File #2420: "2018_Book_MemoryAndPunishment.pdf"
Testo
1|Foreword|7
1|Preface|12
2|Reference|20
1|Contents|21
1|Table of International and National Instruments|24
2|Table of International Instruments|24
1|Table of Cases|29
1|List of Judicial Bodies|32
1|Abbreviations|33
1|Historical Denialism as a Criminal Offence: Origins and Development|34
1|1 The Birth of the Crime of Historical Denialism|35
2|Abstract|35
2|1.1 Origins of the Phenomenon|36
3|1.1.1 Historical Denialism and Revisionism|36
3|1.1.2 A Brief History of Historical Denialism|39
2|1.2 Origins of the Offence|41
3|1.2.1 Evolution of the Criminal Offence|43
4|1.2.1.1 From an ‘Original’ to a ‘Broader’ Form: the Offence|44
4|1.2.1.2 A Crime with Varying Forms|47
4|1.2.1.3 The Spread of the ‘Broader’ Form|51
3|1.2.2 Criminal Law and Remembrance Laws|52
2|1.3 The Relationship Between Law and Memory|53
2|1.4 The Leading Role of Criminal Law|54
3|1.4.1 Memory as Collective Redefinition of a Common Past|56
3|1.4.2 Collective Historical Memory as an Ethical Pact|57
3|1.4.3 Memory, Law and Punishment|59
2|1.5 Historical Denialism, Anti-Terrorist Legislation and the Protection of Collective Historical Memory|63
2|1.6 Criminalising Dissent Versus Protecting Consensus|68
2|References|70
1|2 The Crime of Historical Denialism and International Law|82
2|Abstract|82
2|2.1 The International Obligation to Criminalise Historical Denialism|82
3|2.1.1 International Level|84
3|2.1.2 EU Level|86
3|2.1.3 The 2008 Framework Decision|87
4|2.1.3.1 The Mandatory Clause Limiting Punishment|90
4|2.1.3.2 Optional Clauses Limiting Punishment|91
4|2.1.3.3 Res judicata|91
3|2.1.4 European Convention of Human Rights|93
2|2.2 The Relationship Between Criminal Law and Memory|97
2|References|98
1|Denialism in Practice|101
1|3 Criminal Law and Memory|102
2|Abstract|102
2|3.1 Criminal Law and Historical Memory|103
2|3.2 The French Experience: The Legislator and Judge as Memory Makers|104
3|3.2.1 Lois Mémorielles|105
3|3.2.2 The First-Ever Crime of Historical Denialism: The Gayssot Act|107
4|3.2.2.1 Features and Dilemmas|108
4|3.2.2.2 The ‘Assassins of Memory’ and the Court of Cassation|111
3|3.2.3 From the Holocaust to the Armenian Genocide: The Boyer Bill|112
4|3.2.3.1 A Complicated Reform|113
4|3.2.3.2 The Constitutional Council Decision of 28 February 2012|114
4|3.2.3.3 From the Boyer Bill to Remembrance Laws|116
3|3.2.4 The Role of the Legislator and Freedom of Speech Before the French Courts|118
3|3.2.5 Constitutional Developments|119
3|3.2.6 Protecting Historical Research Methodology: The Theil Case|123
2|3.3 The European Court of Human Rights|125
3|3.3.1 ‘Clearly Established Historical Facts’: The Garaudy Case|125
3|3.3.2 ‘Fact’ and ‘Legal Qualification of Fact’: The Perinçek Case|128
4|3.3.2.1 The Swiss Conviction|129
4|3.3.2.2 The Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights|132
5|‘Fact’ and ‘Legal Qualification of Fact’|133
5|The Nature of Historical Research and the Exception of the Holocaust|135
5|A Hierarchy of Memories?|137
4|3.3.2.3 Final Remarks|140
2|3.4 Courts of Memory|141
3|3.4.1 Enshrining Memory|144
3|3.4.2 Manufacturing Memory|146
2|References|148
1|4 Criminal Law and Free Speech|154
2|Abstract|154
2|4.1 ‘Fact’ and ‘Opinion’: The German Federal Constitutional Court|154
3|4.1.1 The German Legal Framework|155
3|4.1.2 From the Deckert I to Criminal Offence|156
3|4.1.3 The Law of 28 October 1994|157
3|4.1.4 Punishable Acts|159
3|4.1.5 Scope|160
3|4.1.6 Public Nature and Potential to Disturb the Public Peace|161
3|4.1.7 The Federal Constitutional Court Decision|163
4|4.1.7.1 ‘Fact’ and ‘Opinion’, Objectivity and Subjectivity|165
4|4.1.7.2 The ‘Truth of Facts’?|166
4|4.1.7.3 Historical and Judicial ‘Truth’|167
2|4.2 ‘Fact’ and ‘Value’: The Spanish Constitutional Court|167
3|4.2.1 The Spanish Legal Framework|167
4|4.2.1.1 Ley Orgánica of 11 May 1995|168
4|4.2.1.2 The 1995 Reform of the Criminal Code|169
4|4.2.1.3 The 2015 Reform of the Criminal Code|172
3|4.2.2 The Decision of the Constitutional Court|173
4|4.2.2.1 Denial Not Necessarily Inciting Hatred: The Varela Case|174
4|4.2.2.2 Denial Is Lawful|175
4|4.2.2.3 Justification Is Unlawful|178
4|4.2.2.4 A Viable Distinction?|180
4|4.2.2.5 The Librería Kalki Case|180
2|References|181
1|5 Conclusion|186
2|Abstract|186
2|5.1 Criminal Law as a Warden of Memory|186
2|5.2 The Reversal of Manifest and Latent Functions|188
2|5.3 The Return of Ethics?|191
2|5.4 An Attack on the Ethical Pact|194
2|5.5 In Defence of the Non-Criminal Protection of History|197
2|References|202
1|Appendix|208
1|Table of EU Legislation on Denialism|209
1|Bibliography|218
1|Index|242
1|Preface|12
2|Reference|20
1|Contents|21
1|Table of International and National Instruments|24
2|Table of International Instruments|24
1|Table of Cases|29
1|List of Judicial Bodies|32
1|Abbreviations|33
1|Historical Denialism as a Criminal Offence: Origins and Development|34
1|1 The Birth of the Crime of Historical Denialism|35
2|Abstract|35
2|1.1 Origins of the Phenomenon|36
3|1.1.1 Historical Denialism and Revisionism|36
3|1.1.2 A Brief History of Historical Denialism|39
2|1.2 Origins of the Offence|41
3|1.2.1 Evolution of the Criminal Offence|43
4|1.2.1.1 From an ‘Original’ to a ‘Broader’ Form: the Offence|44
4|1.2.1.2 A Crime with Varying Forms|47
4|1.2.1.3 The Spread of the ‘Broader’ Form|51
3|1.2.2 Criminal Law and Remembrance Laws|52
2|1.3 The Relationship Between Law and Memory|53
2|1.4 The Leading Role of Criminal Law|54
3|1.4.1 Memory as Collective Redefinition of a Common Past|56
3|1.4.2 Collective Historical Memory as an Ethical Pact|57
3|1.4.3 Memory, Law and Punishment|59
2|1.5 Historical Denialism, Anti-Terrorist Legislation and the Protection of Collective Historical Memory|63
2|1.6 Criminalising Dissent Versus Protecting Consensus|68
2|References|70
1|2 The Crime of Historical Denialism and International Law|82
2|Abstract|82
2|2.1 The International Obligation to Criminalise Historical Denialism|82
3|2.1.1 International Level|84
3|2.1.2 EU Level|86
3|2.1.3 The 2008 Framework Decision|87
4|2.1.3.1 The Mandatory Clause Limiting Punishment|90
4|2.1.3.2 Optional Clauses Limiting Punishment|91
4|2.1.3.3 Res judicata|91
3|2.1.4 European Convention of Human Rights|93
2|2.2 The Relationship Between Criminal Law and Memory|97
2|References|98
1|Denialism in Practice|101
1|3 Criminal Law and Memory|102
2|Abstract|102
2|3.1 Criminal Law and Historical Memory|103
2|3.2 The French Experience: The Legislator and Judge as Memory Makers|104
3|3.2.1 Lois Mémorielles|105
3|3.2.2 The First-Ever Crime of Historical Denialism: The Gayssot Act|107
4|3.2.2.1 Features and Dilemmas|108
4|3.2.2.2 The ‘Assassins of Memory’ and the Court of Cassation|111
3|3.2.3 From the Holocaust to the Armenian Genocide: The Boyer Bill|112
4|3.2.3.1 A Complicated Reform|113
4|3.2.3.2 The Constitutional Council Decision of 28 February 2012|114
4|3.2.3.3 From the Boyer Bill to Remembrance Laws|116
3|3.2.4 The Role of the Legislator and Freedom of Speech Before the French Courts|118
3|3.2.5 Constitutional Developments|119
3|3.2.6 Protecting Historical Research Methodology: The Theil Case|123
2|3.3 The European Court of Human Rights|125
3|3.3.1 ‘Clearly Established Historical Facts’: The Garaudy Case|125
3|3.3.2 ‘Fact’ and ‘Legal Qualification of Fact’: The Perinçek Case|128
4|3.3.2.1 The Swiss Conviction|129
4|3.3.2.2 The Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights|132
5|‘Fact’ and ‘Legal Qualification of Fact’|133
5|The Nature of Historical Research and the Exception of the Holocaust|135
5|A Hierarchy of Memories?|137
4|3.3.2.3 Final Remarks|140
2|3.4 Courts of Memory|141
3|3.4.1 Enshrining Memory|144
3|3.4.2 Manufacturing Memory|146
2|References|148
1|4 Criminal Law and Free Speech|154
2|Abstract|154
2|4.1 ‘Fact’ and ‘Opinion’: The German Federal Constitutional Court|154
3|4.1.1 The German Legal Framework|155
3|4.1.2 From the Deckert I to Criminal Offence|156
3|4.1.3 The Law of 28 October 1994|157
3|4.1.4 Punishable Acts|159
3|4.1.5 Scope|160
3|4.1.6 Public Nature and Potential to Disturb the Public Peace|161
3|4.1.7 The Federal Constitutional Court Decision|163
4|4.1.7.1 ‘Fact’ and ‘Opinion’, Objectivity and Subjectivity|165
4|4.1.7.2 The ‘Truth of Facts’?|166
4|4.1.7.3 Historical and Judicial ‘Truth’|167
2|4.2 ‘Fact’ and ‘Value’: The Spanish Constitutional Court|167
3|4.2.1 The Spanish Legal Framework|167
4|4.2.1.1 Ley Orgánica of 11 May 1995|168
4|4.2.1.2 The 1995 Reform of the Criminal Code|169
4|4.2.1.3 The 2015 Reform of the Criminal Code|172
3|4.2.2 The Decision of the Constitutional Court|173
4|4.2.2.1 Denial Not Necessarily Inciting Hatred: The Varela Case|174
4|4.2.2.2 Denial Is Lawful|175
4|4.2.2.3 Justification Is Unlawful|178
4|4.2.2.4 A Viable Distinction?|180
4|4.2.2.5 The Librería Kalki Case|180
2|References|181
1|5 Conclusion|186
2|Abstract|186
2|5.1 Criminal Law as a Warden of Memory|186
2|5.2 The Reversal of Manifest and Latent Functions|188
2|5.3 The Return of Ethics?|191
2|5.4 An Attack on the Ethical Pact|194
2|5.5 In Defence of the Non-Criminal Protection of History|197
2|References|202
1|Appendix|208
1|Table of EU Legislation on Denialism|209
1|Bibliography|218
1|Index|242