File #2727: "2019_Book_HumannessAsAProtectedLegalInte.pdf"
Testo
1|Foreword|7
1|Preface|13
1|Acknowledgements|15
1|Contents|17
1|About the Author|20
1|Abbreviations|21
1|1 Introduction|23
2|Abstract|23
2|References|36
1|2 Main Substantive Terms, Their Basic Differences and Links, and Leading Working Hypothesis|38
2|Abstract|38
2|2.1 Definitions|39
3|2.1.1 Humanity|40
3|2.1.2 Laws of Humanity|42
3|2.1.3 Principle of Humanity|43
3|2.1.4 Crimes Against Humanity|46
2|2.2 Differences|46
2|2.3 Important Links|48
2|2.4 Working Hypothesis|50
2|References|51
1|3 Historical Overview of the Development of the Concept of Humanity in International Law and Crimes Against Humanity|52
2|Abstract|52
2|3.1 Introduction|53
2|3.2 Evolutions Before the Adoption of the Nuremberg Charter|56
3|3.2.1 The Ancient World|56
4|3.2.1.1 Western Civilizations|56
4|3.2.1.2 Non-Western Civilizations|66
3|3.2.2 The Middle Ages|71
4|3.2.2.1 Natural Law, ius gentium and Humanity|71
4|3.2.2.2 The Renaissance Humanism Movement|75
3|3.2.3 Impact of Immanuel Kant’s Philosophy|77
4|3.2.3.1 Kant’s Formula of Humanity and International Law|77
4|3.2.3.2 Crimes Against Humanity from the Kantian Perspective of Law|79
3|3.2.4 The Principle of Humanity in the Development of International Humanitarian Law|81
4|3.2.4.1 Considerations of Humanity in the Earlier Evolution of the Law of Armed Conflict|82
4|3.2.4.2 Impact of the Lieber Code and Its Principle of Humanity|87
4|3.2.4.3 The Martens Clause and Laws of Humanity|89
4|3.2.4.4 Legal Nature of the Principle of Humanity in International Humanitarian Law|95
3|3.2.5 Armenian Massacres and Legal Attitudes Towards “Laws of Humanity” in Their Aftermath|98
4|3.2.5.1 The 1915 Joint Declaration of France, Great Britain and Russia|98
4|3.2.5.2 The Work of the 1919 Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War|101
4|3.2.5.3 Relevant Developments at the Treaty Law Level|104
2|3.3 Developments After the Adoption of the Nuremberg Charter|110
3|3.3.1 Nuremberg International Military Tribunal|110
4|3.3.1.1 The Charter of the International Military Tribunal|110
4|3.3.1.2 Views on the Protected Object Under the Tribunal’s Charter|114
4|3.3.1.3 The Nuremberg Proceedings and the Judgement|118
3|3.3.2 Subsequent Proceedings Under the Allied Control Council Law No. 10|122
4|3.3.2.1 The Control Council Law No. 10|122
4|3.3.2.2 Relevant Case Law|123
3|3.3.3 Work of the International Law Commission|126
4|3.3.3.1 The 1951 and 1954 Draft Codes of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind|126
4|3.3.3.2 “Humanity” as a Protected Interest in the 1986 Draft Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind|128
4|3.3.3.3 The 1991 Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind|131
4|3.3.3.4 The Commission’s Ongoing Work on Crimes Against Humanity|133
3|3.3.4 Ad Hoc Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda|135
4|3.3.4.1 The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia|135
4|3.3.4.2 The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda|139
4|3.3.4.3 “Inhumanity” of Crimes Against Humanity|141
3|3.3.5 International Criminal Court|142
2|3.4 Conclusion|147
2|References|152
1|4 “Humanity” Within the Contemporary Context of International Law Dealing with Crimes Against Humanity|158
2|Abstract|158
2|4.1 Introduction|159
2|4.2 Existing Legal Theories of Crimes Against Humanity|161
3|4.2.1 Different Approaches Used in the Theories of Crimes Against Humanity|161
3|4.2.2 Conceptual Question|163
4|4.2.2.1 “Humanity” as Human Status or Condition|163
4|4.2.2.2 “Humanity” as Humankind|167
4|4.2.2.3 “Humanity” as Both Humaneness and Humankind|170
4|4.2.2.4 “Humanity” Versus “Inhumanity”|172
3|4.2.3 Normative Question|175
4|4.2.3.1 Threat to Peace and Security of the World|176
4|4.2.3.2 State Versus Non-State Actor|182
4|4.2.3.3 Group-Based Nature of the Crime|186
2|4.3 The Theory of Humanity as “Humanness, or Human Status”: Conceptual Foundation|200
2|4.4 Correlation Between Individual Acts of Crimes Against Humanity and Elements of Humanity (Humanness)|211
2|4.5 Contextual Element|225
2|4.6 Conclusion|227
2|References|228
1|5 “Humanity” as a Valid Protected Interest Under the Rechtsgutstheorie|231
2|Abstract|231
2|5.1 Introduction|232
2|5.2 The Concept of Rechtsgutstheorie: A Doctrinal Account and Review of Critical Aspects|235
3|5.2.1 Origins and Evolution of Rechtsgutstheorie in German Criminal Law|235
3|5.2.2 Main Approaches in the Treatment of the Doctrine|238
3|5.2.3 Rechtsgutstheorie and Constitutional Law: Conceptual Criticism|242
3|5.2.4 Functions of the Rechtsgutstheorie as a Criminal Law Doctrine|248
4|5.2.4.1 The Critical Function|249
4|5.2.4.2 The Methodological Function|253
4|5.2.4.3 Analytical Tool for Critique|257
2|5.3 Alternatives to the Rechtsgutstheorie in Other Criminal Law Systems|259
3|5.3.1 Principle of Harm|259
3|5.3.2 The Relative Accountability Principle|266
2|5.4 Rechtsgutstheorie and Crimes Against Humanity: National “vs.” or “for” International|272
2|5.5 The Normative Foundation of the Theory of Humanness|276
3|5.5.1 Domestic Level|277
4|5.5.1.1 Analytical Exercise: Humanity as a Rechtsgut|277
4|5.5.1.2 Legal Consequences of Rechtsgutstheorie in Terms of the Theory of Humanness|284
3|5.5.2 International Level|289
2|5.6 Conclusion|292
2|References|294
1|6 The Protected Legal Interests of Crimes Against Humanity and Other Core Crimes Under International Law: A Comparative Analysis|297
2|Abstract|297
2|6.1 Introduction|298
2|6.2 Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide: Common Rechtsgüter?|300
3|6.2.1 Relationship Between Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity|300
4|6.2.1.1 Similarities|302
4|6.2.1.2 Differences|305
3|6.2.2 The Protected Interests of the Crime of Genocide in Light of the Conceptual Theory of Humanness|306
4|6.2.2.1 The Specific Rechtsgüter of Genocide|306
4|6.2.2.2 Genocide’s Rechtsgüter and the Theory of Humanness|309
2|6.3 Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes: Tracing the Considerations of Humaneness|312
3|6.3.1 War Crimes and the Principle of Humanity in International Humanitarian Law|312
3|6.3.2 The Protected Legal Interests of War Crimes Versus Humanness Theory|315
2|6.4 Correlation Between the Protected Interests of Crimes Against Humanity and the Crime of Aggression|320
2|6.5 Conclusions|324
2|References|325
1|7 Conclusion|328
2|References|335
1|Index|336
1|Preface|13
1|Acknowledgements|15
1|Contents|17
1|About the Author|20
1|Abbreviations|21
1|1 Introduction|23
2|Abstract|23
2|References|36
1|2 Main Substantive Terms, Their Basic Differences and Links, and Leading Working Hypothesis|38
2|Abstract|38
2|2.1 Definitions|39
3|2.1.1 Humanity|40
3|2.1.2 Laws of Humanity|42
3|2.1.3 Principle of Humanity|43
3|2.1.4 Crimes Against Humanity|46
2|2.2 Differences|46
2|2.3 Important Links|48
2|2.4 Working Hypothesis|50
2|References|51
1|3 Historical Overview of the Development of the Concept of Humanity in International Law and Crimes Against Humanity|52
2|Abstract|52
2|3.1 Introduction|53
2|3.2 Evolutions Before the Adoption of the Nuremberg Charter|56
3|3.2.1 The Ancient World|56
4|3.2.1.1 Western Civilizations|56
4|3.2.1.2 Non-Western Civilizations|66
3|3.2.2 The Middle Ages|71
4|3.2.2.1 Natural Law, ius gentium and Humanity|71
4|3.2.2.2 The Renaissance Humanism Movement|75
3|3.2.3 Impact of Immanuel Kant’s Philosophy|77
4|3.2.3.1 Kant’s Formula of Humanity and International Law|77
4|3.2.3.2 Crimes Against Humanity from the Kantian Perspective of Law|79
3|3.2.4 The Principle of Humanity in the Development of International Humanitarian Law|81
4|3.2.4.1 Considerations of Humanity in the Earlier Evolution of the Law of Armed Conflict|82
4|3.2.4.2 Impact of the Lieber Code and Its Principle of Humanity|87
4|3.2.4.3 The Martens Clause and Laws of Humanity|89
4|3.2.4.4 Legal Nature of the Principle of Humanity in International Humanitarian Law|95
3|3.2.5 Armenian Massacres and Legal Attitudes Towards “Laws of Humanity” in Their Aftermath|98
4|3.2.5.1 The 1915 Joint Declaration of France, Great Britain and Russia|98
4|3.2.5.2 The Work of the 1919 Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War|101
4|3.2.5.3 Relevant Developments at the Treaty Law Level|104
2|3.3 Developments After the Adoption of the Nuremberg Charter|110
3|3.3.1 Nuremberg International Military Tribunal|110
4|3.3.1.1 The Charter of the International Military Tribunal|110
4|3.3.1.2 Views on the Protected Object Under the Tribunal’s Charter|114
4|3.3.1.3 The Nuremberg Proceedings and the Judgement|118
3|3.3.2 Subsequent Proceedings Under the Allied Control Council Law No. 10|122
4|3.3.2.1 The Control Council Law No. 10|122
4|3.3.2.2 Relevant Case Law|123
3|3.3.3 Work of the International Law Commission|126
4|3.3.3.1 The 1951 and 1954 Draft Codes of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind|126
4|3.3.3.2 “Humanity” as a Protected Interest in the 1986 Draft Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind|128
4|3.3.3.3 The 1991 Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind|131
4|3.3.3.4 The Commission’s Ongoing Work on Crimes Against Humanity|133
3|3.3.4 Ad Hoc Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda|135
4|3.3.4.1 The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia|135
4|3.3.4.2 The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda|139
4|3.3.4.3 “Inhumanity” of Crimes Against Humanity|141
3|3.3.5 International Criminal Court|142
2|3.4 Conclusion|147
2|References|152
1|4 “Humanity” Within the Contemporary Context of International Law Dealing with Crimes Against Humanity|158
2|Abstract|158
2|4.1 Introduction|159
2|4.2 Existing Legal Theories of Crimes Against Humanity|161
3|4.2.1 Different Approaches Used in the Theories of Crimes Against Humanity|161
3|4.2.2 Conceptual Question|163
4|4.2.2.1 “Humanity” as Human Status or Condition|163
4|4.2.2.2 “Humanity” as Humankind|167
4|4.2.2.3 “Humanity” as Both Humaneness and Humankind|170
4|4.2.2.4 “Humanity” Versus “Inhumanity”|172
3|4.2.3 Normative Question|175
4|4.2.3.1 Threat to Peace and Security of the World|176
4|4.2.3.2 State Versus Non-State Actor|182
4|4.2.3.3 Group-Based Nature of the Crime|186
2|4.3 The Theory of Humanity as “Humanness, or Human Status”: Conceptual Foundation|200
2|4.4 Correlation Between Individual Acts of Crimes Against Humanity and Elements of Humanity (Humanness)|211
2|4.5 Contextual Element|225
2|4.6 Conclusion|227
2|References|228
1|5 “Humanity” as a Valid Protected Interest Under the Rechtsgutstheorie|231
2|Abstract|231
2|5.1 Introduction|232
2|5.2 The Concept of Rechtsgutstheorie: A Doctrinal Account and Review of Critical Aspects|235
3|5.2.1 Origins and Evolution of Rechtsgutstheorie in German Criminal Law|235
3|5.2.2 Main Approaches in the Treatment of the Doctrine|238
3|5.2.3 Rechtsgutstheorie and Constitutional Law: Conceptual Criticism|242
3|5.2.4 Functions of the Rechtsgutstheorie as a Criminal Law Doctrine|248
4|5.2.4.1 The Critical Function|249
4|5.2.4.2 The Methodological Function|253
4|5.2.4.3 Analytical Tool for Critique|257
2|5.3 Alternatives to the Rechtsgutstheorie in Other Criminal Law Systems|259
3|5.3.1 Principle of Harm|259
3|5.3.2 The Relative Accountability Principle|266
2|5.4 Rechtsgutstheorie and Crimes Against Humanity: National “vs.” or “for” International|272
2|5.5 The Normative Foundation of the Theory of Humanness|276
3|5.5.1 Domestic Level|277
4|5.5.1.1 Analytical Exercise: Humanity as a Rechtsgut|277
4|5.5.1.2 Legal Consequences of Rechtsgutstheorie in Terms of the Theory of Humanness|284
3|5.5.2 International Level|289
2|5.6 Conclusion|292
2|References|294
1|6 The Protected Legal Interests of Crimes Against Humanity and Other Core Crimes Under International Law: A Comparative Analysis|297
2|Abstract|297
2|6.1 Introduction|298
2|6.2 Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide: Common Rechtsgüter?|300
3|6.2.1 Relationship Between Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity|300
4|6.2.1.1 Similarities|302
4|6.2.1.2 Differences|305
3|6.2.2 The Protected Interests of the Crime of Genocide in Light of the Conceptual Theory of Humanness|306
4|6.2.2.1 The Specific Rechtsgüter of Genocide|306
4|6.2.2.2 Genocide’s Rechtsgüter and the Theory of Humanness|309
2|6.3 Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes: Tracing the Considerations of Humaneness|312
3|6.3.1 War Crimes and the Principle of Humanity in International Humanitarian Law|312
3|6.3.2 The Protected Legal Interests of War Crimes Versus Humanness Theory|315
2|6.4 Correlation Between the Protected Interests of Crimes Against Humanity and the Crime of Aggression|320
2|6.5 Conclusions|324
2|References|325
1|7 Conclusion|328
2|References|335
1|Index|336