Abstract
The Utrecht Law Review is an open-access peer-reviewed journal which aims to offer an international academic platform for cross-border legal research. In the first place, this concerns research in which the boundaries of the classic branches of the law (private law, criminal law, constitutional and administrative law, European and public international law) are crossed and connections are made between these areas of the law, amongst others from a comparative law perspective. In addition, the journal welcomes research in which classic law is brought face to face with not strictly legal disciplines such as philosophy, economics, political sciences and public administration science.The journal was established in 2005 and is affiliated to the Utrecht University School of Law. If you wish to receive e-mail alerts please join the mailing list.
Highlights
To our mind, any work of a comparative nature must attempt to go beyond the immediately apparent diversities in the law of different countries and address issues that could explain them
We examine constitutional differences, such as whether international law is part of the domestic legal order or must be incorporated first, the significance of the existence of a constitutional bill of rights that () governs criminal process, and the nature of the international treaty regime to which a country has signed up
We look at the wider context and, given that all of the respondent countries have legal systems that fall within the common or civil law, ask whether the dichotomy adversarial v. inquisitorial that is usually associated with the respective traditions, has any relevance for the implementation of internationally recognised standards of fundamental rights in criminal process.[1]
Summary
We examine constitutional differences, such as whether international law is part of the domestic legal order or must be incorporated first (monism versus dualism), the significance of the existence of a constitutional bill of rights that () governs criminal process, and the nature of the international treaty regime to which a country has signed up. Inquisitorial that is usually associated with the respective traditions, has any relevance for the implementation of internationally recognised standards of fundamental rights in criminal process.[1] That same wider context requires that we look beyond court procedure to include pre-trial process, and beyond the law in the books to the law in action and the practical matters that enhance or impair the enforcement of any fundamental rights that may exist on paper. Our question is whether such differences influence the scope and manner of the protection of internationally recognised fundamental human rights in domestic criminal process
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
