Search

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"The Palgrave Handbook of Global Rehabilitation in Criminal Justice" is a comprehensive and pioneering examination of rehabilitation strategies in criminal justice systems worldwide. Edited by Maurice Vanstone and Philip Priestley, the handbook covers 30 jurisdictions across seven continents, offering insights into diverse cultural, social, and legal contexts. The contributors, including academics and professionals from various disciplines, provide critical analyses and discussions on the effectiveness, challenges, and ethical considerations of rehabilitation efforts. The handbook's interdisciplinary approach, readability, and accessibility make it an essential resource for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers interested in improving rehabilitative practices in any jurisdiction. [Extracted from the article]

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.)

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]

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 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]

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.)

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 Revista de Derecho de la Seguridad Social, Laborum is the property of Ediciones Laborum S.L. 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]

For over a century, courts have struggled to determine whether, and to what extent, the Constitution applies outside our borders. To date, they have not come up with a single test to make this determination, instead taking an ad hoc, clause-by-clause approach that has left nothing but questions for lower courts to grapple with. Scholars have suggested various tests, based on differing theories of extraterritorial application, but so far, none has caught on. After examining the conventional discussion of the extraterritorial application of the Constitution, additional cases that are often left out of this history, as well as contributions from the lower courts, this Article provides a new test for courts to use to determine when to apply the Constitution to a claim. This proposed test draws on various prior court cases to distill the inquiry down to a straightforward application of a three-part test. First, a court should determine whether the U.S. government has the power to act at all. If the court determines that the Constitution forbids the action in question, then the court should enforce that prohibition and the test is over, for the government may not exercise power it lacks anywhere in the world. Second, if the government does have the power, the court should next ascertain where the alleged constitutional violation has taken or will take place. Courts far too often skip this step, just assuming that if the plaintiff is outside the United States, the violation must have occurred there. But as this Article discusses, this is not always so. While the effects of unconstitutional action may be felt outside the United States, the action itself often occurs domestically. In such a case, the court would apply the Constitution normally. Only if the action alleged to have violated the Constitution occurred abroad should the court turn to the final inquiry--does the Constitution apply and if so, to what extent? This final step is itself composed of three parts. First, because the Constitution will never provide more rights outside the territory of the United States than within, the court should determine if there are constitutional or prudential doctrines, such as standing, ripeness, or mootness, that interpose and prevent a decision. If the court can reach the merits, it then must ask itself, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, if applying the constitutional provision at issue abroad would be "impracticable or anomalous." Is the court dealing with a right that can be applied abroad? Are there practical obstacles that would require tailoring the right, such that its application abroad may not precisely mirror its application at home? As a backstop, I suggest that such tailoring can never violate a ratified treaty or nonderogable jus cogens norm. Finally, does there exist, or can the court create, an equally effective alternative to safeguard the interests protected by the constitutional provision at issue? The Article concludes by running several fact patterns through this test, to demonstrate how it would work in the real world, where judges are called upon to make these difficult decisions. [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.)

The final report of the investigation titled "Study on the impact of Law No. 27,401 on the liability of legal entities in case law" analyzes the impact of this law on Argentine case law. The study focuses on the criminal jurisdictions of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and is limited temporally to the years 2021 and 2022. The application of criminal liability of legal entities is examined, and new hypotheses are formulated regarding specific aspects of the law. Additionally, the Argentine experience is compared with that of other countries, such as Italy and Spain, which have implemented similar models of corporate liability. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Praxis der Rechtspsychologie is the property of Hogrefe Verlag GmbH & Co. KG 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 analyzes the system of national and international judicial and law enforcement bodies as subjects of criminal prosecution of Russian aggressors committing criminal acts in Ukraine using missiles. It is established that the Ukrainian subjects of criminal proceedings are local general courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine. From the point of view of international justice, it is proved that the Russian military personnel who are suspected of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It is emphasized that the military and political leadership of Russia may be brought to criminal responsibility to a special international tribunal for unleashing and waging of an aggressive war, which could be created by the states of the anti-Putin coalition.

This article discusses Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow's 1932 to 1934 crime wave, using Hobsbawm's concept of social banditry. The article examines whether their crime exemplified social banditry or, alternatively, was a manifestation of social change interacting with American political geography. Their crime wave displayed aspects of social banditry. They provided concentrated benefits to some, relied upon the populace for support, displayed style separating them from the crowd, and provided dispersed benefits to many who viewed them as a reaction to the capitalist system causing the Great Depression. However, they also demonstrated social change. They were deracinated members of the rural poor exploiting jurisdictional boundaries created by a criminal justice system administered by state governments in a nascent era of interstate travel facilitated by changing automotive technology and improved roads. Along with other criminals of the 1930's, Public Enemy Era, their crime wave contributed to a substantial increase in federal jurisdiction over criminal law and in federal law enforcement powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the question of the relationship between the aut dedere aut judicare principle and concepts of universal jurisdiction in international criminal law. Сooperation between states in the fight against international crimes involves, among other things, solving the issue of the exercise of national criminal jurisdiction, including universal jurisdiction, as well as the implementation of the aut dedere aut judicare principle. Providing universal jurisdiction is an important element of prosecuting alleged perpetrators of crimes of international concern, especially when the alleged perpetrator is not prosecuted in the territory where the crime was committed. It was determined that each state defines the scope of its criminal jurisdiction (including universal jurisdiction) and each state is responsible for determining the scope of its criminal law. States are required to conform to their international obligations, including refraining from interfering in the internal affairs of other states and implementing obligations on prosecution or extradition. A conclusion was made about the importance of distinguishing the concepts of universal jurisdiction and aut dedere aut judicare. Universal jurisdiction applies when there is no other connection to the state (territoriality, nationality, the protective principle or any other basis). Aut dedere aut judicare obligation entails the transfer of the case to the competent authorities for prosecution or extradition, not the establishment of jurisdiction. In order to fulfill the obligation aut dedere aut judicare, the state must already have passed laws criminalizing certain acts. An obligation aut dedere aut judicare does not only refer to serious crimes committed by a foreigner against a foreigner abroad. An aut dedere aut judicare obligation is not limited to situations in which a universal jurisdiction is required to be applied for the prosecution or extradition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper outlines a range of factors associated with extradition and transnational online intellectual property offending by examining the Australian case of Hew Griffiths. In documenting key legal issues from available domestic and international verdicts examining this case, we show how broad legislative drafting in Australia works alongside the decision to initiate conspiracy charges to favour extradition. We also examine how Australian legal requirements that remove the presumption of bail for transnational fugitives limit the prospect of mounting a fair defence against extradition and during a foreign trial, and the limited direct impact of determinations by the United Nations Human Rights Committee on these national processes. We critically discuss the implications of these rulings in the Griffiths case in light of the evolving role of extradition law in a digital age and their implications on theories of criminal jurisdiction founded on the principle of extraterritoriality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article attempts to answer the following questions: What criminal law, if any, is applied in outer space when a crime is committed there? How will the issues of demarcation of criminal jurisdiction be resolved? Who and how will investigate such crimes? Which international or national institution will decide the issue of criminal prosecution and application of sanctions for crimes in space? Basing on the analysis of the sources of space and international law, it was concluded that today there is no detailed procedure for investigating and bringing to criminal responsibility for committing a crime in space. There is also no international legal act that would establish a list of space criminal offenses. To solve existing problems, it is suggested to adopt the Convention on Criminal Liability for Space Crimes and to create a Space Criminal Statute (code). The article also claims that the creation of a World Space Union on regulating the commercial space activities will help in solving many issues in the field of research.

Based on an in-depth, qualitative case study about a conflict between governmental authorities from the United States and Switzerland over the regulation of Swiss banks, we introduce indirect compellence as a novel triadic and indirect mechanism through which coercion leads to institutional change. Hostage-taking being a prototypical example, indirect compellence is typified by a coercive actor who takes a third party hostage to gain influence over a targeted actor. In our case, it meant that U.S. authorities (coercers) compelled Swiss policy makers (targets) to erode the famed Swiss banking secrecy rules by threatening the targets to otherwise enforce U.S. law extraterritorially against Swiss banks and bankers (hostages). Our constructivist and target-centered perspective explains this type of coercive pressure in detail, and it also suggests that targeted policy makers judge and respond to it contingent on their political ideologies. Our study contributes to research on power and influence in institutional environments and to research on global business regulation and transnational governance. Most generally, it also expands scholarly understanding of triadic relationships. In contrast to Simmelian perspectives' focus on triads in which the third party is in a powerful brokerage position and frequently benefits as a tertius gaudens, our study suggests that the third party can also become a rather powerless tertius miserabilis who suffers rather than benefits from others' conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores how claims alleging serious human rights violations or breaches of international criminal law that occurred in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) might unfold in the courts of the Republic of Korea (ROK or South Korea) under various differing jurisdictional theories. South Korea has legislation allowing for the exercise of universal jurisdiction, an increasingly widespread judicial mechanism for a national court to hold alleged perpetrators of serious human rights and humanitarian law violations accountable for their actions regardless of where the crime was committed and regardless of the victim's or the perpetrator's nationality. In South Korea, domestic criminal and civil jurisdiction can conceivably be "stretched" to encompass crimes perpetrated on the northern half of the Korean peninsula due to a constitutional provision that denies the existence of a separate North Korean sovereign nation. This article introduces and compares the feasibility and challenges of various jurisdictional approaches in South Korea that could address human rights crimes in North Korea, specifically (a) universal jurisdiction prosecution based on domestic law, (b) domestic criminal prosecution, and (c) civil cases in tort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]