to justice, recognizing the ICC's imperative evolution in addressing cybercrimes. Integrating cybercrimes into the ICC's purview aligns with international law principles, emphasizing the equivalence of cyber weapons to conventional arms. Collaboration between legal and technical experts is essential in navigating the complexities of cybercrimes, ensuring accountability, and upholding justice in the digital age. The article concludes by highlighting the proactive role of the ICC in shaping the future of global justice amid emerging cyber threats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tax jurisdiction is a legal concept, but it is fundamentally dependent on state capacity, technology and politics. The jurisdictional boundaries of the tax state are in turn crucial in delimiting its taxing power. This article considers how tax jurisdictional concepts, in particular residence, source and the location of consumption, are changing as the capability of states to tax labour, capital and consumption changes in a global digital economy. These changes are occurring through contestation in the "borderlands" of the tax state, between multiple states and non-state actors. Governments can enhance tax capability by cooperating with each other and with global intermediaries and by adopting new technologies, but also take contradictory steps to abrogate tax jurisdiction. The article illustrates the discussion with examples of tax jurisdiction for individuals as residents, workers, investors or consumers; and for corporations, including recent global developments aimed at taxation of multinational enterprises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is often necessary for a company to reach a compromise with its creditors, and where necessary, third parties. A useful tool for facilitating such a compromise is the scheme of arrangement, a court-controlled procedure for restructuring the relationship between the company and its members or creditors. The scheme provisions are, however, silent on whether a third-party release may be incorporated into a scheme. Since the mid 2000s, the Australian and UK courts have developed two different tests, namely the nexus test and the necessity test, to fill this statutory gap. This paper discusses policy concerns, if any, that the alternative tests have given cause to, and if the answer is 'yes', how these concerns should be addressed. The paper concludes that the necessity test does, and the nexus test does not, give cause for concern and that the latter should be adopted for determining scheme jurisdiction in all cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on proposing strategies for limiting the impact of the Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta Supreme Court decision on tribal sovereignty, particularly through judicial remedies at the lower court level. Topics include providing an overview of federal Indian law, explaining the concept of criminal jurisdiction in Indian country, and outlining two approaches for lower courts to narrow the implications of the Castro-Huerta decision: textual limiting and fact-to-fact limiting.

The national authority Økokrim was established several decades ago to become a policing centre of excellence in the investigation and prosecution of economic and environmental crime in Norway that is especially concerned with white-collar and corporate crime. This article focusses on deterrence effects from Økokrim investigations that never lead to prosecution or conviction. The research raises the issue of the use of law enforcement publicity regarding investigations of potential offenders, often long before possible convictions. The issue is explored by the press releases from the Norwegian body. The apparent shift in strategy and practice at Økokrim might be explained by the devastating evaluation of the national authority some years ago. The evaluation was initiated after the Transocean court scandal where all defendants were acquitted of all charges. Deterrence strategy by investigations implies that Økokrim passes negative consequences on suspects who never have a chance to defend themselves in court. In jurisdictions with criminal justice, a suspect should always have the benefit of the doubt. Conviction should only occur when guilt is proven beyond any reasonable and sensible doubt. Until eventually proven guilty, a suspect is supposed to be considered innocent. This is a basic principle of justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding crime trends provides policymakers with needed information to effectively use scarce resources to keep communities safe. Native nations in the US, who retain criminal and civil jurisdiction on their lands, rely on national data collected by the federal government with little tribal input. These data may not accurately reflect the community's situation or the values they hold. Developing a tribal crime seriousness index may provide an elegant way to bridge this gap. This paper catalogs and identifies the methods for developing crime seriousness indices and provides a critical discussion of the role culture plays in the conceptualization of crime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of the International Law Commission (ILC) has been fundamental for the codification and progressive development of international criminal law. This article explores the pivotal role played by the ILC in international criminal law, tracing its roots back to the aftermath of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials. By formulating the Nuremberg Principles, adopted in 1950, the ILC laid the groundwork for subsequent advancements in the prosecution of international crimes. This article presents an overview of the works of the ILC related to international criminal law including the efforts towards drafting a Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind and its role in shaping the discourse on international criminal jurisdiction, including debates on the establishment of an International Criminal Court. The evolution of these discussions, spanning several decades, ultimately contributed to the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998, leading to the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Moreover, the article further discusses recent efforts by the ILC, focusing on the Draft Articles on Crimes Against Humanity and the ongoing work on the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is the property of Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie III, Historia Medieval is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article examines the Italian Constitutional Court's Judgment No. 192/2023 on a question of constitutional legitimacy raised in the course of the criminal trial against four Egyptian nationals for the murder and torture of Italian doctoral researcher Giulio Regeni in Egypt in 2016. By declaring the partial unconstitutionality of the Italian legislation on in absentia proceedings, the Court's decision allowed the trial to proceed even in the defendants' absence. The judgment is assessed against a backdrop of institutional inertia in securing justice for Regeni. The article first analyses the significance of the Court's decision, highlighting its implications for international human rights law and, in particular, the duty to exercise criminal jurisdiction over acts of torture under the UN Convention Against Torture. It then critiques the emphasis placed on criminal accountability, as illustrated by Regeni's case. It argues that such emphasis, combined with the inadequacy of other State responses, risks diluting the right to truth and accountability in its broader sense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a judgment by the Corte di Cassazione on the concept of piracy in the context of migration in the Mediterranean Sea. The court defined acts of fishermen extorting migrants' belongings as piracy, leading to arrests and legal proceedings. The court's interpretation broadened the scope of piracy to include extortion, affirming Italian jurisdiction over crimes committed on the high seas. This judgment reflects the Italian judiciary's commitment to holding those responsible for piracy-like acts against vulnerable parties accountable. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Archives of Criminology / Archiwum Kryminologii is the property of Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Legal Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta for tribal sovereignty and criminal jurisdiction in Indian country. It explores the concerns and reactions within Indian country following the decision and proposes a plan for addressing its effects. It advocates for lower courts to "narrow Castro-Huerta from below" through textual and fact-to-fact limiting approaches.

In June of 2022, the Supreme Court reversed two hundred years of precedent in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, holding in a 5-4 opinion that states have concurrent criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. In conducting the preemption analysis, Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion reasoned that while states have a strong interest in prosecuting crimes in Indian country in order to keep the community safe, tribes had functionally no interest because they generally lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The Court then reasoned that the lack of a tribal interest could not preempt the state interest. This Article suggests that, despite the general prohibition on tribes asserting criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians that was discovered by the Supreme Court in its 1978 Oliphant opinion, tribes can assert criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who consent to the jurisdiction in tribal court. The argument extends to both affirmative and implied consent and draws its authority from both pre-Oliphant scholarship and precedent, as well as from recent developments by the Court, Congress, and dicta from the Ninth Circuit. If tribes are able to regularly assert some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, then when lower courts apply Castro-Huerta in the future, there will be a strong tribal interest to preempt state criminal jurisdiction in Indian country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]