Rechtswissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (29)
- Working Paper (23)
- Review (2)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Language
- German (32)
- English (23)
- Portuguese (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (56)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (56)
Keywords
- Digital Services Act (4)
- EU rule of law framework (3)
- Rule of Law (3)
- Urheberrecht (3)
- Art. 7 EU (2)
- Criminal Law (2)
- Crisis (2)
- Desinformation (2)
- Digitalisierung (2)
- European Union (2)
Institute
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (56) (remove)
The application of the EU Commission’s Rule of Law Framework in the current Polish case is a step in the right direction. It seems a good instance to develop the Framework as an EU mechanism to protect European constitutional values in a European legal space which is rife with constitutional crises, but short of instruments to address them. Its pertinence appears even more clearly in comparison to the Council’s (in)activity under its own rule-of-law mechanism, hastily put forward after the Commission’s Framework. The activation of the Framework has shown its potential to mobilize European public opinion and orient public discourses to the current condition of EU values
Fundamental rights protection, once a side show, has become important for the EU, as proved by the newfound treaty recognition of the EU fundamental rights charter (CFREU), and the upcoming accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). At the same time the fundamental rights situation in a considerable number of Member States is an increasing cause for concern. This has mostly been illustrated with reference to minorities and asylum seekers. However, recent reports of organizations like the Council of Europe, the OSCE and various NGOs have also highlighted serious problems with regard to media freedom, such as overt political influence, media concentration, disproportionate sanctions on journalists, misuse of counter-terrorism legislation against the press, deficient protection of journalistic sources and failure to investigate violence against reporters. ...
Eine finalisierte Fassung des Beitrags wird 2024 in einem von Burchard/Schmitt-Leonardy/Singelnstein/Zabel herausgegebenen Sammelband („Alternativen zum Strafrecht“) erscheinen.
Im Zentrum des Beitrags steht jedoch nicht der Versuch, positiv Alternativen zum oder im Strafrecht zu formulieren. Vielmehr ist der Begriff der Alternativlosigkeit erkenntnisleitend, konkret die Identifizierung gesellschaftlich-politischer Wirkmächte und innerstrafrechtlicher Deutungsmuster, die eine (auch) strafrechtliche Bewältigung der durch den menschengemachten Klimawandel aufgeworfenen Konflikte alternativlos erscheinen lassen können.
Dazu wird die jüngst aufgekommene Debatte um ein Klimaschutzstrafrecht aus einer zukunftssoziologischen und strafrechtswissenschaftlichen Perspektive analysiert. Im Zentrum des Beitrags steht die These, dass sich gerade die Verbindung von katastrophischen Zukunftsvorstellungen – hier erschlossen über den zukunftssoziologischen Schlüsselbegriff der Imagination und deskriptiv-analytisch als „Klimakatastrophismus“ bezeichnet – und Exzeptionalisierungen des Strafrechts als Treiber in die imaginative Sackgasse der Alternativlosigkeit erweist.
Die verdichtete Imagination, das die Zukunfts eine Katastrophe sei („Klimakatastrophismus“), befördert als ein an Boden gewinnendes kollektives Deutungsmuster eine intensivierte Sozialkontrolle und Punitivität.
Der kriminalpolitisch expansive Kurs einer mit radikalisierten Selbsterhaltungsfragen konfrontierten Gesellschaft scheint in gesellschaftlich wie dogmatisch tief verankerten Exzeptionalisierungen des Strafrechts – wie der Zuschreibung, (nur) strafwürdige Sozialschädlichkeit adressieren zu dürfen, dies aufgrund einer regulativen und expressiven Ausnahmestellung aber auch in besonderer Weise zu können (oder zu müssen) – durchaus Widerhall zu finden. Dadurch entsteht ein strafrechtsexpansives (weil rechtfertigendes) Momentum, das der ohnehin in der Herausbildung begriffenen Legalisierung eines Klimaschutzstrafrechts Vorschub leistet.
Es entspricht den vornehmen Aufgaben der Strafrechtswissenschaft, diesen Entwicklungen prospektiv vorauszugreifen, sie aufzuklären und kritisch zu wenden – gerade im Hinblick auf die Gegenläufigkeit und Brüchigkeit gesellschaftlicher Entwicklungen oder die Kontingenz eines als politisch gelesenen Strafrechts. Eine kritische Strafrechtswissenschaft darf sich dabei nicht allein, allemal nicht unreflektiert auf tradierte Formen der Strafrechtsbegrenzung zurückziehen.
Climate crimes – a critique
(2023)
This paper aims on taking a critical approach to the emerging debate on climate criminal justice, that is mostly about something labeled „climate criminal law“ („Klimastrafrecht“). The critique is directed at climate crimes intended to protect our habitable climate („Klimaschutzstrafrecht“) or to prevent climate change („Klimawandelpräventionsstrafrecht“) staged as transformational criminal law. “Fighting" climate change with climate crimes can lull us into deceptive certainties and by extension into perilous idleness; and it will do so if we think of climate protection essentially in terms of traditional criminal law. Climate crimes are based on the idea that we can counter climate change with the "sharpest sword" available to a polity (cf. the German and Continental European ultima-ratio principle) and that we can thereby also get hold of "the powerful". But these certainties rest on but normative (and at heart: liberal) doctrines, which are deceptive in having lost touch with the realities of the administration of criminal justice. They obscure that more effective measures are available to mitigate the climate crisis and that "the powerful" will likely be shielded with and by climate crimes. Therefore, the climate crimes approach to the climate crisis may just turn out to be (self-)appeasement. It obfuscates that more effective measures are likely necessary to avert impending crises. Our critique is therefore not "only" directed at the symbolic, but the dysfunctional and "dark side" of climate crimes.
According to the prevailing view, the purpose of digital copyright is to balance conflicting interests in exclusivity on the one hand and in access to information on the other. This article offers an alternative reading of the conflicts surrounding copyright in the digital era. It argues that two cultures of communication coexist on the internet, each of which has a different relationship to copyright. Whereas copyright institutionalizes and supports a culture of exclusivity, it is at best neutral towards a culture of free and open access. The article shows that, depending on the future regulation of copyright and the internet in general, the dynamic coexistence of these cultures may well be replaced by an overwhelming dominance of the culture of exclusivity.
Through digitalization, the social importance of copyright law has grown considerably. Moreover, the culture of exclusivity established by copyright law conflicts fundamentally with the culture of access prevalent on the internet. An example for this is the dispute over the EU’s latest copyright directive. Does it ring in the end of the internet as we know it, or does it »only« see to fair remuneration for those working in the creative economy?
The Polish government is stepping up its repression. The freedom of political speech is a main target. A national judge has not just the right but an outright duty to refer a case to the CJEU whenever the common value basis is in danger. Thus, a Polish judge faced with a case concerning the silencing of critics, must refer the matter to the CJEU and request an interpretation of Article 2 TEU in light of the rights at stake.
Expressivist theories of punishment, according to which a penal sanction articulates or expresses a certain meaning to the offender, to the victim and to society, become more and more prominent among the traditional theories of punishment as retribution or deterrence. What these theories have in common is the idea that the conveyance of the meaning is in need of a communicative action, and that the penal sanction is such a communicative act. This article argues that pure communicative theories of punishment face great difficulties in generating any justification for hard treatment. One challenge is that certain types of sanctions – in particularly, hard treatment – restrict the communicative opportunities of the incarcerated individual; which generates a paradox, in that it turns punishment into a communicative action of non-communication. Beyond that, moreover, all practices of hard treatment potentially become unnecessary, if expressing the moral message of censure constitutes a kind of action in itself, and as such, itself a treatment of the offender, embedded in a communicative relationship between offender, victim and society; such that we may be able to think of the history of punishment as a development where hard treatment becomes more and more unnecessary for the conveyance of the message.