Academic literature on the topic 'Double jeopardy principle'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Double jeopardy principle.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Double jeopardy principle"
1
Morosin, Michele N. "Double Jeopardy and International Law: Obstacles to Formulating a General Principle." Nordic Journal of International Law 64, no. 2 (1995): 261–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181095x00553.
Full text
2
Audenaert, Nele, and Wendy De Bondt. "Multi-Offenders In (Double) Jeopardy – Towards Cross-Border Prosecution and Sentencing Rules for Offenders Who Have Committed Multiple Offences." European Criminal Law Review 9, no. 3 (2019): 256–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/2193-5505-2019-3-256.
Full textAbstract:
The European freedom of movement has led to an increase of criminal cases with a cross-border element. Offenders can easily commit multiple offences on the territory of different Member States or can easily move from one Member State to another after having committed an offence. This might result in some proportionality concerns, since being prosecuted more than once and being punished more than once might cause extra (unjustified) distress on the offender. There is thus a dire need for European rules on prosecution and sentencing in cases with a cross-border element. In this regard, several EU rules are being analysed, more specifically in the light of the prosecution and sentencing of multi-offenders. Of course, the ne bis in idem principle is one of the main rules in this context. It will appear that the ne bis in idem principle’s field of application is still too restricted, too contested and even too unexplored. Not all defendants can enjoy the procedural safeguards called to life by the ne bis in idem principle, nor does unanimity exist with regard to which offenders can invoke the principle. Unfortunately, the more recent legal instruments neither succeed in providing some more procedural safeguards and some more legal certainty for all defendants. This contribution will analyse the lack of procedural safeguards for multi-offenders due to the limited ne bis in idem principle and the non-complementary fields of application of other judicial cooperation instruments on both the prosecution and sentencing level and will make some recommendations in this regard.
3
Korneev, Sergey, Sergey Pichugin, Tatyana Butenko, Oksana Skorobogatova, and Yulia Kokambo. "Liability for environmental crimes in the non bis in idem principle context." E3S Web of Conferences 258 (2021): 05021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125805021.
Full textAbstract:
In light of the social need for the humanization of criminal policy, annually confirmed by the supreme authorities of the state, the specialized literature has updated the topic related to the prohibition of double jeopardy (it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction and against multiple punishments for the same offense). This issue is analyzed by researchers in the context of the «non bis in idem» principle, which has received regulation both in the norms of national and international law. An analysis of the law enforcement practice of the judiciary in considering criminal cases on the fact of violation of public relations in the field of environmental protection (Chapter 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) indicates the permissibility of double, and in some cases triple, intersectoral liability of the perpetrator of crimes. It seems that the legitimacy and the possibility of deprivation and legal restrictions in relation to citizens have been found guilty of committing a crime and who have served the sentence imposed by the court in full does not correspond to the principle of “non bis in idem”, which actualizes the chosen research topic.
4
Altmann, Samuel. "Against proportional shortfall as a priority-setting principle." Journal of Medical Ethics 44, no. 5 (January 10, 2018): 305–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104488.
Full textAbstract:
As the demand for healthcare rises, so does the need for priority setting in healthcare. In this paper, I consider a prominent priority-setting principle: proportional shortfall. My purpose is to argue that proportional shortfall, as a principle, should not be adopted. My key criticism is that proportional shortfall fails to consider past health.Proportional shortfall is justified as it supposedly balances concern for prospective health while still accounting for lifetime health, even though past health is deemed irrelevant. Accounting for this lifetime perspective means that the principle may indirectly consider past health by accounting for how far an individual is from achieving a complete, healthy life. I argue that proportional shortfall does not account for this lifetime perspective as it fails to incorporate the fair innings argument as originally claimed, undermining its purported justification.I go on to demonstrate that the case for ignoring past health is weak, and argue that past health is at least sometimes relevant for priority-setting decisions. Specifically, when an individual’s past health has a direct impact on current or future health, and when one individual has enjoyed significantly more healthy life years than another.Finally, I demonstrate that by ignoring past illnesses, even those entirely unrelated to their current illness, proportional shortfall can lead to instances of double jeopardy, a highly problematic implication. These arguments give us reason to reject proportional shortfall.
5
Clifford, Anita. "Menci & Garlsson Real Estate SA and Others v. Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) & Joined Cases Di Puma v. Consob and Consob v. Zecca (CJEU)." International Legal Materials 57, no. 4 (August 2018): 583–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2018.31.
Full textAbstract:
On March 20, 2018, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a trio of judgments that substantially clarify the application of the ne bis in idem principle where both criminal and administrative proceedings are pursued. Both the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) recognize the principle, but it will be more familiar to common law practitioners as the protection against double jeopardy. Increasingly, dual investigations are common in cases where the underlying activity is essentially financial crime, but tender areas continue to be information sharing and the risk of duplicate punishment where both investigations end in enforcement action. Concerning four cases, Case C-524/15 Menci, Case C-537/16 Garlsson Real Estate and Others, and joined Cases C-596/16 Di Puma and C-597/16 Zecca, each of the judgments addresses preliminary questions referred by the Italian courts; they are significant because they emphasize that ne bis in idem will not serve as a bar to a dual response. The interest in protecting the financial markets justifies limits to the principle but great care must be taken to coordinate the approaches and identify whether a further criminal sanction is masquerading as an administrative penalty.
6
Brock, Dan W. "COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION." Economics and Philosophy 25, no. 1 (March 2009): 27–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0266267108002265.
Full textAbstract:
It is widely recognized that prioritizing health care resources by their relative cost-effectiveness can result in lower priority for the treatment of disabled persons than otherwise similar non-disabled persons. I distinguish six different ways in which this discrimination against the disabled can occur. I then spell out and evaluate the following moral objections to this discrimination, most of which capture an aspect of its unethical character: it implies that disabled persons' lives are of lesser value than those of non-disabled persons; it constitutes “double jeopardy” or violates Frances Kamm's non-linkage principle; it conflicts with equality of opportunity; it conflicts with fairness, which requires ignoring (some/most) differential impacts of treatment; it wrongly gives lower priority to disabled persons for equally effective treatment; it conflicts with giving all persons an equal chance to reach their full potential; and, it is in conflict with giving priority to the worse off.
7
Walker, Alan, Carol Walker, and Tony Ryan. "Older People with Learning Difficulties Leaving Institutional Care—A Case of Double Jeopardy." Ageing and Society 16, no. 2 (March 1996): 125–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0144686x00003263.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractPeople with learning difficulties are now surviving into old age and more and more of them are being resettled from long-stay hospitals. The main purpose of this article is to examine some of the key barriers facing, and dilemmas involved in, the provision of community-based services to this newly emerging user group. The findings of some recent field research on older people with learning difficulties who have been resettled into the community are used to illustrate the challenges facing service providers. Particular reference is made to the impact of age discrimination and traditional differences between service specialisms. The article shows that both official definitions of need in old age and the aspirations of the service responses to those needs have been artificially constructed in very narrow terms, especially when compared with the principled approach to service provision for younger people with learning difficulties. In conclusion, therefore, it is argued that the principles underpinning services for people with learning difficulties, such as normalisation, should be applied to older people as well.
8
Jaaniste, Joanna. "A New Beginning – A Dramatherapy Group for Participants with Co-Occurring Mental Illness and Substance Abuse in a Mental Health Setting." Dramatherapy 30, no. 2 (October 2008): 17–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02630672.2008.9689747.
Full textAbstract:
Rehabilitation for people with dual diagnosis (co-existing mental illness and substance dependence) has existed in many forms over the past thirty years and has become more urgently needed over time. Treatment for this population inevitably requires a team effort (Schwartz & Lehman, 1998). These people are difficult to engage in treatment and it takes time to unravel the interacting effects of substance abuse and their mental illness. Social relationships may also be problematic, particularly once the person has decided to discontinue drug or alcohol abuse. Often such clients find it easier to communicate socially with people who have similar problems (Hatfield, 1993). Improvements in self-esteem and reduced intake of drugs and alcohol are rarely monitored in the one community psychiatric facility, as in this study. The method of treatment in this case was to run a small group for participants over an extended period with support from multidisciplinary teams, using a Dutch model for drug and alcohol rehabilitation. By targeting psychiatric relapse prevention and people's life stories, using a biographical developmental framework and dramatherapy interventions, the intention was to achieve outcomes of higher self esteem and reduced intake of recreational drugs. In fact the pre and post measures chosen did not show significant variance. For all participants, including those who were already abstinent, changes in lifestyle and achievement of life goals were sought. As a result, there was reported enjoyment of mutual support, sharing and understanding of individual life stories, together with strategies to increase resilience. Further research is needed to identify how best to measure outcomes. Hatfield, A. (1993) ‘Dual Diagnosis and Mental Illness’, Journal of National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, (Online), retrieved 11.1.08 Schwartz, R. & Lehman, A. (1995) in ‘Overview of Treatment Principles’ in Lehman, A. & Dixon, L. (eds.) Double Jeopardy, Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur, Switzerland, p.77
9
Higuet, Marguerite, and Hervé Remaud. "Do wine buyers behave differently in brick and mortar vs online stores?" British Food Journal ahead-of-print, ahead-of-print (February 22, 2020). http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/bfj-04-2019-0303.
Full textAbstract:
PurposeTo measure the extent to which wine buyers behave differently when purchasing wine online vs in two brick and mortar stores. The article aims to extend the use of the Double Jeopardy principle and empirical-based methodology to the wine category in a European retailing context.Design/methodology/approachCustomer loyalty data of two brick and mortar stores and the website orders of a Belgian retailer have been gathered for a one-year period. Data have been analysed based on three specific wine attributes: country of origin, grape variety and brand. Double Jeopardy measurements have been calculated for each of these attributes.FindingsThis study enlarges the scope of use of the Dirichlet principles. All three hypotheses derived from the Double Jeopardy patterns across all attributes are confirmed. From the perspective of these principles, we demonstrated that wine buyers do not behave differently in brick and mortar vs online stores.Originality/valueVery few studies have analysed and understood wine buyers' behaviour using actual purchasing data from retail stores, and none have been released comparing online and brick and mortar stores owned by the same retail brand. From that perspective, our study demystifies the way people really buy, and confirms what has been found in other product categories.
10
"Population dynamic principles." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 344, no. 1307 (April 29, 1994): 61–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1994.0052.
Full textAbstract:
Although the causes of population extinction, locally and globally, are many, varied and idiosyncratic when individual species are considered, there are nevertheless some basic general constraints and ground rules that make some species more extinction-prone than others. This paper reviews their implications for the ultimate and proximate causes of extinction. Phenomena reviewed include: a positive correlation between local abundance and size of geographic range, putting some populations in ‘double jeopardy’; smaller average range sizes in the tropics; metapopulation dynamic processes that can spread risk, but only if the spatial correlation between fluctuations of conspecific populations is low; the influence of body size and trophic position; and phylogenetic constraints on range sizes and abundance.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Double jeopardy principle"
1
Tshikovhi, Rotondwa Happy. "The law relating to double jeopardy in labour law." Thesis, University of Limpopo, 2014. http://hdl.handle.net/10386/1236.
Full textAbstract:
Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) --University of Limpopo, 2014This research focuses on the application of the double jeopardy principle in labour law, section 188(1)(a (b) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, (herein the LRA) which provides that the dismissal is unfair if the employer fails to prove that the reason for the dismissal is fair and was effected in accordance with a fair procedure. The first point which I would explain is the meaning of double jeopardy and whether it is applicable in labour law. The research articulates that the double jeopardy principle applies to labour law and enumerates ways it can be applied. The South African courts, in particular, the Labour Court and the Labour Appeal Court have delivered several judgements on the double jeopardy principle. These cases will be critically discussed in detail. Comparison will be made with foreign labour law jurisprudence on the double jeopardy principle, particularly in Australia and the United States of America.
2
Lai, Chien-Hao, and 賴建豪. "The Principle of Double Jeopardy as Applied in Administrative Sanctions." Thesis, 2008. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/49212268023232019380.
Full textAbstract:
碩士淡江大學
公共行政學系公共政策碩士班
96
The first chapter is the exordium of the thesis In the second chapter, the thesis first defines the conception of the “Double Jeopardy ”, and intends to interpret the inner substance, the hierarchy and the potency within this principle. The thesis intends to submit views with respect to this question from the perspectives of the protection of the human dignity and the preservation of the basic rights of the human. Inasmuch, the interpretation of the spirits and the theory foundation under the principle of Double Jeopardy is used for the following research issues in the thesis. The third chapter is, based upon Article 24 and Article 26 under the Administrative Sanction Act, to demonstrate the application of the Double Jeopardy principle as to the administrative Sanctions. First, the premises of the No Double Sanction is that the behavior has only single action, therefore, to recognize the numbers of the action is the core conception when applying the principle of the Double Jeopardy. Second, the merge of the punishment may occur between the two administrative Sanctions and between the administrative Sanction and criminal punishment when one single action breaches and violates several laws and regulations at the same time. The thesis will demonstrate the solutions with respect to these foregoing issues and the questions derived therefrom. The main research issue of the fourth chapter is the consecutive punishments prescribed under the administrative laws and regulations. Due to the specific backgrounds of the of the regulations of the consecutive punishment and the specialties with respect to the module of canon and the types of execution, the nature of the laws becomes ambiguous and many issues thereby resulted. Therefore, the thesis intends to propose the perspectives regarding the issues of the laws and the constitution resulted from the consecutive punishment as well as the relationship between the Double Jeopardy and the consecutive punishment by the arrangement of both the theory and the court’s opinions. The fifth chapter is the conclusion of this thesis. The substantial parts of each chapter and the result of this research will be summarized into conclusion.
3
HSU, Che-Wei, and 許哲維. "The research of no double jeopardy principle of administrative penalty in Taiwan." Thesis, 2008. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/51563784299338233853.
Full text
4
HUANG, CHIH-HSIANG, and 黃志翔. "A Study on the Application of No Double Jeopardy Principle in Road Traffic Punishment." Thesis, 2019. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/96mgsj.
Full textAbstract:
碩士中央警察大學
法律學研究所
107
Road traffic safety is vital to the lives, bodies and property of compatriot, the task of maintaining this safety depends on traffic law enforcement, people and government attach great importance and expectation to this. A country ruled by law is based on the standpoint of the principle of administration by law and protecting human rights, attaches importance to the rights and interests of people who get the administrative penalty, any administrative fine, or the disqualification and restriction of license, all affects the people's right to property, work and subsistence. Therefore, the maintenance of road traffic safety and the basic rights and interests of people who get the administrative penalty should get the right balance. The present Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act have complicated elements and many types of legal effects of the administrative penalty, traffic violation behavior often involves simultaneous violations of the same or different rules, and a couple of violations of the law having a couple of legal effects, traffic violation behavior should be given a administrative penalty or multiple administrative penalties, the dispute is the interpretation and application questions of No Double Jeopardy Principle. Then on the relevant discussion of the legal norms of overlap of law articles, the Administrative Penalty Act only regulates the legal effect of the concurrence of administrative penalty and administrative penalty, and the concurrence of administrative penalty and criminal penalty. The Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act, and the uniform standards of punishment and rules for handling of Violation of road traffic management, mainly regulate the constitutive elements, administrative penalties and the amount standards for violation of the obligations, understate the core concept of No Double Jeopardy Principle such as the determination of quantity-in-act and the concurrence of punishment. Practical workers face a large number of traffic violations, when determining quantity-in-act and the concurrence of punishment, are often at a loss. What are the criteria for determining behavior number ? Can we totally refer to a more detailed theory of criminal law concurrence which have been developed ? There seems to be a lot of contradiction between different theories of judgment, which one should apply ? This article is based on No Double Jeopardy Principle, discussing its application in road traffic punishment, by sorting out and analyzing theories and practical insights, to look forward to providing research benefits to traffic and court practitioners.
5
Lin, Chao-Chun, and 林昭君. "The Research of the Principle of Double Jeopardy-Focus on the Cases of Violations of Business Tax." Thesis, 2016. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/2w7tjj.
Full textAbstract:
碩士國立高雄應用科技大學
財富與稅務管理系碩士在職專班
104
Because “the Principle of Double Jeopardy” is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, Taxation Administrative Penalty lacks of consistent legal basis, resulting in the different opinions in practice before the promulgation of Administrative Penalty Act. It mostly refers J.Y.Interpretation No. 503、J.Y.Interpretation No.604 and the practical judgments to deal with the specific cases in practice. Administrative Penalty Act Article 24 and Article 26 provide the legal basis for “The Principle of Double Jeopardy” after the implement of the Administrative Penalty Act on February 5, 2005 J.Y.Interpretation No. 503 affirms that one act shall not to be punished twice. However, when a single act violates several tax laws at the same time, the explanation and the definition between “one single act” and “No double jeopardy” is still in dispute. Based on the concept that the Constitution guarantees the rights of the people, the Principle of Double Jeopardy is valued by the country under the rule of law to protect people from being unlimitedly punished for a single behavior and to reserve people’s property rights. Therefore, this thesis will focus on the cases of violations of business tax to analyze that could it be combined punished when a single act violates the criminal law and the obligation of the administrative law simultaneously? Or could it be combined punished when a single act meets both the requirements of behavior punishment and tax evasion punishment at the same time? This Thesis brings up the legislative suggestions to solve the disputes in practice through the discussions on court judgments.
6
Hu, Jia-Wei, and 胡家瑋. "Principle of Double Jeopardy and Consecutive Fines on Illegal Parking—Taking the Interpretation No. 604 of Grand Justice as the Center." Thesis, 2008. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/88551048170862810469.
Full textAbstract:
碩士國立中正大學
財法所
96
There is a historical background for consecutive fines. When the administrative enforcement is ineffective, and the law-making of Administrative Execution Act is not realizable within the foreseeable future, the consecutive fines system has risen with tide, gives the violators enormous pressure psychologically through the characteristic of continuous accumulative fines, and produces a great effect on pressing and urging the actors to fulfill the obligations spontaneously. Although the consecutive fines system solves the pressing need of administrative enforcement, it blurs the boundary between administrative penalty and administrative enforcement, while going against the principle of double jeopardy. About whether consecutive fines belong to the fines on administrative penalty, or the default surcharges of compulsory enforcement of administration, the distinction lies in the fact that if the consecutive fines belong to the administrative fines, then we should put into practice the procedures that should be put into practice for fines, and if they belong to the default surcharges, then the punishment/ adjudicative conditions of the default surcharges should be tallied with. Hence, to discuss this case, the natures of these two terms must be differentiated first. The principle of double jeopardy is generally regarded as with the constitutional rank, and belongs to the principle of modern rule-of-law nations. On the one hand, it can protect people against being punished for two or more than two times out of one same behavior; on the other hand, the launch of a country’s power of punishment can be restricted to avoid the excessive encroach on people’s rights if the nation’s power of punishment launches at will. The question is whether aiming at one same behavior to impose the punishment of two or more than two times violates the principle of double jeopardy. About the judgment of the number of violations, it is commonly thought that the principle of double jeopardy is elaborated by the interpretation No. 356, No. 503, and No. 604; however, there is still a doubt for the cognizance of the number of violations. Some people think we should adopt the theory of the number of violations on the penalty, another people think we should take the control objectives of laws and regulations to make the differentiation, the other people think we should divide one violation behavior into several violation behaviors according to the time and space that the violation behavior exists as the interval. Originally, the traffic laws and regulations are formulated to maintain the rights and interests of non-specific road users, and the goal of the standard is to make the pedestrians and drivers use the roads more conveniently and more efficiently. In order to maintain the traffic order, the violators must be given appropriate punishment to make the public authority be respected. For the drivers of illegal parking, although the traffic inspection agency can impose the punishment on the drivers that have the behavior of illegal parking, it bears the obligation of eliminating the condition of violation as well. To achieve this goal, the traffic inspection agency can choose to use the private tow trucks to relocate, but the means that is more often to be used is to accuse the actor of the behavior of violation with consecutive charges, give the actor the pressure psychologically, and impel the actor to relocate the vehicle of violation spontaneously. If the traffic inspection agency asks the actor to relocate the vehicle but the actor ignores that, there is no objection for re-punishment aiming at the violator’s violation again; however, under most circumstances, the drivers can not fulfill the obligation of relocating the vehicles. Taking the violator in the interpretation No. 604 as the example: the actor parked the scooter near Taipei Railway Station illegally, and then took the train and went back to hometown; so, there is probably a question on whether this punishment can expect the violator to relocate the vehicle spontaneously. Moreover, of course the traffic inspection agency can do the accusation aiming at the driver’s rule-breaking behavior, but the administrative agency also bears the obligation of eliminating the illegal condition. If just let the vehicle park illegally, and do not try to relocate it, but shift the responsibility of relocating the vehicle on to the violator through the way of consecutive charges, it’s probably unfair. The traffic safety order should be observed by all kinds of road users, and the selection of measures of maintaining the traffic order should be helpful for the maintenance of traffic safety. If the system is inappropriate, the punishment imposed by the system certainly will affect all road users. Therefore, we should select the means with the possibility of expectation while maintaining the traffic safety, and this is proper.
7
Guo-liang, Huang, and 黃國樑. "On the Study of the Principle of No Double Jeopardy for the Same Offense in Administrative Penalty Act -- Taking Land Use Regulation as An Example." Thesis, 2009. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/61777977359310256167.
Full textAbstract:
碩士玄奘大學
法律學系碩士在職專班
98
The “principle of no double jeopardy for the same offense”, also known as “protection against double jeopardy”, is a concept originating from the criminal law. This principle indicates that no person should be held criminally liable for the same cause of action twice or over. Such a concept is now regarded as a fundamental principle of modern democracy and rule of law. The “principle of no double jeopardy for the same offense” is similar to the concept of “no double jeopardy for the same cause of action”. Ever since the promulgation of Administrative Penalty Act, most literatures have adopted the term “no double jeopardy for the same cause of action”. Nevertheless, based on legal practices and interpretations of past cases, and on comparing with the principle of “res judicata” in the code of criminal procedure, this study continues the use of the term “no double jeopardy for the same offense”. The study and amendment of Administrative Penalty Act of Taiwan took over thirty years for completion. The Act was amended and approved by the Legislative Yuan on January 14th, 2005, and was promulgated by the then president on February 5th the same year. The Act came into effect one year later in accordance with its Article 26. Before the implementation of Administrative Penalty Act, applications of “no double jeopardy for the same offense” depended on the interpretations of Grand Justices of Judicial Yuan and practical adjudications. Through the understanding of legal system development and theoretical analyses, this study seeks to look for an application of “no double jeopardy for the same offense” which suits Taiwan’s customs better. Furthermore, this study proposes suggestions and improvements for the strength and weakness of “no double jeopardy for the same offense” based on the author’s administrative experiences. It is expected that through the combination of practices and theories and exploration from the aspects of process and physical, the “principle of no double jeopardy for the same offense” can fulfill the “protection against double jeopardy” and conform to the purpose of administration by the law and protection of human right.
Books on the topic "Double jeopardy principle"
1
(Firm), Kluwer Law International, ed. The ne bis in idem principle in EU law. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2010.
Find full text
2
Specht, Britta. Die zwischenstaatliche Geltung des Grundsatzes ne bis in idem: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Auslegung des Art. 103 Abs. 3 Grundgesetz = The principle of ne bis in idem and its international validity : in addition a contribution to the interpretation of Art. 103 para. 3 Basic Law. Berlin: Springer, 1999.
Find full text
3
Rogier, L. J. J. Strafsancties, administratieve sancties en het una via-beginsel =: Penal sanctions, administrative sanctions and the una via principle. Arnhem: Gouda Quint, 1992.
Find full text
4
Ichiji fusairi no kenkyū: Du principe de l'autorité de la chose jugée au criminel sur le criminel. Tōkyō: Nihon Hyōronsha, 1986.
Find full text
6
Smith, Jay C., and Jay C. Smith. Joseph Wambaugh and the Jay Smith case. [S.l.]: Xlibris Corp, 2008.
Find full text
7
d'Aumeries, Sonja Gafner. Le principe de la double incrimination: En particulier dans les rapports d'entraide judiciaire internationale en matière pénale entre la Suisse et les Etats-Unis. Bâle: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1992.
Find full text
8
Robert, Roth. Part III The Right to Justice, C Restrictions on Rules of Law Justified By Action to Combat Impunity, Principle 26 Restrictions on Extradition/Non Bis in Idem. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198743606.003.0030.
Full textAbstract:
Principle 26 deals with restrictions on extradition and the principle non bis in idem. More specifically, it addresses obstacles to extradition and double jeopardy (ne bis in idem), two issues that both place restrictions rather than prohibitions on the exercise of criminal jurisdiction than interdictions to assert jurisdiction. The principle ne bis in idem and extradition law have evolved from a ‘State-oriented’ approach into an ‘individual-oriented approach’. Principle 26 highlights a series of controversial issues, including the denial of extradition to countries enforcing the death penalty to the so-called ‘shield trials’, and tries to strike a balance between the fight against impunity and the enhancement of individual rights for persons facing trials, even for ‘serious crimes under international law’. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 26 before discussing its theoretical framework and how the Principle has been applied in practice.
9
Shiratori, Yuji. Ichiji fusairi no kenkyu =: Du principe de l'autorite de la chose jugee au criminel sur le criminel. Nihon Hyoronsha, 1986.
Find full text
10
William A, Schabas. Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law: Compétence, Recevabilité, Et Droit Applicable, Art.20 Ne bis in idem. Oxford University Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0025.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter comments on Article 20 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The concept of ne bis in idem has been varoiusly described by such cognate terms such as ‘double jeopardy’, res judicata, and issue estoppel. In the Rome Statute, the principle one of the three components of the admissibility determination, the other two being complementarity and gravity. Article 20 addresses three types of situations: (i) where a person has been tried and either convicted or acquitted by the Court and who is subsequently put on trial again before the Court; (ii) where a person has been tried and either convicted or acquitted by the Court and who is subsequently put on trial again before another court; and (iii) where a person has been tried and either convicted or acquitted by another court and who is subsequently put on trial before the International Criminal Court.
Book chapters on the topic "Double jeopardy principle"
1
Frick, Johann. "National Partiality, Immigration, and the Problem of Double-Jeopardy." In Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy Volume 6, 151–82. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198852636.003.0006.
Full textAbstract:
A foundational conviction of contemporary liberal thought is that all persons matter equally. However, states frequently pursue policies that are strikingly partial towards compatriots over foreigners. A common strategy for justifying this partiality appeals to associative obligations incurred by standing in special relationships with fellow citizens. Such arguments face an important hurdle. This chapter argues for a “Boundary Principle”, according to which special relationships among members of a group cannot justify strong forms of partiality, unless the boundaries of this group can also be justified. Hence, arguments from associative obligations are, by themselves, incomplete. Most states limit migration, and thereby prevent willing people from entering into those relationships with us that would generate associative obligations on our part. A successful defense of national partiality in terms of associative obligations is therefore more closely tied to the question of what restrictions can be placed on immigration than most political philosophers have recognized.
2
Amal, Clooney, and Webb Philippa. "13 Right not to be Subject to Double Jeopardy." In The Right to a Fair Trial in International Law. Oxford University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198808398.003.0014.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter assesses the right not to be subject to double jeopardy, which protects against repeated trial or punishment for the same offence or conduct and ensures respect for the principle of finality in criminal proceedings. It is a crucial protection for the defendant because the possibility of repeated prosecutions or punishment leads to anxiety and stress and generates uncertainty in the wider community. The scope of the protection is therefore important: if it is too narrow, applying only to a second prosecution based on identical charges, prosecutors can still ‘throw the book’ at a defendant by charging him with disparate offences for the same conduct. But if the scope is too broad, it could prevent a defendant who has been unfairly convicted in a first proceeding beset by due process violations from having a new trial. An over-broad scope may also prevent the prosecutor from pursuing other charges and therefore deny victims an effective remedy. The issues that have proved to be the most controversial among international bodies regarding the right not to be subject to double jeopardy have been whether the right only applies to the same offence or also to the same conduct; whether it is limited to a single state’s jurisdiction; the requirement of a ‘final’ verdict; and the definition of the exceptions to the right.
3
Blattner, Charlotte E. "Legality of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction under International Law." In Protecting Animals Within and Across Borders, 365–400. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190948313.003.0011.
Full textAbstract:
Chapter 10 examines the legal risks of protecting animals abroad by offering a full analysis into the legality of extraterritorial jurisdiction under international law, and is intended to guide states that wish to use it. The reader is introduced to the types of jurisdictional conflicts that can emerge in animal law and shown how states can unilaterally prevent, manage, or mitigate them (such as through the principle of reasonableness, the rule of law, and the prohibition of double jeopardy). The chapter describes avenues for conflict resolution, including resorting to the principle of comity, or entering bilateral and multilateral treaty negotiations. It then elucidates the circumstances under which exercise of jurisdiction violates international law, in particular, the principles of sovereign equality, nonintervention, territorial integrity, and self-determination of peoples. The chapter concludes with an examination of the consequences a breach entails under international law, which is as useful for animal law as much as for other fields of law grappling with extraterritoriality.
4
Mark, Brealey, and George Kyla. "11 Effect of Previous Decisions." In Competition Litigation. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law-ocl/9780199665075.003.0011.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter examines the impact of previous decisions in competition litigation, and more specifically the extent to which previous determinations on factual and legal issues are admissible, persuasive, or binding in subsequent proceedings. It begins with a discussion of prior judicial decisions, focusing on how questions relating to the application of Articles 101(1) and Article 102 of the TFEU should be interpreted with the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It then considers prior infringement decisions adopted by the competition authorities, taking into account the binding nature of such decisions as well as their personal scope. It also describes the scope and extent of the infringement that is said to be binding, findings of fact and whether they are binding or not, the decisions of other national competition authorities, and the issue of penalties and the principle of double jeopardy.
5
Hörnle, Julia. "Criminal Jurisdiction—Concurrent Jurisdiction, Sovereignty, and the Urgent Requirement for Coordination." In Internet Jurisdiction Law and Practice, 81–114. Oxford University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198806929.003.0004.
Full textAbstract:
Chapter 4 provides an incisive introduction to criminal jurisdiction and the internet, setting the scene for the chapters on jurisdiction of the criminal courts (Chapter 5) and investigative jurisdiction (Chapter 6). It explains the concurrency of criminal jurisdiction in international law and analyses the problems arising. In particular, there are two main conflicts of jurisdiction: first, the multiple, overlapping claims of jurisdiction between several states and the risk of multiple prosecutions for the same crime (or no prosecutions, as no state has sufficient evidence or motivation; second, jurisdictional overreach where conduct is lawful in one country, but a criminal offence in another country who wishes to prosecute, potentially causing jurisdictional overreach and spill-over effects. The chapter begins by setting out the grounds of jurisdiction under international law. An examination of the cross-border implications of cybercrime follows, distinguishing three discrete aspects of the cross-border nature of cybercrime and analysing the nature of jurisdictional conflicts under the lens of territoriality and connecting factors. It analyses how a better coordination of jurisdictional claims might be achieved under comity and reasonableness principles, and coordination under EU law, such as the Eurojust Guidelines and the EU Framework Decision. Finally, it critically analyses the ambit of double jeopardy and the ne bis in idem principles and their limited application. Conflicts of criminal jurisdiction, and the potential of multiple prosecutions of defendants for the same offence, call for greater international cooperation between states and coordination rules between different legal orders. However, the development of coordination rules in respect of national criminal jurisdiction is in its infancy.
6
Copeland, Jack. "Delilah—encrypting speech." In The Turing Guide. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198747826.003.0026.
Full textAbstract:
Once Enigma was solved and the pioneering work on Tunny was done, Turing’s battering-ram mind was needed elsewhere. Routine codebreaking irked him and he was at his best when breaking new ground. In 1942 he travelled to America to explore cryptology’s next challenge, the encryption of speech. Turing left Bletchley Park for the United States in November 1942. He sailed for New York on a passenger liner, during what was one of the most dangerous periods for Atlantic shipping. It must have been a nerve-racking journey. That month alone, the U-boats sank more than a hundred Allied vessels. Turing was the only civilian aboard a floating barracks, packed to bursting point with military personnel. At times there were as many as 600 men crammed into the officers’ lounge—Turing said he nearly fainted. On the ship’s arrival in New York, it was decreed that his papers were inadequate, and this placed his entry to the United States in jeopardy. The immigration officials even debated interning him on Ellis Island. ‘That will teach my employers to furnish me with better credentials’ was Turing’s laconic comment. It was a private joke at the British government’s expense: since becoming a codebreaker in 1939, his employers were none other than His Majesty’s Foreign Office. America did not exactly welcome Turing with open arms. His principal reason for making the dangerous trip across the Atlantic was to spend time at Manhattan’s Bell Telephone Laboratories, where speech encryption work was going on, but the authorities declined to clear him to visit this hive of top-secret projects. General George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the US Army, declared that Bell Labs housed work ‘of so secret a nature that Dr. Turing cannot be given access’. While Winston Churchill’s personal representative in Washington, Sir John Dill, struggled to get General Marshall’s decision reversed, Turing spent his first two months in America advising Washington’s codebreakers—no doubt this was unknown to Marshall, who might otherwise have forbidden Turing’s involvement. During this time Turing also acted as consultant to the engineers who were designing an electronic version of his bombe for production in America.