The german separation between police and the offices for the protection of the Constitution. Legal framework

Codrin Timu, Martin Ibler
{"title":"The german separation between police and the offices for the protection of the Constitution. Legal framework","authors":"Codrin Timu, Martin Ibler","doi":"10.47743/rdc-2016-2-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“The rule of law and the federal state, as well as the protection of the fundamental \nrights could forbid the fusion of certain offices or the delegation of these offices \nwith functions that are incompatible with their constitutional position“1. In this \nmanner the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany mentions the separation \nbetween police and the offices for the protection of the constitution. After the \nterrorist attacks in the USA, Spain, France, Belgium and Germany, the \nteamwork between the state offices has kept on intensifying. The discussion \n(debate) about the legal framework of the separation principle continued \nhowever to exist. In a time, where the security of the citizens steals away the \nspace of the fundamental rights, to treat this subject is of the utmost \nimportance2, in order not to allow the recurrence of the mistakes of the Weimar \nRepublic. The article deals with the legal framework of the German separation \nbetween police and the offices for the protection of the constitution and gives \nan answer to the question if this principle has a constitutional status.","PeriodicalId":421528,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Drept Constituțional","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Drept Constituțional","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47743/rdc-2016-2-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

“The rule of law and the federal state, as well as the protection of the fundamental rights could forbid the fusion of certain offices or the delegation of these offices with functions that are incompatible with their constitutional position“1. In this manner the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany mentions the separation between police and the offices for the protection of the constitution. After the terrorist attacks in the USA, Spain, France, Belgium and Germany, the teamwork between the state offices has kept on intensifying. The discussion (debate) about the legal framework of the separation principle continued however to exist. In a time, where the security of the citizens steals away the space of the fundamental rights, to treat this subject is of the utmost importance2, in order not to allow the recurrence of the mistakes of the Weimar Republic. The article deals with the legal framework of the German separation between police and the offices for the protection of the constitution and gives an answer to the question if this principle has a constitutional status.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
德国区分警察和保护机关的宪法。法律框架
“法治和联邦国家以及对基本权利的保护可以禁止某些职务的合并或这些职务的授权与其宪法立场不相容”1。德国联邦宪法法院以这种方式提到警察与保护宪法的办公室之间的分离。在美国、西班牙、法国、比利时和德国发生恐怖袭击事件后,国家办公室之间的合作不断加强。但是,关于分离原则的法律框架的讨论(辩论)继续存在。在公民的安全偷走了基本权利的空间的时代,为了不让魏玛共和国的错误重演,处理这个问题是至关重要的。该条论述了德国警察与保护宪法的机关分开的法律框架,并回答了这一原则是否具有宪法地位的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on constitutionalism and the state of emergency Constitutional Challenges in the Algorithmic Society Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic from the Brazilian Supreme Court and Romanian Constitutional Court Establishing an International Court against Terorism Questions prejudicielles a la Cour de Justice de l'Union Europeene: l'experience de la Cour Constitutionelle de Belgique
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1