КРИМІНАЛЬНА ВІДПОВІДАЛЬНІСТЬ ЗА НАСИЛЬНИЦЬКЕ ЗНИКНЕННЯ ЗА КРИМІНАЛЬНИМ ПРАВОМ УКРАЇНИ

Interconnections between International and National Criminal Law Relevant to Energy Security

The article addresses the issue of the ineffectiveness of norms of international humanitarian law during modern armed conflicts, the content of certain norms of the Geneva Conventions with the aim of improving the international legal regulation of the status of victims of armed conflicts. An analysis of international legal acts and national acts adopted in Ukraine after the introduction of martial law in Ukraine, which are aimed at improving the status of victims of the armed conflict, has been carried out. Attention is drawn to the fact that the russian-Ukrainian war qualifies as an international armed conflict, in which, in accordance with the norms of international humanitarian law, the combatants are given the status of prisoners of war. At the same time, russia grants them the status of “persons opposing a special military operation” without guaranteeing the protection of the rights of prisoners of war, does not distinguish the status of civilians in an armed conflict, which is a significant violation of the norms of international humanitarian law. It is proposed to adopt the conventional norms of international humanitarian law in terms of regulating the exchange of prisoners of war.Different definitions that denote certain vulnerable categories of the civilian population during an armed conflict are analyzed in relation to the definition of “indirect victims of an armed conflict”. Proposals for the creation of a coordinating body that would take care of the issues of indirect victims of the armed conflict, the development of an effective compensation mechanism for destroyed or damaged property during armed aggression, and the determination of the legal status of persons who have been deprived of personal freedom as a result of armed aggression against Ukraine are supported. Today, international and national legislation is clear on the appointment - who should be taken into account by the persons who suffered in the wake of the violent aggression. It is concluded that the norms of international humanitarian law need to be updated and revised for their future observance and implementation by all subjects of international law.

The structural differences between international and transnational crimes, and between international and transnational criminal law, are not dispelled by the globalisation of transnational organised crime. As a result, the reasons for the different responses provided by international and transnational criminal law to international and transnational crimes remain intact. Nevertheless, this does not prevent the most serious acts of violence by clandestine business structures from amounting to international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity. Consequently, they should receive an appropriate response to their true nature by international criminal law.

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.

Economic activity continues during war. But what rules apply when US troops occupy Syrian oil fields? Who is responsible when multinational companies use minerals extracted by child labourers in war zones? This book examines how international law regulates the war economies that are at the heart of strategic competition between great powers and help sustain the irregular warfare in today's war zones. Drawing on advances in our understanding of the social and economic dynamics in war zones, this book identifies predation, a combination of violence and economic opportunity, as the core pathology of war economies. The author presents a framework for understanding the regulation of war economies based on the history of international law and existing norms of international humanitarian law, international criminal law, international human rights law and the law of international peace and security. War Economies and International Law concludes that the pathologies of predation in war demand answers based on an international regulatory strategy.

The article explores the pressing issues of international legal regulation of information security in the context of the rapid development of information and communication technologies (ICT), which are significantly transforming the nature of modern global threats. It analyzes the transformation of armed conflicts due to the growing role of informational influence and cyberattacks, which are becoming tools of geopolitical pressure. Particular attention is paid to the complexity of classifying such actions under existing norms of international humanitarian law, international criminal law, and the law of state responsibility. The article reveals the main challenges related to the legal regulation of information conflicts, including difficulties in attributing cyberattacks, the dual (civil and military) nature of ICT, the lack of a clear definition of war in cyberspace, and the legal uncertainty regarding the status of critical digital infrastructure. The article focuses on the existing gaps in international law concerning the prevention, detection, and response to information threats. It emphasizes the urgent need to develop a universal international treaty on cybersecurity that would establish clear rules for the use of information technologies in international relations, ensure accountability of cybercrime actors, and define mechanisms for international cooperation. The key threats to information security are analyzed, including violations of state sovereignty, the misuse of ICT by non-state actors, and the difficulty of identifying the source of attacks. The necessity of forming unified legal approaches to the regulation of the use of force in cyberspace is highlighted, along with the development of preventive tools of international law and the strengthening of collective security mechanisms in the information domain.

The 6th Criminal Law Reform Act of 1998 increased the sentences for carrying ‘dangerous implements’ in the German Criminal Code, but attempts to give a sufficiently precise definition of the concept of a ‘dangerous implement’ have failed. However, there are hardly any considerations on how to draft an ‘appropriate new version of the law’, as suggested by the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof). This anthology documents a research project that compares the regulatory models of nine countries and aims to amend the law appropriately. A legal and historical representation of theft using weapons supplements the reports on each country. The comparative cross section summarises and evaluates the distinct models, and considerations for reform complete the anthology. Its publisher holds the Chair of Criminal Law, in particular European Criminal Law and International Criminal Law, at the European University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder), and focuses on comparative criminal law in her research. With contributions by Isidoro Blanco Cordero, Andreas Eicker, Margareth Helfer, Gudrun Hochmayr, Johannes Keiler, Aleksandra Ligocka, Maciej Małolepszy, Wolfgang Schild, Kurt Schmoller, Zsolt Szomora, Stephen Thaman

Abbreviations Preface and Acknowledgments Introduction Flavia Lattanzi Chapter 1 'Fragmentation', Diversification and '3D' Legal Pluralism: International Criminal Law as the Jack-in-the-Box? Carsten Stahn & Larissa van den Herik Part I Institutional Aspects of Fragmentation Chapter 2 The Judicial Dialogue between the ICJ and International Criminal Courts on the Question of Immunity Rosanne van Alebeek Chapter 3 Binocular Vision: State Responsibility and Individual Criminal Responsibility for Genocide Philippa Webb Chapter 4 Finding Custom: The ICJ and the International Criminal Courts and Tribunals Compared Yeghishe Kirakosyan Chapter 5 Human Rights Cases in Sub-regional African Courts: Towards Justice for Victims or Just More Fragmentation? Helen Duff y Chapter 6 Praising the Region: What Might a Complementary Criminal Justice System Learn from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights? Cecilia Cristina Naddeo Chapter 7 The Regionalization of Criminal Law - the Example of European Criminal Law Ricardo Pereira Chapter 8 Alternative Justice Mechanisms, Compliance and Fragmentation of International Law Susan Kemp Chapter 9 Limits of Information-sharing between the International Criminal Court and Truth Commissions Eszter Kirs Chapter 10 Puzzling over Amnesties: Defragmenting the Debate for International Criminal Tribunals Dov Jacobs Part II Fragmentation of Substantive Law Chapter 11 Chinese Humanitarian Law and International Humanitarian Law Liu Daqun Chapter 12 Approximation or Harmonisation as a Result of Implementation of the Rome Statute David Donat Cattin Chapter 13 Fragmentation of the Rome Statute through an Incoherent Jurisdictional Regime for the Crime of Aggression: A Silent Operation Deborah Ruiz Verduzco Chapter 14 Domestic Prosecution of Genocide: Fragmentation or Natural Diversity? Cristina Fernandez-Pacheco Estrada Chapter 15 The Rome Statute and Domestic Proceedings for Ordinary Crimes: The (In)Admissibility of Cases before the International Criminal Court Beatrice Pisani Chapter 16 Fragmentation of the Notion of Co-Perpetration in International Criminal Law? Chantal Meloni Chapter 17 The Mens Rea Enigma in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court Mohamed Elewa Badar Chapter 18 Reception of Common Law in Substantive International Criminal Law James L. Bischoff Chapter 19 The Principle of Complicity under International Law - Its Application to States and Individuals in Cases involving Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Erik Kok Part III Fragmentation and Criminal Procedure Chapter 20 Unifi cation or Fragmentation? Structural Tendencies in International Criminal Procedure Mark Klamberg Chapter 21 Prosecutorial Discretion in International Criminal Justice: Between Fragmentation and Unification Hitomi Takemura Chapter 22 Fragmentation in International Criminal Law and the Rights of Victims Margaret Burnham Chapter 23 The Influences of French Law on Appeal Proceedings before the International Criminal Court and the Tribunals Xavier Tracol Index.

Punishment Without a Sovereign? The Ius Puniendi Issue of International Criminal Law: A First Contribution Towards a Consistent Theory of International Criminal Law

Before the 1940's, trends in international human rights, international criminal law and humanitarian law helped develop a rudimentary set of norms, particularly in Europe. These early trends sprang from populist social justice movements and evolving intellectual, religious and social mores. The 1940's saw the landmark intersection of preexisting trends in international human rights, humanitarian and criminal law and provided the bedrock intellectual, legal and historical bases that would incorporate those disparate trends into a collective and vital modern legal rights regime. These advances helped articulate and refine the substantive and procedural guidelines for subsequent international criminal bodies and help drive the revival of the principles of Nuremberg during the 1990's and into the 21st century. The modern international human rights treaty regime has affected international law in more ways than just by growing a sophisticated international jurisprudence, generating more exacting substantive definitions of human rights, and general principles of law.Keywords: International Criminal Law; international human rights; international humanitarian law; international jurisprudence

Refugee status determination is difficult by its very nature but it becomes even more complex when the issue of exclusion under article 1F(a) is raised and it is alleged that there are ‘serious reasons for considering’ that the applicant is ‘guilty of having committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments that have been drawn to make provision for such crimes’. The ‘War Crimes and Refugee Status’ Research Project’s Canadian jurisprudence dataset, consisting of 98 article 1F(a) cases, reveals that more than 91 per cent of these cases cite international humanitarian law (IHL) or international criminal law (ICL), but only 13 per cent of the cases cite UNHCR guidelines or directives. Interestingly, nearly two-thirds, 65.8 per cent, of these appeal cases are denied. Five of the most frequently cited judgments in this sample of cases were Ramirez , Moreno , Sivakumar , Harb , and Pushpanathan , in that order. After analyzing these five appeal court judgments in depth, seven legal principles were identified respecting the application and interpretation of IHL and ICL in Canada: (1) violations of international law can be committed by private individuals as well as states, or public officials acting on behalf of states; (2) the standard of proof for ‘serious reasons for considering’ under article 1F is lower than a balance of probabilities, the civil law standard; (3) two fundamental tenets on which complicity and culpability are established in international crimes are: (i) no one can commit an international crime without personal and knowing participation; (ii) complicity rests on the existence of a shared common purpose and the knowledge of all the parties involved; (4) Mere membership or passive acquiescence in a group or organization that commits international crimes can never be sufficient to exclude a refugee applicant under article 1F(a); (5) ‘Voluntary, significant and knowing contribution’ does not require formal membership in a group or organization that is engaged in crimes against peace, war crimes or crimes against humanity. An accomplice contributes knowingly to those activities of a group or organization that makes them possible. (6) the offence of ‘aiding and abetting’ cannot be made out by mere presence on the scene where an international crime has taken place. What is required is voluntary, significant and knowing contribution in persecutory acts. (7) there is a close affinity between article 1F(a), which deals with those activities that take place in situations of armed conflict, and article 1F(c), which deals with activities irrespective of whether or not they take place in a situation of armed conflict. Article 1F(a) and (c) can overlap in various ways, such as where the sales of illicit narcotics are used to finance the purchase of weapons that are used in armed conflicts and/or for terrorist activities. The new test for exclusion under article 1F(a) in Canada, ‘voluntary, significant and knowing contribution,’ leaves a broad area of discretion for refugee law decision makers. This will cause, undoubtedly, legal contention in the appellate courts as the article 1F(a) cases make their way through the judicial process in Canada. The application and interpretation of international refugee law under article 1F(a) in Canada will continue to evolve with national court judgments as well as the development of international humanitarian and criminal law.

The Latin formulation "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege" is a principle in criminal law. This generally accepted principle of legality means that no one can be punished for a conduct without it being provided by law as a punishable offense. This principle has a guaranteeing function in the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens and the realization of the rule of law. The dominant worldview is that now in international criminal law, instead of the principle "nullum crimen sine lege", it is enough to respect the principle "nullum crimen sine iure". This is based on the fact that international criminal law will not be directly applied, but must first be included in domestic criminal law. The newest doctrine starts from the fact that we should not insist literally on the law, but on some adequate international legal act (nullum crimen sine actu). In fact, this would imply the need to adopt an international criminal code (despite its name), which in reality cannot be expected to be adopted in the near future. The adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court is a step in this direction. In the continuation of this paper, we will examine the main conditions that must be met by future international legislation dedicated to the effective implementation of the principle of legality in international criminal law.

It has become apparent that problem areas and challenges for international criminal law go far beyond armed conflict (and their coverage, such as in the Statute of the International Criminal Court). The risks and dangers for humanity in the most diverse areas are capable of massively impairing people’s quality of life or even depriving them of their livelihood; thereby endangering peace, security, and global well-being. Of particular concern are serious economic (systematic and large-scale corruption) as well as environmental crimes. The development of a global regulatory framework in which criminal law is embedded to cover the most serious violations is therefore indispensable. This chapter, after recognising the shift in global politics, presents the viewpoint on how international, transnational, EU, and national criminal law should be reshaped and connected. Furthermore, the chapter proposes enforcement mechanisms to efficiently tackle the existing challenges. Prior to undertaking this project, the chapter provides an analysis of the existing norms.

Recent scholarship and jurisprudence in international criminal law (ICL) shows a dramatic flourishing of interest in fundamental principles of justice. A system of justice requires more than utilitarian reasoning aimed at maximizing impact; the system is constrained by fundamental principles that protect the individual, in order to ensure that punishment is deserved. This project contributes to this reinvigorated discussion in three ways. Firstly, I advance a framework with which to evaluate ICL doctrines. I agree with the important critique that principles familiar from national systems should not be automatically be replicated in the distinctive contexts of ICL. While principles may be adapted, our guide is that we must conform to the underlying deontological constraints. Secondly, I highlight that the application of existing criminal law theory to ICL is not a one-way process. The extreme cases and novel problems of ICL can reveal that seemingly elementary principles contain unnoticed conditions and parameters. Criminal law theory illuminates the lacunae of ICL, and ICL illuminates the lacunae of criminal law theory. Thirdly, I apply the framework to particular problems and controversies in ICL, such as command responsibility, superior orders and non-retroactivity.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiations, the three countries of the Americas are thrown together and are bound to experience greatly enhanced levels of movement of people, goods, and capital. The challenge to liberalize the flow and minimize dislocations and adverse consequences of the flow, especially from criminal elements, requires innovative thinking on mechanisms and structure of the criminal relations. Customs is a key substantive legal area because it cuts across the movement of goods and, to a lesser extent, of persons and capital. From a substantive legal perspective, the areas of international criminal law, customs law, administrative law, and international relations, especially international regime theory, will increasingly interact.' This article discusses competing national criminal and quasi-criminal laws of the United States, Canada and Mexico with respect to customs enforcement. Enforcement of customs law is of particular interest in the wake of negotiations for a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among the three countries because of the amount of trade among the three countries. Enforcement of customs law from an international criminal law perspective requires a consideration of the classification of customs t This paper was initially prepared for the Max-Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg-im-Breisgau, Germany, International Workshop on Principles and Procedures for a New Transnational Criminal Law, Held on May 21-24, 1991. * Cameron & Hornbostel, Washington, D.C.; Co-chair, Committee on In