起诉危害人类罪:互补性、受害者权利和国内法院

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW Criminal Law and Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-11-09 DOI:10.1007/s11572-022-09648-2
Ruairi Maguire
{"title":"起诉危害人类罪:互补性、受害者权利和国内法院","authors":"Ruairi Maguire","doi":"10.1007/s11572-022-09648-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this paper I argue that when states commit, assist, or culpably fail to prevent crimes against humanity against their own people, they should, subsequently, have primacy in prosecuting those crimes. They have a presumptive right (and duty) to punish perpetrators, and so a claim against third parties not to do so. In contrast to those who emphasise the importance of national sovereignty, I set out a <i>victim</i>-<i>centred</i> justification for this claim. I argue that victims of crimes against humanity, and members of groups that have been targeted for these crimes, have a special interest in having their status as members of their political community re-affirmed. Punishment <i>by</i> their state of war-related crimes against them has the expressive function of re-affirming their status as equal members of their national community, and the state’s commitment to protecting their rights. I set out some reasons to think that this is valuable for victims and members of targeted groups. These interests, I argue, are weighty enough to ground the primacy of states in prosecution.</p>","PeriodicalId":45447,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prosecuting Crimes Against Humanity: Complementarity, Victims’ Rights and Domestic Courts\",\"authors\":\"Ruairi Maguire\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11572-022-09648-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In this paper I argue that when states commit, assist, or culpably fail to prevent crimes against humanity against their own people, they should, subsequently, have primacy in prosecuting those crimes. They have a presumptive right (and duty) to punish perpetrators, and so a claim against third parties not to do so. In contrast to those who emphasise the importance of national sovereignty, I set out a <i>victim</i>-<i>centred</i> justification for this claim. I argue that victims of crimes against humanity, and members of groups that have been targeted for these crimes, have a special interest in having their status as members of their political community re-affirmed. Punishment <i>by</i> their state of war-related crimes against them has the expressive function of re-affirming their status as equal members of their national community, and the state’s commitment to protecting their rights. I set out some reasons to think that this is valuable for victims and members of targeted groups. These interests, I argue, are weighty enough to ground the primacy of states in prosecution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Criminal Law and Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Criminal Law and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-022-09648-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Law and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-022-09648-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我认为,当国家犯下、协助或有罪责地未能防止针对本国人民的危害人类罪行时,它们随后应该在起诉这些罪行方面拥有首要地位。他们有假定的权利(和义务)惩罚犯罪者,因此要求第三方不要这样做。与那些强调国家主权重要性的人相反,我为这一主张提出了一个以受害者为中心的理由。我认为,危害人类罪的受害者和成为这些罪行目标的团体的成员,特别希望他们作为其政治团体成员的地位得到重申。国家对他们犯下的与战争有关的罪行的惩罚具有表达功能,即再次肯定他们作为其民族社会平等成员的地位,以及国家对保护他们权利的承诺。我列出了一些理由,认为这对受害者和目标群体的成员是有价值的。我认为,这些利益的重要性足以让国家在起诉中占据主导地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Prosecuting Crimes Against Humanity: Complementarity, Victims’ Rights and Domestic Courts

In this paper I argue that when states commit, assist, or culpably fail to prevent crimes against humanity against their own people, they should, subsequently, have primacy in prosecuting those crimes. They have a presumptive right (and duty) to punish perpetrators, and so a claim against third parties not to do so. In contrast to those who emphasise the importance of national sovereignty, I set out a victim-centred justification for this claim. I argue that victims of crimes against humanity, and members of groups that have been targeted for these crimes, have a special interest in having their status as members of their political community re-affirmed. Punishment by their state of war-related crimes against them has the expressive function of re-affirming their status as equal members of their national community, and the state’s commitment to protecting their rights. I set out some reasons to think that this is valuable for victims and members of targeted groups. These interests, I argue, are weighty enough to ground the primacy of states in prosecution.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Rationale The philosophy of crime and criminal law has been undergoing a renaissance.Increasing numbers of lawyers and philosophers are researching, writing and teaching in the area. Lawyers who are exploring theoretical issues related to criminal liability and punishment find that they must turn to philosophy. Philosophers recognise the importance of the criminal law as a focus for both analytical and normative inquiry. The practical importance of the subject is also obvious, especially at a time when western governments are having to reconsider their rationales for criminalization and sentencing in the light of substantial changes in criminal justice systems and their social contexts. Until recently, there was no journal solely devoted to the philosophy of crime and criminal law. Criminal Law and Philosophy fills this gap, and provides a platform for the high quality work that is being done in this area. High quality content; specific and inclusive in scope Criminal Law and Philosophy aims to publish high quality articles that take a philosophical perspective on any issues in the broad field of crime and punishment. The main areas and topics include: crime and criminalization; the content, principles and structure of substantive criminal law; criminal justice and the criminal process; punishment and sentencing. The journal is inclusive in its scope: it publishes articles with a historical focus on earlier philosophical discussions of crime and punishment, as well as articles with a more contemporary focus. It seeks contributions from a range of philosophical schools and approaches, in particular both from analytically oriented philosophers and from those who draw more on contemporary continental philoshophy. Readership Criminal Law and Philosophy is becoming essential reading for academics in philoso phy, in law and in criminology who take a philosophically informed critical, analytical or normative approach to the criminal law and criminal justice. It is also an important resource for students in those subjects, and for practitioners with an interest in philosophical approaches to their practice. Through this journal, readers can access the latest thinking by the best scholars in the philosophy of crime and punishment. Editorial Board The editors, editorial board and advisors constitute an impressive, international group of leading scholars working in the philosophy of crime and punishment. They represent a variety of systems of criminal law, including systems that cross national boundaries.
期刊最新文献
The Side-Effects of Imprisonment: Harm to the Family Cruel and Unusual Punishments as Legislative Gross Negligence Crime, Character, and the Evolution of the Penal Message Criminalisation as a Speech-Act: Saying Through Criminalising A Conceptual Framework for Voluntary Confessions and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
×
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