Principles Of Criminal Law Research Articles

Принцип справедливости в уголовном процессе Австрии, Лихтенштейна и Швейцарии

The category of justice, increasingly used in various sources of criminal procedure law at the international and national levels, reflects the gradual convergence of law and morality, their harmonization. Legal proceeding cannot be fair if it does not comply with the basic categories of ethics. The philosophical basis of the principle of justice in the criminal procedure in Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and other states of continental Europe is works of 18th-century educators who studied the content of this category, its relationship with related concepts, the relationship of justice and equality of all before the law and the court - the most important modern principles of criminal procedure law. In German, the most common language in Austria, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein, there is no single concept for justice. There are such terms as die Gerechtigkeit, die Fairness, die Billigkeit. Only the last term of the three denotes justice, and it was used by developers of Austria's, Switzerland's, and Liechtenstein's criminal procedure codes. In the legal doctrine of Austria and Switzerland, justice is regarded as a principle of legal proceeding, predetermining all its other elements. Justice also determines the system of rights and obligations of the accused, the victim, and other participants. Each of them has the right to fair treatment by law enforcement agencies. The 1975 Criminal Procedure Code of Austria and the 2007 Criminal Procedure Code of Switzerland enshrine the principle of justice directly as an independent element of the criminal procedure, which reflects the high theorization of these codes, the convergence of doctrine and legislation. The Liechtenstein legislator, on the contrary, considers it unnecessary. Particular attention is paid to compliance with the principle of fairness of the verdict - the final act of justice. If the verdict, even if it corresponds to the law, is unfair, then criminal proceedings as a whole will automatically be unfair, which should entail the cancellation of such a verdict.

Jedinstveni slučaj Julijusa Štrajhera - prvo međunarodno suđenje u istoriji za govor mržnje

The trial on the International Military Tribunal after World War II represents undoubtedly a touchstone both in legal history and in the history of civilization in general. Among 24 defendants selected in the different kinds of Nazi officials, the case of Julius Streicher is very specific. The main feature of his case is the fact that he was the unique Nazi official who was indicted and convicted "only" because of his hate speech towards the Jewish people, representing thus perhaps one of the most visible personifications of the Nazi regime. The intensity of his hate speech did not know any limit to the extent that he openly and brutally compared in his own newspapers all the Jews with some kind of animals or, even worse, with some contagious illnesses, and moreover, did it tirelessly for more than twenty years within everyday awful campaign addressed to the entire German people. During the trial, it was undeniably proved that Streicher knew about the mass murders of Jews, especially in the East of Europe, which was considered by the trial chamber as an aggravating circumstance. Among all those novelties introduced by the Nuremberg trial, we can see the crime against humanity as a new international crime since 1945, which was the subject of complaints of defendants' attorneys claiming rightly from the legal point of view that the newly created crime violates one fundamental principle of modern criminal law - the principle of legality. On the other hand, besides this procedural dimension of the Nuremberg trial, the key question remained substantially unresolved: did Streicher's hideous everyday campaign against Jews effectively influence the mass murder of Jews? Nonetheless, the potential answer suggests to us that the case of Julius Streicher will certainly remain a good example for all future analyses of judicial treatment of hate speech, but also for future contributions and developments of international criminal law.

УГОЛОВНАЯ КОНЦЕПЦИЯ ДИФФЕРЕНЦИАЦИИ НАКАЗАНИЙ КАК ПРАВОВОЙ ПРИНЦИП

Within the framework of the presented article, an attempt was made to discover the penal differentiation and individualization of the execution of punishments, as well as the evolution of its establishment. It is worth noting that due to the democratization of public life and the adoption of a full-fledged legal concept of human rights in the independent Republic of Armenia, one of the areas of in-depth legal reforms was the revision of penal policy and legislative reform. The article speaks about the new Criminal Executive Code of the Republic of Armenia, adopted on June 15, 2022, which improved the legal technique for consolidating and legal regulation of the principles of criminal executive law in criminal executive legislation.

Реализация юридических принципов, определяющих действие уголовного закона в пространстве

The article studies the implementation of legal principles that determine territorial applicability of criminal law in Russia with the focus on the penal provisions that regulate the territorial applicability of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Drawing on the information base, results obtained by Russian researchers, the representative base of investigative practice and using comparative legal, formal logical, and content analysis, the author analyses practices of implementation of the penal provisions specified in Art. 11-12 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to show the relationship between penal provisions and the principles that determine their territiral applicability. He concludes that the territorial principles of criminal law and penal provisions specified in Art. 11-12 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are correlated in the process of law enforcement by Russian state bodies.

책임의 근거 : 이유책임론

In this paper, I starts on the critical basis against both the theory of the possibility of acts other than the actual act presented by the moral theory of responsibility on one hand, and the prevention theory of responsibility on the other hand. The problem of the former is that it is incompatible with the fact of determinism, which we find it difficult to deny empirically, and the problem of the latter is that it denies the responsibility, the affirmation of which is the basic principle of criminal law as well as fundamental moral intuition in our society.
 Instead, I argues that the ground of responsibility should be put on reasons for action. My thesis is that one has responsibility for his/her act when he/she has the ability to rationalize an act at the time of the act, but fails to justify his/her reason objectively, even though there is no possibility of another act. the actor can be held responsible for the act. I also tried to explain what is the practical meaning of responsibility in reality.
 My thesis implies that determinism and responsibility can be compatible. But according to my thesis, the meanings of determinism and responsibility need to be understood in a weaker sense. In other words, the determinism I have in mind is the thesis that making reasons for an act is non-deterministic, but within too limited range, so that other acts other than the actual act cannot be performed under the circumstances and conditions at the time of the act. And the premise of responsibility in my thesis is not the ability to do acts other than the actual act, but the ability to justify the act by reasons. Although these are revisions of each traditional strong
 position, it still has a valid practical meaning in that it is based on our daily experience while preserving the core value of responsibility.

The Ultimate Remedium Principle in the Strategy of Returning and Recovering Corruption Crimes

Introduction: The problem of corruption is not new in a country. So that the application of the ultimum remedium principle in corruption crimes provides a deterrent effect for the perpetrators to recover assets from state losses. The ultimum remedium principle places criminal law as a last resort in realizing legal justice, legal certainty, and legal benefits.Purposes of the Research: This study aims to determine the principle of criminal law as a last resort (Ultimate Remedium) as an Effort in the Eradication of Corruption and how effective the ultimum remedium principle is in eradicating corruption.Methods of the Research: The research method used is normative research. Normative or doctrinal legal research is a legal research that puts the law as a building system of norms. The technique of data collection is done by literature study.Results of the Research: The study results show that the ultimum remedium principle is very effective if the punishment given to the perpetrators of corruption is in the form of hefty penalties to provide a deterrent effect and provide an example for the community not to do so. This study concludes that the ultimum remedium principle is the last step in achieving legal justice, legal certainty, and legal benefits. So that an integral criminal justice system is carried out with a systemic approach with related policy arrangements in the field of structuring legal substance, legal structures or institutions, and legal culture.

Correlation of resting heart rate with a criminal sentence in young adult incarcerated criminal offenders

Criminal sentence is supposed to be just reflection of the gravity of the violations of social norms by an individual in given circumstances. It therefore should be a reliable base for measurement of antisocial tendencies in offenders. Decades of research consistently show that autonomic under-arousal is a significant predictor of crime, violence and antisocial behaviour (AB). No research to date tried to study relationship between length of criminal sentences and physiological measures of autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity. Our study aimed to check if parameters of criminal sentences are good quantification of antisocial tendencies by correlating it with their known physiological correlate – resting heart rate (HR). We correlated sum of sentences, largest individual sentence and legal limits for most serious offence as documented in criminal records with resting HR in 74 young adult incarcerated criminal offenders aged 18–20. In line with the hypothesis we obtained Pearson’s coefficients of r = -.443; r = -.451 and r = -.397 respectively as well as Spearman’s coefficients ρ = -.408; ρ = -.492 and ρ = -.406 respectively, all significant at p < .001. Our research shows that resting heart rate can be a robust predictor of criminal conduct when the latter is quantified precisely and objectively with criminal records. This directs further research in this field towards measuring AB using methods less sensitive to impression management and informant bias, not relying on self-report but on documented behaviour vides empirical support to the validity of codified principles of criminal law as ways of expressing offenders’ level of social misconduct.

Судебное толкование уголовного закона: вопросы теории

The interpretation of the law in judicial activity, as well as the search for specific features of the interpretation of the criminal law, belong to the category of topics whose relevance in modern conditions is increasing much. The contradiction between the growing criminalization and the increasing concern about the observance of human rights and freedoms actualize the status of interpretation as one of the most important aspects of legal activity, directly ensuring the rule of law in criminal law relations.
 In any law-making text, there are always a lot of subjective meanings, only one of which can objectively be the basis of a judicial decision. Based on the generalization of the existing approaches to understanding the interpretation of the law, two of its basic models are distinguished - the model of the presentation of the parliamentary meaning and the model of the presentation of the judicial meaning of the law. It is proved that law enforcement is determined precisely by the judicial meaning of the law, the establishment of which in the process of interpretation is a significant component of judicial legal policy. Understanding the meaning of the criminal law has a specificity being predetermined by the public nature of the branch of criminal law, this impresses the course of action of the court within the framework of the implementation of the principle of separation of powers. However, this specificity cannot consist of, as it is commonly considered to be in science, in limiting the methods of interpretation used by the court or establishing a rigid hierarchical sequence in the application of methods of interpretation.
 The specificity of the interpretation of the criminal law should be determined not by the methods of interpretation, but by the principles of criminal law. Their content, in turn, should be revealed through an appeal to the goals of criminal law regulation. According to the results of the study, the general approach to the interpretation of the criminal law, which being literal as a matter of priority, should combine a restrictive understanding of any legal restrictions and a broad understanding of any defenses against a charge of a crime.

Criminal law principles in the legends of ancient Rome

The description of the history of early Rome (VIII-IV centuries BC) in the works of ancient authors is usually perceived as a mythological legend, which shifts the focus of scientific discussion to assessing the degree of reliability of the events being told. As a result, the normative-value and legal significance of ancient legends sufficient attention of researchers. The oral and therefore naturally plastic nature of archaic law creates additional difficulties for its modern study, in contrast to numerous and well-studied legislative texts. The author proposes to refer to modern types of legal understanding and turn down strict positivism with the aim of expanding the boundaries of legal analysis, rethinking the legend (on the example of Lucius Junius Brutus), recognizing it as a source of Roman law, and reconstructing its criminal law content. For this purpose, using socio-psychological, historical-legal, formal-logical and other scientific methods, the author singles out that part of the story that was not lost, but was steadily reproduced from generation to generation. The surviving core of the legend remained in history because it carried socially significant information modeling of behavior (behavioral stereotypes) of the ancient Romans. The article shows that children`s execution by the first republican magistrate not only legitimized the right of paternal power (patria potestas), but also proclaimed the priority protection of the public interest (civitas) that became the cornerstone of the Roman legal order. The legend set a special imperative for citizens, shaped their worldview and sense of justice. From the criminal law standpoint, this precedent fixed the standard of both prohibited behavior and retribution for it, i.e., a measure of justice, broadcast the requirements of the inevitability and personal nature of responsibility, laid foundation for the requirement of legal equality of all citizens before the law. Ultimately, the legend set the vector for the development of Roman criminal law, which led to the formation of its principles, many of which are accepted and developed in modern legal systems.

Уголовно-правовая система и система уголовного права

Introduction: in modern social and legal realities, the question of the need for a systematic understanding of law in general, and criminal law in particular, is acute. The judicial practice shows that law enforcement officers often have difficulties in interpreting and implementing legal norms. In this connection, the author of the paper sets the purpose of the study: to consider criminal law as a system-based construct. Methods: the methodological framework for the research is a set of methods of scientific cognition, among which the main ones are the systematic approach, the method of deduction, induction, abstraction, analysis and comparative law. Results: the author’s position justified in the work is based on the legislation and the opinions of the competent scientific community on the question of whether the totality of sources of criminal law has a sign of consistency. Using the legal analysis of the provisions of the theory of law, the question is raised about the possibility of including in the criminal legal system such elements as the legislation on issues related to criminal law, doctrinal opinions of scientists, rules for the qualification of crimes, criminal law principles, judicial practice and others. A semantic distinction is made between the concepts of the criminal legal system and the system of criminal law. The author’s definition of the category of a system-forming feature of criminal law, as well as the concept of a criminal legal system, is given. The conclusion about the non-identity of these concepts is substantiated. Conclusions: as a result of the study, it is established that criminal law has signs of consistency. Criminal law as a branch of law contains various elements, including those related to unwritten law. Among them, it is possible to distinguish socio-philosophical categories, such as religious norms, norms of morality and decency, as well as the rules formulated in the criminal-legal sphere by theoretical scientists and law enforcement officers. In particular, they include the rules for the qualification of crimes, the general principles of criminal law, the doctrine of the composition of the crime and others.

A Principled Approach to the Reconciliation Procedure: Theory and Practice

The article examines the problems of regulation and implementation of the provisions of the law on reconciliation in criminal cases. The interrelation of the norms of the institute of reconciliation with a number of principles of criminal procedure law is substantiated and it is concluded that the institution of reconciliation of the parties does not fully comply with the purpose of criminal proceedings and its principles such as the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms and the presumption of innocence. In this regard, the article proposes changes that it is advisable to make to the criminal and criminal procedure law, as well as to the guidance clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to eliminate such contradictions. So we consider it necessary: in the text of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 27.06.2013 N 19, to exclude the mention of the established guilt of the person against whom the criminal case is terminated in accordance with Article 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, and also to reflect the judgment that it is unacceptable for the law enforcement officer to allow formulations in the text of the resolution on the termination of the criminal case, indicating the proof of guilt the person against whom the decision to terminate the criminal case is made; from Articles 25, 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to exclude an indication of the possibility of reconciliation with the suspect; part 2 of Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation should be supplemented with paragraph 4.1 of the following content "to reconcile with the suspect, the accused person in accordance with the procedure established by Article 25 of this Code"; paragraph 15 Part 4 of Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation should be supplemented with the wording explaining to the accused the right to reconciliation in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The principle of legality in the criminal law of Ukraine and the Federal Republic of Germany: separate regulatory and enforcement aspects

The article states that today in Ukraine, the principle of legality in criminal law is directly related to criminal law regulation and its mechanism, influencing its "work" in the regimes of violation and observance of criminal law prohibitions. Some of these features do not have a clear understanding in the criminal law of Ukraine. You can find out some of these features by referring to the relevant provisions of the German criminal law.
 It is noted that when determining the criminal-legal content of the principle of legality, one should take into account the normative guidelines enshrined in the Constitution, acts of criminal, criminal procedural, etc. legislation.
 The authors of the article conduct a consistent analysis of the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany with the aim of clarifying the relevant provisions of the criminal law of the Federal Republic of Germany on the content, structure and application of the principle of legality in order to explain the specific features of the "components" of this principle and its "work" in the criminal law of Ukraine .
 The article discloses general and special legal provisions relating to the content and structure of the principle of legality in criminal law, as well as to define the structure and "components" of this principle.
 Attention is drawn to the fact that the specified understanding of the principle of legality (its components), which is based on the norms of the Constitution, the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, etc. legislative acts, allows you to determine the specifics of the application of this principle in criminal law.
 It is noted that the regulatory guidelines for the researched issue are "presented" primarily in Art. 103 par. 2 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany and § 1 of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany. Thanks to the "work" of this principle, the so-called "guarantee function of criminal law" is ensured in the criminal law of the Federal Republic of Germany.
 The structural elements of the principle of legality are defined, which directly affect the "work" of this principle in criminal law. Points of consideration of the principle of legality are determined when comparing the sources of criminal law.

The principle of differentiation and individualization of execution of punishments

The content and essence of the principles of differentiation and individualization of the execution of punishments in criminal enforcement law are considered within the scope of the article. Emphasis is placed on the exceptional unified perception of this complex basis, taking into account the elements of differentiation and individualization. It is noted that the perception of these elements in a complex will properly reproduce the essence of the principle of differentiation and individualization of the execution of punishments, and, on the contrary, the separate perception of these elements will indicate only a partial reflection of the specificity of the legal relations regulated by this principle. The principle of differentiation and individualization of execution of punishments is derived from the criminal law principle of differentiation and individualization of criminal responsibility. At the same time, in addition to the derivative connection, the principle of differentiation and individualization of the execution of punishments also has an interdisciplinary essence, taking into account the "legal connection" between the branches of criminal and criminal enforcement law. It has been established that such an intersection of the branches of law occurs during the resolution of a number of issues related to deprivation of liberty. Such issues include the regulation of the procedures for applying parole from serving a sentence and replacing the unserved part of the sentence with a milder one. In the regulation of these legal relations, one of the key powers belongs to the principle of differentiation and individualization of execution of punishments. Such a connection of two normative legal acts in the context of reflecting the specified principle is defined as dual convergence. Within the article, it is emphasized that this phenomenon is also characteristic of the simultaneous regulation of a separate category of issues related to the execution of punishments by the norms of both criminal law and normative legal acts of the Ministry of Health. The interdisciplinary essence of the principle of differentiation and individualization of execution of punishments in conditions of triadic convergence is also emphasized. That is, under the conditions of simultaneous application of the branches of criminal, criminal procedural and criminal enforcement law within the framework of the regulation of certain issues related to the execution of punishments. It is noted that the interdisciplinary principle of differentiation and individualization of execution of punishments is also characterized by the collinearity criterion, in the case of its simultaneous use in heterogeneous legal relations in the sphere of criminal and administrative law.

Tinjauan Yuridis Mengenai Pertentangan Hukum Yang Hidup dalam Masyarakat dalam Pasal 2 pada Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana dengan Asas Legalitas

The purpose of establishing the RKUHP is in line with the spirit of decolonization and particularization so that it incorporates elements of law that live in society as basic provisions for prosecution in norms considered as a hallmark of the codification of Indonesian criminal law. This renewal in the RKUHP leaves crucial issues, one of which is by incorporating elements of law that live in society (The Living Law) and make laws that live in society as the basis for determining whether someone can be convicted or the basis for prosecution. This study uses a normative juridical method with a descriptive analytical approach. The inclusion of the law that lives in society into Article 2 of the RKUHP shows that there has been a conflict with the principle of legality which is the main principle of Indonesian criminal law as stipulated in Article 1 of the RKUHP which has implications for legal certainty

KEPASTIAN HUKUM PUTUSAN PEMIDANAAN YANG TIDAK BERDASARKAN SURAT DAKWAAN JAKSA PENUNTUT UMUM

In criminal law enforcement, there is a problem with the judge made law which is unfair and irresponsible in deciding a case, thereby reducing public trust in the judiciary. Criminal judges in Indonesia make many legal breakthroughs in passing a criminal case decision that does not refer to the provisions of the legislation, in other words the judge carries out his own interpretation of a criminal act that is appropriate for the defendant based on the facts in the trial and sets his own article that fits with the facts of the trial that are seen, resulting in a decision that is not in accordance with the indictment of the public prosecutor. It can be seen that there has been a legal event where the judge has decided outside the prosecutor's indictment and this research needs to be followed up by linking the judge's decision that was handed down not based on the article indicted from the aspect of legal certainty. The type of research used in this research is doctrinal law research. The sentencing decision in a criminal case which is decided by a judge not based on the indictment of the Public Prosecutor can be considered invalid because it is contrary to the principles of criminal law. In the examination in court, the party who must prove the indictment to the defendant is the public prosecutor, not the judge.
 Keywords: Legal Certainty, Judge made law, Letter Demands, Public Prosecutor

KIDNAPPING BY DECEIT R v Cort [2003] 3 WLR 1300; [2004] 4 All ER 137 (CA)

The nature of consent, and its ambit and operation as a criminal law defence, remains somewhat unclear (see De Wet De Wet en Swanepoel Strafreg 4ed (1985) 94). This is not surprising, given the fact that the assessment of whether consent is present is largely determined on the basis of public policy. Unlike other justification grounds which indicate that, all things considered, the conduct in question was the right thing to do (eg defence), consent “embodies a recognition that the autonomy of the other person (‘victim’) is involved, and that if that person agrees to the conduct there should be no offence” (Ashworth Principles of Criminal Law 3ed (1999)331). Recognizing a defence of consent involves taking the individual will into account, in allowing individuals “to assume those consequences that they took into account when they adopted the decision; that is, in permitting them to incorporate these consequences into the course of their lives” (Nino The Ethics of Human Rights (1991) 180). It is clear that the law allows a person complete right of disposal over her property, but does not recognize her consent to the taking of her life by another. More difficult questions arise in relation to whether there can be consent to a violation of bodily integrity, particularly in the area of sport andmedical treatment (see Burchell Principles of Criminal Law 3ed (2005) 333-338). A particularly significant question, which is central to the discussion which follows, is when the apparent consent of the complainant can be excluded. Though it is settled law that consent induced by force or threats is not recognized for the purposes of the criminal law (Burchell 341), the position is not as clear with regard to whether consent induced by fraud will be excluded as a defence (Van Oosten and Labuschagne “Bedrieglike Voorstellings en Toestemming in die Strafreg” 1977 De Jure 80 81). This issue will be discussed below, in the light of the case of R v Cort.

The fundamental importance of the ban on turning for the worse for the criminal procedure system

The article deals with the problem of the expediency of a criminal case’s returning to the prosecutor at the stage of appointment and preparation of a court session in Russian criminal proceedings. This problem is relevant to the science of criminal procedure.The purpose of the study is to analyze critically the practice of returning of a criminal case back to the prosecutor in order to correct mistakes made at the pre-trial stages of the proceedings according to the new concept of justice independence and the absence of an accusatory bias in the court functioning.The methodological basis of the study is a set of scientific techniques, focused mostly on the dialectical approach, which made it possible to determine the essential characteristics of the prohibition to turn the criminal proceedings in Russia for the worse. Both general scientific (analysis, synthesis, systematic method) and specific scientific methods (formal-legal, historical-legal, comparative-legal) of knowledge were also used. The analysis helped to formulate the position of understanding the turn for the worse as an independent principle of criminal procedural law, to study the procedural form of the turn for the worse. The synthesis method made it possible to determine the return of the criminal case to the prosecutor at the stage of appointment and preparation of the court session as a holistic institution of the criminal procedure. The systematic approach allowed to determine not only the mixed nature of the mechanism for changing the prosecution to a more serious one, but the investigative organization of pre-trial proceedings and its place in the structure of criminal proceedings, the separation of the investigative and “accusatory powers” of the prosecutors as well as their balance. The historical method let us trace the evolution of the prohibition to turn the Soviet and Russian criminal procedural systems for the worse. The comparative-legal method made it possible to assess the potential of domestic legislators' reception of foreign experience of regulating the prohibition to turn for the worse and formulate proposals to improve the Russian criminal procedural legislation.The main scientific results of this research consist of justification of the conclusion of the conversion expediency of the domestic judicial proceedings to the adversarial model of accusation which is carried out within the trial on the previously filed charge. The presentation of a new charge (criminal action) in court and the procedure of supplementing the charge change it for the worse. This model of re-indictment for the worse for the defendant appears to be fairer and more convenient both for the prosecuting authority and for the legal organization of combating crime. The changeover to the suggested form of implementation of the ban to turn for the worse in the institution of bringing and changing charges in court is possible only in a systematic link with the reform of the preliminary investigation. Conclusion. The institution of the criminal case returning by the court to the prosecutor in order to change the charge to a more serious one when implementing the adversarial model of bringing charges in the criminal procedure system of Russia will fully satisfy the concept of independence of justice administration and the absence of an accusatory bias in the activities of the court, while at the same time with fairly organized the prosecutorial power aimed at countering crime.The section 1 was prepared by N.N. Lysov, section 2 by K.D. Vanyan (together with M.T. Tashilin), section 3 by A.S. Shuisky (together with I.R. Gilmanov), section 4 by V.V. Kosterin.

Application of constitutional principles in criminal legislationof Ukraine

The article examines the importance of constitutional principles for the development of criminal law. The main directions of application of the principles of criminal law in the criminal legislation of Ukraine are investigated. It is determined that the principles of the Criminal Law of Ukraine include the main provisions established by law or derived directly fromit, provide a clear description of the content of this branch of law and are used in the legislative and law enforcement activities of the state bodies. Using dialectical and historical methods, the general law principles of Criminal Law are analyzed. Thecontradiction problems of some criminal law institutes with the constitutional principles are revealed using the comparative method and the methods of analysis and synthesis. The conclusion focuses on the need to define the criminal procedural principles as a fundamental rule of conduct of the criminal process and the court, which permeates all stages of the process, based on the procedural coercion of the State, and which aims to guarantee obtaining suitable and admissible evidence and the performance of the functions of criminal proceedings in general.

Epistemic Communities of Exile Lawyers at the UNWCC

Abstract During the 1940s in London, exiled lawyers from Europe and Asia were among the main actors in coining one of the most known principles of international criminal law. The notion of ‘crimes against humanity’ emanated from their legal debates. This paper debates how the term surfaced in meetings of the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC) in 1944 and was taken up by the London Charter for the Nuremberg International Tribunal in 1945. Legal concepts, which previously needed to be discussed at conferences and via correspondence, developed much more quickly in the ‘breeding ground’ of the exile situation in London and were influenced by different legal traditions, here termed ‘legal flows’.

WHAT DOES “REASONABLE CONSIDERATION” MEAN IN THE OFFENCE OF INCONSIDERATE DRIVING?

The offence of inconsiderate driving contained in section 64 of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 has been described as a “somewhat nebulous provision” (S v Smith 1976 1 SA 756 (T) 757D-E). Yet this provision has been in existence for many years (see, eg, s 48(1)(f) of the Motor Vehicle Ordinance 15 of 1938), and has appeared in essentially the same formulation in the Road Traffic Ordinance (of the erstwhile four provinces of the Republic of South Africa) in the form of section 139, and the Road Traffic Act 29 of 1989 in the form of section 121, before coming into force as part of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996, in the form of section 64.Section 64 provides as follows: “No person shall drive a vehicle on a public road without reasonable consideration for any other person using the road.” The elements of the offence have been identified as (i) driving (ii) a vehicle (iii) on a public road (iv) without reasonable consideration (v) fault (see Hoctor “Road Traffic Offences” in Milton and Cowling South African Criminal Law and Procedure Vol III: Statutory Offences (2005) G3-38; and Cooper Motor Law Vol I (1982) 542). This note does not seek to discuss elements (i), (ii) and (iii), which are general requirements for a range of road traffic offences (see, for discussion of these aspects, Hoctor G3-3 to G3-10and G3-38; Cooper 45, 53-57 and 60; Snyman Criminal Law 4ed (2002) 389-392; and Burchell Principles of Criminal Law 3ed (2005) 897). However, the requirement that the accused drive without reasonable consideration for any other person using the road is unique to and at the heart of the offence described in section 64, whilst the fault requirement is closely related to this requirement. The latter two requirements will thus be examined in the discussion which follows.