Search results

Cover -- Title Page -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- List of Abbreviations -- Table of Cases -- Table of Legislation -- Introduction -- 1. The Topic of the Book: Mutual Trust in EU Criminal Law -- 2. The Main Objective: Demystifying the Principle of Mutual Trust in EU Criminal Law -- 3. Relevance -- 4. The Structure -- 5. Methodology -- 6. Scope and Delineation -- 1. What is Trust? A Social Science Perspective -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Towards a Body of Social Science Literature on Trust: Developing an Underdeveloped Term -- 3. Trust: We (Think We) Know it When We See it -- 4. Dissecting Trust: Risks and Interests as Key Aspects of Trust Relationships -- 4.1. The Willingness to Take Risks and the Need for Choice -- 4.2. Interests at the Core of Trust Relationships -- 5. Clarifying the Concept of Trust: More Specificity Please -- 5.1. Introduction -- 5.2. Cognitive or Non-Cognitive? -- 5.3. Distinguishing Trust from Trustworthiness -- 5.4. Grounds for Trustworthiness and the Importance of Information -- 5.5. Trust is a Term of Knowledge, the Trusting Relationship a Term of Action -- 5.6. Trust is a Three-Part Relationship: A Trusts B to do X -- 5.7. Mutual and Reciprocal Trust -- 5.8. Developmental Accounts of Trust: Trust as a Learning Process -- 6. Applying a Trust Framework to the EU Criminal Law Context -- 6.1. Introduction -- 6.2. Taking Risks in EU Criminal Law Cooperation: The Transfer of Discretion -- 6.3. Common Interests as an Indicator of EU Criminal Law Trust -- 6.4. Trust, between Whom? Determining the Subject of Trust in EU Criminal Law -- 6.5. A Trusts B to do X: Determining the Object of Trust in EU Criminal Law -- 6.6. The Value of a Social Science Perspective for EU Criminal Law -- 7. Conclusion.

The paper examines legal ignorance and its interpretation in Italian private law. Moving from a problematic and interdisciplinary approach, it analyses the legal sources which refer to 'ignorance of the law' (mainly, but not only in private law) under various circumstances and the interpretation given to this notion by different branches of the judiciary. Scope of the report is to provide both an overview of the theoretical foundations for allowing or denying justification on grounds of legal ignorance and to highlight the most problematic aspects deriving from its current applications in contemporary digital societies.

The rise of sexual violence against children in Indonesia requires strict legal rules and a deterrent effect on perpetrators. So the government in the latest child protection law includes punishment for castration. The issues raised are how the application of criminal law against perpetrators of sexual violence against children (pedophilia) in Indonesia and how the additional criminal regulation of castration as a criminal law policy in the child protection law. The type of research used is normative research, which is research that focuses on a positive direction in the form of statutory regulations. Criminal application for perpetrators of sexual violence against children is regulated in the Criminal Code and the Child Protection Act. Castration is a new legal policy by the government in dealing with the perpetrators of sexual violence against children.Keywords: Castration, Legal Policy, Child Protection

The main conclusion of the paper is that the issue of the legitimacy of extreme necessity as a basis for excluding unlawfulnesss has not been satisfactorily resolved. When it comes to the solution in the criminal law of Serbia, there is a serious deficit in terms of the legitimacy of the extreme necessity as a basis for the exclusion of unlawfulness, especially in the case when the threatened good and the one sacrificed are of the same value. Therefore, the prevailing interest theory cannot justify the existing solution. On the other hand, requiring the condition that the person invoking the extreme necessity did not cause danger (which is the specificity of that solution in CC of Serbia), to some extent facilitates solving the complex problem of justifying extreme necessity as a basis for excluding unlawfulnesss unlawfulnesss. Discussing the issue of justification, one should start from two approaches that dominate the theory of criminal law: the principle of predominant interest and the principle of solidarity. Those two principles are not so different that they could not be considered as one principle. Moreover, the principle of solidarity if it is based on the principle of predominant interest provides additional justification and persuasiveness. However, solidarity in a situation of extreme necessity must be of a limited nature, and therefore one can speak of the principle of limited solidarity, which is based on the principle of predominant interest. First of all, solidarity must be limited by the value of goods, ie. it can be expected from individuals (or imposed on them through legal norms) only when one sacrifices one's own good of lesser value in order to save someone else's good of greater value (by no means of the same value). Nor can it be expected that someone will sacrifice his own life, even if it would remove the danger from the lives of several people. The scope of solidarity, no matter how it is understood, cannot reach those limits. Furthermore, it is also limited by the fact that solidarity cannot be expected by the one who is responsible for creating the danger, so in this respect the solution from the CC of Serbia is in accordance with the principle of limited solidarity. Solidarity can justify the sacrifice of the goods of others, which legally narrows the limits of their free action. Nevertheless, it still remains an open question whether solidarity means that others voluntarily accept to sacrifice their goods (of lesser value) in order to save one's good (voluntariness could be based not only on altruism, but also on the expectation that the same will be done for apply to them if they find themselves in a situation of danger), or is it a legally imposed solidarity. Problems related to the legitimacy of extreme necessity as a basis for excluding unlawfulness are also significant for the interpretation of certain conditions for its application. The absence of a convincing justification of extreme necessity as a basis for excluding illegality should result not only in prescribing strict conditions for its existence, but it should also be reflected in its application.

This book offers the first comprehensive treatment of the development of international human rights law, international criminal law and international immunities, and asks whether states and their officials can shield themselves from foreign jurisdiction by invoking international immunity rules when human rights issues are involved.

"[This book] discusses the relatively new field of information law which was induced by profound changes and progress in information technology in recent decades. The book contains some twenty representative texts of significant and at times seminal importance. Following the structure of the Anthology, each of these texts is introduced by a background note and followed by additional comments as well as biographical references and biographies of authors. A homogenous approach governing information law issues so far has not been developed. This is due to the fact that information law is a cross-sectional discipline, making it inevitable to apply an interdisciplinary approach (leading to the reprint of texts written by IT-experts in this volume). In addition, a phenomenological way of looking at issues is also necessary since information law has spillover effects on other normative areas such as data protection, contract/liability law, competition/intellectual property law and e-government issues. During the last ten years, information law has been increasingly overlapped by Internet law obviously having a broad scope and encompassing a wide variety of topics. The new technological developments still need to be embedded into a structural framework designed by the main information law themes. Such a normative framework should enshrine elements for an internationalization of policy considerations, elements for a multi-layer regulatory approach with multi-stakeholder participation, and elements for consensus on substantive guiding principles."--

This book launches a debate on the need to evaluate criminal policies and, what is more complex and ambitious, to develop an evaluation method. The contributions address topics such as the general methodology for evaluating public policy, preparing criminal statistics, and analyzing costs, cost-effectiveness and cost benefits. Additionally, the work explores the state of affairs in various countries including Spain, Sweden, USA, Germany and in the EU. It also examines issues such as the relationship between legislative evaluation and criminal principles and the constitutional courts' control over criminal acts