Complicity In Crimes Research Articles

Variations in Police Performance in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and Domestic Policing in Ghana

The Ghana Police Service is constantly criticised by the Ghanaian public for poor performance and an inability to deal effectively with rising crime rates. Media reports and scholarly research have corroborated these criticisms, citing instances of police brutality, corruption, negligence, ineffectiveness and complicity in crimes. However, with few exceptions, the same police are widely applauded in United Nations peacekeeping operations for their professionalism, outstanding performance, and contributions to restoring peace and the rule of law. This raises the question of why the police’s performance at home differs from its performance in peacekeeping contexts. This article analyses the factors that underpin the perceived variations in police performance at home and internationally. Based on in-depth interviews conducted with relevant stakeholders and the application of assemblage theory to the empirical evidence gathered, it argues that perceived variations in performance have nothing to do with the technical competencies and knowledge of police personnel. Rather, this discrepancy can be explained by factors including: the effects of the colonial legacy on the police; different mandates/tasks in mission and in Ghana; distinct socio-cultural and political dynamics that influence policing; different legal frameworks and principles that govern domestic and international policing; limited availability of human and logistical resources and funding for domestic policing; and different methods for dealing with indiscipline and corruption.

Justice after Atrocity

Anthropologists have been critical of the global asymmetries of knowledge and power embedded in justice institutions established in the aftermath of violence. Truth commissions and mediation processes may be coopted by states seeking to nation-build and extend their coercive and normative capacity in local communities. International criminal courts may impose an alien version of justice that disrupts national politics and a peace process, and they often misapprehend the causes of mass crimes because they employ a form of legal inquiry that is far removed from local historical contexts. Litigation against companies for complicity in crimes against humanity may raise survivors’ expectations, only to dash them when states refuse to recognize universal jurisdiction. Even when legal recourse is not successful, new social movements focused on accountability, reparations, and legal remedy can emerge that engender new forms of sociality and political subjectivity. Anthropological investigations into transitional justice reveal a complex process in which survivors can recover an emancipatory political agency, and anthropologists testifying as experts often influence outcomes more than anticipated.

ІСТОРІЯ СТАНОВЛЕННЯ ТА РОЗВИТКУ НОРМАТИВНОГО РЕГУЛЮВАННЯ СПІВУЧАСТІ У ЗЛОЧИНІ ЗІ СПЕЦІАЛЬНИМ СУБ’ЄКТОМ

The article substantiates that the complicity in a crime with a special subject shall not be considered in the period of Kyivan Rus, as there were no crimes with a special subject at that time. It is established that with the enactment of the Second Statute of Lithuania in 1566, the formation of the institute of complicity in a crime with a special subject can be with certainty stated, since the wording of the crimes indicating the liability of accomplices in a crime with a special subject began to be formulated. The tradition of such a method of regulation persisted until the end of the nineteenth century. It is also found that the rule of qualification of complicity in a crime with a special subject, provided for in Part 3 of Art. 29 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine of 2001, is not a novelty for criminal law but was available in the Criminal Code of 1903 and the Criminal Code of the German Empire. It is submitted that the norm foreseeing the liability for the actions of accomplices, not endowed with the features of a special subject, appeared in military crimes as early as 1927. However, such a regulation of complicity in the crimes is considered to be not perfect and contains a number of drawbacks: by a literal interpretation, it can be concluded that non-servicemen in complicity may be held criminally liable as the perpetrators of such crimes, and it is methodologically not appropriate to place the rules of qualification of complicity in crimes with a special subject in the Special Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since such general provisions of criminal law shall be contained in the General Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The inconsistency in the development of institute under consideration is substantiated, mainly because Ukrainian lands were part of different states, whose criminal laws occasionally did not take into account the positive developments of previous years. Particularly negatively the development of the institute of complicity in a crime with a special subject was influenced by the period of Soviet power in Ukraine, as the above-mentioned institute essentially re-started its formation. From 1917 to 1927 the institute of complicity in a crime with a special subject was legislatively not regulated, but only since 1927, when the rule of qualification for the actions of an accomplice in a war crime, not endowed with the features of a special subject, had been fixed. Consequently, it shall be definitely affirmed that the Criminal Code of Ukraine of 2001 contains both the positive experience of legal regulation of complicity in a crime with a special subject in Part 3 of Art. 29, and deficient – in Part 3 of Art. 401. In view of the study, the need to improve the existing legislative regulation of the institute of complicity in a crime with a special subject is confirmed.

To know or not to know: Silent complicity in crimes against humanity in Argentina (1976–1983)

The aim of this study is to challenge the widely-held assumption that members of the general board of a multinational corporation will not be aware of what is happening on the shop floor in their affiliates in other parts of the world, in particular when such actions have profound potential moral and/or legal implications. This assumption of ‘corporate ignorance’ is refuted by a case study documenting the information that members of the general board of a Dutch multinational received about crimes against humanity that were committed during the 1970s in Argentina, and, more specifically, in and around their local affiliate where workers were forcefully abducted and disappeared. In this historical case, members of the general board appear to have been fully aware of these crimes while knowingly ignoring and remaining indifferent to the involvement of their local affiliate. In hindsight, the multinational corporation they represented can, therefore, be viewed as ‘silently complicit’.

Jew and Gentile in the Church Today

Jew and Gentile in the Church Today Douglas Farrow We know the Jews today as a gathered and not merely a scattered people. This is one sign that the times of the Gentiles are running out. Another is the increasing hostility toward Jews and Christians around the world, as well as the appearance in history of empires of evil that systematically assault both them and the worldview they represent. The advance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ toward the furthest corners of the world, the great apostasy that has been taking place for some centuries now in the remnants of Christendom, and the turmoil in the Church itself are also important signs, not to speak of the global assault on the unborn and on children, an assault of demonic power and proportions that cries out for judgment. But if the times of the Gentiles are beginning to run out, the prospect also appears of a new openness to the Gospel among Jews themselves, and this itself, insofar as there is evidence of it, is a crucial sign. There is some evidence of it, whether of the kind recounted by Roy Schoeman in Salvation is from the Jews, or of the kind that appears in messianic Judaism, or of the kind that brings Jews and Christians together, despite their differences, in circles such as those created around First Things. There is evidence of it in the academy also, where figures such as Jesus and Paul are examined in their first-century [End Page 979] Jewish context by Jews and Christians together, continuing a path signposted by Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu and made more promising by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. And, though we are only in the early stages of that emerging openness, real questions are being raised for the Church. Is it not confronted with the need to reckon with something that, for many centuries, it has been convenient largely to ignore, that the Gospel of God concerning his Son, and the power of salvation at work in that Gospel, is "for the Jew first and then also for the Greek"? Is it not faced, in a more pressing manner, with matters related to the faith of Jews and with questions about the flourishing again of the natural branches of the cultivated olive tree, the tree into which the wild branches of the Gentiles have slowly been grafted for some 2000 years now? Must it not give thought to the prophecy of Paul that only thus is "all Israel" to be saved? But how is the Church to reckon with it? Some say that the right way is simply to make itself much more friendly to the Jews, as indeed it has been doing, and to build on St. John Paul II's apology in 2000 for Christian complicity in crimes against Jews, precisely by defending them instead and (pace John Paul) by not trying to convert them. Jews in general tend presently to be happy with that, of course. Others say that it behooves the Church to be much more intentional, in a thoughtful and sensitive way, about the conversion of the Jews. Still others have begun to focus on how Jewish believers in Jesus can be properly integrated into the Church as Jews and on how the Church itself needs to adapt to and benefit from their presence and participation. This last, the Church from Jews and Gentiles (to borrow the title of Erik Peterson's pre-Holocaust exposition of Romans 9–11), is what chiefly concerns us here, though the exercise I have in view is little more than some ground clearing that still seems to be necessary. ________ The ground clearing in question is related to the premature death of supersessionism. Horror at the Holocaust and a wounded conscience, newly cultivated friendships with Jews, scholarly and religious dialogue with Judaism, the cultural circumstances of the emergent messianic Judaism movement, and the postmodern elevation of identity politics have combined to produce a climate, particularly in the Protestant sphere, of anti-supersessionism. This climate is also felt in the Catholic Church and must be addressed in a Catholic way. [End Page 980...

Extremist Community Formation: Qualification Problems

Review. This article deals with the features of an objective element of an offence provided for in Art. 282 1 of the Criminal Code that are the most significant for the qualification. During the study the question of a legal nature of the crime was considered; the author concludes that an extremist community is a special kind of complicity in crimes of extremist nature that constitute a separate crime within the framework of the Special Part of the Criminal Code. The paper presents the main viewpoint of the doctrine with regard to the issue of complicity within the framework of which an extremist community exists. As a result of the analysis of criminal law rules and judicial practice, the author identifies the hallmarks applied by courts to establish the existence of an extremist community The author concludes that he extremist community is referred to such a form of complicity in a crime as criminal association (criminal organization) and provides a definition of an "extremist community. " The author has studied the main forms of a socially dangerous act provided for in Art. 2821 of the RF CC. The paper contains recommendations as to qualification of an offense provided for in P. 1.1 of Art. 2821 of the RF CC and resolution of issues related to this norm (competition with the provisions of Parts 1 and 2 of the Article) The criminal law of the RF CC being supplemented by Art. 2823 "Financing an extremist activity", the issue concerning the balance between the norms set forth in P 2 of Art 2821 and Art 2823of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has been resolved, as well as proposals concerning qualification of an offense in cases where a member of an extremist community carries out its funding have been made. The author has developed recommendations for improving clarifications submitted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation devoted to the interpretation of the rules concerning liability for organizing an extremist community under Art. 2821of the RF CC.

Institute of Complicity in Extremist Crimes

This article analyzes the individual crimes of extremist orientation, located in Section 29 of the Criminal Code, which, in our opinion, is necessary in order to distinguish it from provisions of the General Part of the criminal law of complicity in a crime (Art. 282.1, 282.2 and 282.3 of the Criminal Code). The Author tries to reveal the reasons of legislative and lawapplication problems of crime elements by comparing them with the institute of complicity. As a result of the research the Author offers solutions to the problems identified.

Complicity in Crime: Law, Theory, Practice

Review. The article reveals the conceptual idea of the grounds for liability with regard to criminal complicity under criminal laws of Russia. It is argued that responsibility for criminal complicity is based on a combination of basic provisions of two theories - namely, the theory of "complicity" and the theory of "autonomy" of responsibility of accomplices, and complicity itself is possible only if there are grounds for responsibility of a crime executor, on the contrary, exclusion of liability of the executor makes impossible the responsibility of others according to the rules of complicity, which, however, does not preclude their independent responsibility for criminal acts committed personally. On the basis of the criminal law, theory and judicial practice the author draws a conclusion with regard to a consistent understanding of principal features of complicity in a crime, shows their role in solving specific questions of classification of crimes committed in complicity, such as: features of causality in complicity cases, temporary complicity borders, complicity in crimes with two forms of guilt, form and content of the guilt of accomplices, "failed" complicity.

Interview with Henry Rousso

Phil Watts and Richard J. Golsan: One of the objectives of our roundtable was to reflect on recent representations of the Second World War, and on works of fiction in particular. To begin, could you comment on this in France, regarding the memory of Vichy? Henry Rousso: When speaking of a phase, I am of course referring to the chronology I adopted in The Syndrome (the most recent American version was published in 1991), which I have since supplemented in Vichy: An Ever-Present Past (published in 1998) and in other, more recent works. (2) In The Syndrome, I had developed a periodization of the memory of after 1944. The term Vichy in this work covered the question of representations of the Petain regime and of the French state, the memory of various forms of collaboration with the Nazi occupiers during the Second World War, and the confrontation of the national conscience with the knowledge that French anti-Semitism had played a decisive role in the implementation of the Final Solution in France. Through this periodization, I identified four phases in the memory of until the beginning of the 1990s: the unfinished mourning phase (le deuil inacheve) from the Liberation to the mid-1950s; the repressions phase (le refoulement) of the 1960s; the Broken Mirror (le retour du refoule) in the early 1970s; and, finally, the obsessions phase (la phase obsessionnelle), characterized by the hypermnesia of memory, beginning in the 1980s. In the 1990s, the question of the memory of reached a new stage when it became a major and recurring public issue. Public opinion confronted the state with the past, demanding that it intervene and make decisions regarding its legacies. The state was put under pressure by various groups, particularly by associations striving for the recognition of crimes that had been committed against Jews by the Regime. This emergence of the impact of public opinion and public pressure, which had already become manifest with the extradition (1983) and subsequent trial (1987) of Klaus Barbie, effected a major shift in representations of the World War II past in France. From that point on, the debate about was focused exclusively, or almost exclusively, on its role in the Shoah. Following the forms of recognition established across the public sphere--wherein the issues of Vichy, of collaboration, and of anti-Semitism were constantly discussed, studied, taught, narrated, and treated in films--everything seemed to point to the idea of official reparation for the crimes that had been committed. Reparation was symbolic in the first instance, taking the form of Jacques Chirac's famous speech in July 1995, which acknowledged France's responsibility in the deportation and mass murder of the Jews. This acknowledgment was decisive for future developments. It acquired a significant legal dimension with the Papon trial of 1997 and 1998, during which, for the first time, a senior French civil servant (and former minister) was condemned for complicity in crimes against humanity. It acquired a financial dimension with the creation of the Matteoli Commission (1997), whose task it was to evaluate the financial damages resulting from the dispossession of Jewish goods. However, this far-reaching political quest for reparation provoked numerous controversies, especially as to whether or not the memory of the Shoah was a memory belonging to a specific community or if it was in fact a broader national memory. This provoked debates about the potential legal continuity between the Regime and the French Republic, which the presidents preceding Jacques Chirac had refused to acknowledge, echoing General de Gaulle's position in 1944. A decision by the Conseil d'Etat, the highest legal institution for administrative justice in France, finally settled the issue in April 2002 when, following the Papon trial, it recognized the civil responsibility of the current French Republic, requiring that it pay half of the damages and financial interests, nearly a million dollars, owed by Maurice Papon to his victims. …

L'affaire Papon. Crimini contro l'umanitŕ nella Francia di Vichy

- The trail of prominent functionary Maurice Papon, that played out in Bordeaux between October 1997 and April 1998, gave rise to a wide-ranging political, legal and historical debate that this article intends to examine. They were the first criminal proceedings where a French citizen was accused of complicity in crimes against humanity and were an occasion for public reflection on the guilt of the Vichy government. It was actually only in the Eighties and Nineties after decades in which the phenomenon of collaborationism had been removed from official debate that France started to investigate the responsibilities prefectures and the police had had in the deportation of the Jews. Through a re-examination of the events in the Papon affair, it is therefore possible to reconstruct the steps in a complex path along which the past was revised albeit with the reticence and silence of the Fourth and Fifth Republics often slowing down the procedure. At the same time, the process represents a stimulating starting point for us to meditate once again on the intricate question of the relationships existing between memory, history and law.

Gobalization, Legal Transnationalization and Crimes Against Humanity: The Lipietz Case

Decided in June, 2006, the Lipietz case marks the unofficial entry into the French legal system of a tort action for complicity in crimes against humanity. It both departs from prior, established French law and reflects numerous mechanisms by which national law is transnationalizing. The case illustrates visible, invisible, substantive and methodological changes that globalization is producing as law's transnationalization changes national law. It also suggests some of the difficulties national legal systems face as their transnationalization produces legal change at a rate that outpaces the national capacity for efficient adaptation. The challenges illustrated by Lipietz, characteristic of globalization, include identifying the presence and effects of legal transnationalization, as well as developing needed adaptations without undermining fundamental national legal values.