Search

Given that the criminal offense of Public Incitement to Violence and Hatred seeks to protect public order but also certain groups of individuals and limit freedom of speech, the paper provides a comparative legal analysis of this criminal offense through Anglo-Saxon and continental law and especially refers to the law of EU and EU Member States. The paper analyzes some dogmatic principles of criminal law that explain the conditions when Public Incitement to Violence and Hatred can be committed. Especially, the development of modern technology and modern way of communication and influence considered in the paper the possibility to affect different groups of people through incitement to hate speech. Hate crime precedes different riots that in times of social turbulence can lead to different criminal offenses that affect the economic, cultural, and environmental positive development of society. The paper gives a broader insight into the way this criminal offense can be committed, especially taking into account the act of committing Public Incitement to Violence and Hatred, connecting it to forms of committing this criminal offense in a “non-public“ way through the traditional act of commission or using modern technologies (Social Networks, AI,...) and the dogmatic issue of special intent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION. The article examines various aspects of the international legal qualification of offences committed against internationally protected persons. The analysis of different elements of corpus delicti was laid at the heart of the study: namely, those of actus reus (whether the offence was perpetrate in the situation of an armed conflict), mens rea (whether the perpetrator was moved by a special intent, particularly the terrorist dolus specialis), and the legal status of a perpetrator (whether he or she was a state agent).MATERIALS AND METHODS. The materials of the study encompass international conventions, rules and principles of customary international law, case law of international courts and tribunals and international legal doctrine. The paper uses the comparative method and those of analysis and synthesis. RESEARCH RESULTS. The key result of the study consists in the assumption that offences against internationally protected persons can be considered as either a conventional crime within the meaning of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (including, if a terrorist dolus specialis is established, as a crime of terrorism), or (in case of armed conflict) a violation of laws and customs of war, for this category of persons falls within the definition of protected persons by implication of Article 4 of the 1949 IV Geneva Convention, which gives grounds for the application of Article 146 of the 1949 IV Geneva Convention for purposes of the their criminal prosecution.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Given the result of the study, it is states that the following test can be applied for purposes of international legal qualification of offences against internationally protected persons: first, it is necessary to establish whether the offence of committed in a situation of armed conflict; second, it is highly important to enquire about the intent of the delinquent. If there is a terrorist dolus specialis, the offence can be qualified as terrorism-related. Moreover, it is necessary to establish the status of the delinquent and whether the one is a state agent or a private person, or, even if the person is a state agent, whether the one is a person acting sua sponte; additionally, the status of a delinquent and its relation with the belligerent state in regard to the situation of armed conflict is also significant for the qualification of respective offences in light of international law

Copyright of Hacettepe Law Review is the property of Hacettepe Law Review 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 is devoted to the actual problem of the subject aspect of the unlawful carrying out of the archaeological explorations, excavations, other earth-moving and submarine works at the object of the archaeological heritage (according to the Criminal Code of Ukraine part 1,Article 298). During carrying out of the analysis of the subject aspect of the given crime such important characteristics of guilt as essence, extent of guilt, form and content of it have been revealed. The possibility of the commitment of a crime specified by the Criminal Code of Ukraine part 1, Article 298 both with the special intent and with the criminal negligence has been given grounds

Un aspecto más o menos controvertido en las figuras de aborto es el de la intención específica que se requiere para integrar la faz subjetiva de los tipos penales. En este trabajo se hace un análisis de los requisitos expresos exigidos en algunas figuras de aborto, esto es, que se actúe maliciosamente (art. 342 CP) y con abuso del oficio (art. 345 CP), en conjunto con lo que dispone la normativa extrapenal que puede tener incidencia en el punto, en particular, la regulación sanitaria respecto de un eventual aborto por razones terapéuticas. Se plantea, desde esta perspectiva, que esos tipos de aborto requieren que se actúe con la inalidad precisa de dar muerte del feto, excluyendo tanto el dolo eventual como el de consecuencias necesarias. En el contexto de la actividad médica, la conducta realizada con una inalidad terapéutica y que no tiene como objeto matar al feto, ni siquiera sobrepasa el marco del riesgo permitido.A more or less controversial figures of abortion is the specific intention to integrate the subjective face of the criminal types. In this paper an analysis of the express requirements required on some figures of abortion, that is, to act maliciously (art. 342 PC) and abuse of office (art. 345 PC), in conjunction with the extra criminal regulations which may affect the point, in particular health regulations regarding a possible abortion for therapeutic reasons. From this perspective, these types of abortion require action in order to give accurate kill to the fetus, excluding both the posible willful ignorance as the necessary consequences. In the context of medical activity, the behavior performed with a therapeutic purpose and that is not intended to kill the fetus, not even it does not go beyond the scope of allowable risk.

In conclusion, the desire to commit an act would not change the ascertainment that the act should be committed with direct intent will, however, impact the intent and the burden of the act by satisfying additional subjective elements. Only art. 30 of the ICC Statute is an exception presenting the definition of "mental element", though it is perceived differently by the doctrine representatives from different countries. The concept by O. Triffterer has not won worldwide recognition among the supporters of the theory that there should be applied the provision stipulating otherwise than art. 30 of the ICC Statute and those who do not recognise the difference between "Tatbestand" and "mens rea". It seems that the Triffterer's concept has not been approved as, allegedly, the principles of criminal responsibility should be distinguished from the crime definitions within the ICC jurisdiction. Taking into account the ICC experience, a conclusion may be drawn that art. 30 is applied when there are no other specific provisions relating to mental element in the regulations of the ICC Statute, the Elements of Crime or customary law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]