Suchergebnisse

U radu se obrađuje problematika odnosa načela uzajamnog priznavanja i povjerenja te provjere dvostruke kažnjivosti, koja zaokuplja veliku pozornost stručnih krugova u području međunarodne pravosudne suradnje sa težištem na kaznenim stvarima. U uvodnom dijelu rada prikazuje se struktura zakonske podloge Europske unije, potom se analizira načelo uzajamnog povjerenja kao strukturno načelo ustavnog prava EU, njegovo porijeklo i kontekst u svjetlu odluka Europskog suda za ljudska prava. Središnji dio rada problematizira načelo provjere dvostruke kažnjivosti s obzirom na različite oblike dvostruke kažnjivosti bez unificirane primjene tog pojma u pravosudnoj suradnji, a što kolidira sa načelom uzajamnog povjerenja te time dovodi do problema u međunarodnoj pravosudnoj suradnji. Potom se iznosi i odnos Republike Hrvatske prema načelu uzajamnog povjerenja s osvrtom na odluke Ustavnog suda RH i Vrhovnog suda RH te zaključno završna ocjena značaja načela uzajamnog priznavanja u međudržavnoj pravosudnoj suradnji u kaznenim stvarima. ; The paper elaborates the problems of the relation between the principle of mutual recognition and trust and the verification of double criminality, which attract great attention of experts in the field of international judicial cooperation with a focus on criminal matters. In the introductory part of the paper, the structure of the legal foundations of the European Union is shown, then the principle of mutual trust as a structural principle of the constitutional rights of the EU, its origin and context in the light of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The central part of the paper inquires into the problems of the principle of double criminality in regard to the various forms of double criminality with no uniform application of its term in judicial cooperation and thus collides with the principle of mutual trust in way that leads to problems in the international judicial cooperation. Afterwards, the paper outlines the relation of the Republic of Croatia towards the principle of mutual trust with regard to the decision of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court and concludes with the final analysis of importance of the principle of mutual recognition in transnational judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

It is suggested that there is a close relationship between 2 near-classical conceptions of adolescent behavior: dual ambivalence & conflict (fighting) & criminal (primarily theft) types. It is hyp'ed that engagement in conflict is an expression of the need for security (the 1st of the choices in the dual ambivalence struggle), while engagement in criminal activity is an expression of the need for the adventure of growth (the 2nd of the choices involved in dual ambivalence). The subtle relation between psychol'al & cultural factors is pointed out. The data were collected in a larger res project on the adjustment of parolees from the Ill State Training Sch for Boys. S's (N= 48) provided data on peer groups in an interview 5 months after their release. Data about the marital status of the boys' parents & spatial moves of the fam were also obtained. 4 variables measured the need for security: (1) brokenness of parolees' homes, (2) geographical mobility of parolees, (3) responsiveness to the requests of parents, & (4) responsiveness to the requests of policemen. The need for security is seen as the independent variable producing involvement in conflict activities rather than in criminal activities. The dependent variable is measured in terms of the N's of conflict & criminal incidents experienced by the various groups with which the parolees interacted. The data suggest that the kinds of idiosyncratic experiences which are productive of relatively great insecurity for individuals influence Lc adolescent boys toward conflict rather than criminal activity. Conflict activity provides greater soc support than does criminal activity. Hence, conflict activity seems to represent the security-seeking end of the security-adventure ambivalence often said to be characteristic of adolescence. E. Weiman.

Jurisdiction — In general — Territorial jurisdiction — Exemptions from restrictions upon territorial jurisdiction — Irregular apprehension — Defendant allegedly kidnapped from foreign country and tortured before being brought into United States — Whether irregular apprehension affects jurisdiction of United States courts to order his extradition — The law of the United StatesThe individual in international law — Extradition — Conditions of extradition — Extraditable crimes — Dual criminality — The law of the United StatesThe individual in international law — Extradition — Political crimes — Burden of proof — The law of the United StatesThe individual in international law — Extradition — Procedure of extradition — Jurisdiction of court considering a request for extradition — Whether court has jurisdiction to order extradition of defendant who has been kidnapped from a third State — Whether alleged torture of defendant prior to hearing prevents court from ordering his extradition — Clerical errors in documents supporting request — Whether invalidating request — Dual criminality — The law of the United States

The main destructive megatendencies of the contemporaneity such as the global conflict, globalization of criminality, and international terrorism are analyzed. The authors show the dual effect of the globalization on the modern civilization, system of world-wide political, economic, and humanitarian connections, transnational criminality, and international terrorism. The main features and the principles of organization of the modern international terrorism are elucidated.

The legal framework of extradition in international law and practice -- Legal bases for extradition in the United States -- Asylum and extradition -- Disguised extradition : the use of immigration laws as alternatives to extradition -- Abduction and unlawful seizure as alternatives to extradition -- Theories of jurisdiction and their application -- Substantive requirements : dual criminality, extraditable offenses, specialty, and non-inquiry -- Denial of extradition : defenses, exceptions, exemptions, and exclusions -- Pretrial proceedings -- The extradition hearing -- The review process and executive discretion -- Surrender and miscellaneous matters

Jurisdiction — In general — Territorial — Territorial limits of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of courts to try offences taking effect abroad — The law of GhanaThe individual in international law — Extradition — Extradition of nationals — Whether nationals can be extradited — Whether any uniform international practice on the question of extradition of nationals — The practice of Ghana — Conditions of extradition — Extraditable crimes — Rule of dual criminality — The standard of proof in extradition matters — Proper test — Whether "strong or probable presumption of guilt" necessary for order of surrender — Jurisdiction of the requesting State to try the offence — How determined — Jurisdiction of courts to try offence taking effect abroad — The law of Ghana

Extradition — Dual criminality — Test of — Australia-United States Extradition Treaty, 1976 — United States requesting extradition of appellant for conspiracy to import and 175distribute drugs in the United States — Offence of continuing criminal enterprise — Whether evidence sufficient to justify trial or committal for trial — Test of sufficient evidence — Whether terms of the Treaty to be read into the Statute — Whether Treaty part of municipal law — Elements of the offence — Whether totality of acts constituting offence against law in force in Australia — Extradition Act 1988 (Commonwealth)Jurisdiction — Territorial jurisdiction — Extradition offence — Appellant having Australian and Dutch citizenship — United States requesting extradition for conspiracy to import and distribute drugs in the United States — Acts taking place in the Netherlands — Whether question of jurisdiction applicable — Whether notional offence in Australia — The law of Australia

Analysis and studying of the terrorism in all its facets is a complex entangled problem with less clear legal regulation that it might seem at first glance, especially after its transformation from local phenomenon into a world threat. Hitherto terrorism and actions connected to it have been criminalized by the majority of states. There are in modern criminal law whole systems of rules on criminal liability for terrorism which differs considerably from country to country. Terrorism has been criminalized in numerous international regional and universal antiterrorist legal instruments. The author notes that differences in definitions that are enshrined in them hinders international cooperation in criminal matters with respect to terrorist cases. Difficulties reside in the necessity to meet the dual criminality requirement and in the political offense exception. These difficulties can only be overcome through elaboration of a universally recognized definition of the notion of international terrorism and making it legally binding via its inclusion into a universal convention. The issue of definition of international terrorism is an important part of an efficient mutual assistance among states in fight against this crime. In this article the author accounts of actual ways of tackling by the international community of the issue of criminalization of international terrorism and of factors influencing them.

50Diplomatic relations — Privileges and immunities — Head of mission — Immunity of former head of mission — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 39(2) — United Kingdom Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964Extradition — Double criminality — Jurisdictional requirements — Whether conduct must be crime in the requested State at the date offence occurs or only at the date of request for extradition — Extraterritorial offences — United Kingdom Extradition Act 1989 — European Convention on Extradition, 1957 — Extradition on charges of torture and hostage-taking — Extradition of former Head of State — ImmunityHuman rights — Enforcement — Criminal proceedings — Torture — Hostage-taking — Allegations against former Head of State — Whether former Head of State entitled to immunity before courts of other States — ExtraditionInternational criminal law — International crimes — Torture — Convention against Torture, 1984 — Hostage-taking — International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, 1979 — Extradition proceedings — Former Head of State — Whether entitled to immunity before courts of other StatesJurisdiction — Passive personality principle — Jurisdiction on basis of nationality of victim not part of United Kingdom law — Extradition — Dual criminality ruleState immunity — Head of State immunity — Criminal proceedings — Immunity of former Head of State — United Kingdom State Immunity Act 1978, Section 20 — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Head of State entitled to same immunities as head of diplomatic mission — Immunity of former Head of State in respect of acts performed while Head of State — Immunity confined to acts performed in the exercise of the functions of Head of State — Whether immunity extending to criminal proceedings in respect of torture, hostage-taking and conspiracy to murder — The law of England

Diplomatic relations — Privileges and immunities — Head of mission — Immunity of former head of mission — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 39(2) — United Kingdom Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964Extradition — Double criminality — Jurisdictional requirements — Whether conduct must be crime in the requested State at the date offence occurs or only at the date of request for extradition — Extraterritorial offences — United Kingdom136Extradition Act 1989 — European Convention on Extradition, 1957 — Extradition on charges of torture and hostage-taking — Extradition of former Head of State — ImmunityHuman rights — Enforcement — Criminal proceedings — Torture — Hostage-taking — Allegations against former Head of State — Whether former Head of State entitled to immunity before courts of other States — ExtraditionInternational criminal law — International crimes — Torture — Convention against Torture, 1984 — Hostage-taking — International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, 1979 — Extradition proceedings — Former Head of State — Whether entitled to immunity before courts of other StatesJurisdiction — Passive personality principle — Jurisdiction on basis of nationality of victim not part of United Kingdom law — Extradition — Dual criminality ruleState immunity — Head of State immunity — Criminal proceedings — Immunity of former Head of State — United Kingdom State Immunity Act 1978, Section 20 — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Head of State entitled to same immunities as head of diplomatic mission — Immunity of former Head of State in respect of acts performed while Head of State — Immunity confined to acts performed in the exercise of the functions of Head of State — Whether immunity extending to criminal proceedings in respect of torture, hostage-taking and conspiracy to murder — The law of England

Diplomatic relations — Privileges and immunities — Head of mission — Immunity of former head of mission — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 39(2) — United Kingdom Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964Extradition — Double criminality — Jurisdictional requirements — Whether conduct must be crime in the requested State at the date offence occurs or only at the date of request for extradition — Extraterritorial offences — United Kingdom Extradition Act 1989 — European Convention on Extradition, 1957 — Extradition on charges of torture and hostage-taking — Extradition of former Head of State — Immunity28Human rights — Enforcement — Criminal proceedings — Torture — Hostage-taking — Allegations against former Head of State — Whether former Head of State entitled to immunity before courts of other States — ExtraditionInternational criminal law — International crimes — Torture — Convention against Torture, 1984 — Hostage-taking — International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, 1979 — Extradition proceedings — Former Head of State — Whether entitled to immunity before courts of other StatesJurisdiction — Passive personality principle — Jurisdiction on basis of nationality of victim not part of United Kingdom law — Extradition — Dual criminality ruleState immunity — Head of State immunity — Criminal proceedings — Immunity of former Head of State — United Kingdom State Immunity Act 1978, Section 20 — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Head of State entitled to same immunities as head of diplomatic mission — Immunity of former Head of State in respect of acts performed while Head of State — Immunity confined to acts performed in the exercise of the functions of Head of State — Whether immunity extending to criminal proceedings in respect of torture, hostage-taking and conspiracy to murder — The law of England

This article focuses on the main problems regarding the current application of EU extradition procedures in relation to the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. It introduces the 'Europeanisation' of extradition procedures through a discussion based on the continuity of the principle of mutual recognition from the EC Treaties to the EU Constitutional Treaty. The latest manifestation of this continuity is the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant (adopted on 13 June 2002) that is aimed at simplifying the extradition procedures for suspected criminals within the territory of the European Union by creating a positive list of criminal areas. The author discusses the innovations introduced by the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (abolition of the test of dual criminality) and then focuses on two main problem areas based on the reaction of certain Member States: i) the compatibility with constitutional guarantees, where the author focuses on the eagerness of the national courts to contest the constitutionality of the EU Arrest Warrant implementation laws for authorising the extradition of their own nationals; ii) the compatibility with Human Rights, where the author argues that the principle of mutual recognition is not adequate for adjudicating interstate criminal cases when it operates in isolation. The article then focuses upon the balance between procedural efficiency and civil liberties and proposes certain procedural and institutional checks that would assist in moving from the current embryonic stage of EU criminal law to its adolescence.

The aim of this research is carrying out a critical analysis about the Spanish law concerning international bribery. After studying the general matters, some controversial aspects regarding the topic are addressed, such as the inclusion of facilitation payments, the concept of international business, the importance of the so called "error de tipo" in these cases or the futility of certain rules because of procedural issues. This analysis leads to conclude that committing reforms in this field is necessary, especially in the procedural aspect. Yet, such reforms seem to be as relevant as a battery of policies to promote greater social awareness. ; El objetivo del presente estudio es proceder a un análisis crítico de la normativa española en materia de corrupción internacional. Además de las cuestiones generales, se abordan aspectos controvertidos de la materia, como la inclusión de los pagos de facilitación, el concepto de transacción económica internacional, la relevancia del error de tipo en estos casos o la esterilidad de ciertos instrumentos de represión por cuestiones procesales. Este análisis aboca a concluir la necesidad de determinadas reformas legislativas, fundamentalmente de la LOPJ; si bien estas parecen ser tan pertinentes como una serie de medidas de concienciación social.