Search

The author discusses some approaches Günther Jakobs on enemy criminal law, notably the argument that those individuals who do not provide sufficient certainty cognitive part that in the future in the legal community should not expect to be treated as persons. This thesis faces the challenges of the constitutionalization of relations international policies in the context of international corpus of human rights and the fact that in this, so even those repeated challenge or attack "order" must be treated as persons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes, without considering particular cases — and preferably by consulting the work of Günther Jakobs and some of his commentators — the main features of the Criminal Law of the Enemy, abstractly. This, so as to evaluate their compatibility with the concept of Human Dignity, present in the majority of contemporary constitutional systems as well as in Human Rights protection systems. It is argued by applying the general statement, proposed by the theoretical neoconstitutionalism, specially the principle that stresses the hierarchical structure of legal systems, in which the existence of a law depends on its compatibility and adequacy relative to higher laws. Through this work, we focus on the main non-positivism in the theory of law. It proposes that laws that recognize the Criminal Law of the Enemy are unconstitutional if Human Dignity is included in the pertaining legal system's Constitution. It concludes reflecting on some features of Criminal Law of the Enemy, which cause irreconcilable issues with the concept of Human Dignity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The following article is the final product of the (legal-sociological) investigation seminar directed by Gustavo Cote. Based on 2002 decree of the year 2002, the one that created the rehabilitation and consolidation zones in Colombia, this article studies the characteristics that those zones showed. Afterwards, by studying some authors who have developed the concept of "enemy criminal law", the article makes a link between this one and the rehabilitation and consolidation zones. The article specially analyses Günther Jakobs and Alessandro Baratta stands, and finally it finds out, in a critical way, that both, enemy criminal law and a particular criminal policy, are tools of a specific politic project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the beginning of the twenty-first century two legal concepts linking citizen/ enemy status with criminal law have provoked heated discussion both in Europe and in the United States. The American concept, i.e., Enemy Combatants, has been basically developed by the U.S. Supreme Court and more recently by the Bush administration. The European term, Feindstrafrecht/Enemy Criminal Law, has been fundamentally coined and explained by leading German academic Professor Günther Jakobs. Though born and raised by different parents, the two concepts have numerous aspects in common, or at least this will be argued throughout the paper. The most important common ground is that both concepts, with similar terminology, try to address the problem of what to do with individuals who are viewed as sources of extreme dangerousness. Put differently, they both tackle the question of whether citizenship--in a broad sense--concedes certain rights but imposes a fundamental duty: to have a minimum of law-abiding behavior If the duty is not fulfilled, then the rights are not acknowledged and the individual is treated as an enemy, not as a citizen. The underlying reasoning oozes social contract theory. This is not by chance, as great philosophers (Rousseau, Fichte, Hobbes, Kant) have employed similar arguments that are briefly sketched in the essay. There are also references to the legal theory behind the scenes predicating that in order for legal constructions to exist (rights, the State), they need to be followed by most people. Hence such a duty to comply, in general terms, with the law is imposed upon all persons. If not, law would be just daydreaming. Strong and consistent as all these arguments sound, the basic problem with this type of reasoning is that it is hard for the legal system to follow without entering into self-contradiction. In this light, criticism will be brought by one of the most prominent social theories of the time, i.e., systems theory, arguing that law-abiding behavior is a precondition for legal institutions to exist, yes, but it cannot be secured by law itself. It is a precondition that has to be presupposed by the legal system. Moreover, using this kind of necessity rule, i.e., the State and the Law need to secure the preconditions of their own existence (self-preservation), entails a diabolic logic as it may lead to the destruction of the system itself. To this extent, self-preservation against external threats (terrorist attacks) and internal threats (curtailment of civil liberties) seems equally important. The essay finishes with some proposals for resolving this delicate matter, trying to reflect a keen sense of balance and forward-looking thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present essay provides of the principle characteristics composed and proposed by professor Günther Jakobs regarding criminal law of the enemy. Next, the article contrasts the aforementioned Law to the concept of "quimera," or wishful thinking, with the intention to discover if the criminal law of the enemy is a mere description composed of fake elements or if a future model in favor of civil security can be constituted. Finally, the article clarifies the necessity to think about the future of criminal law at the mercy of the protection against dangers and not of certain freedoms.