Globalisation, crime and governance

Transparency, accountability and participation as principles for global criminal law

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterScientificpeer-review

20 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to look for analytical tools at an abstract level to help further the debate on the many legal and practical issues besetting the public spheres of transitional and international criminal justice. To that end, I propose a global criminal law perspective, encompassing both transitional justice and international criminal law and transnational criminal law, and inquire into the principles that could guide us. Can we simply apply domestic principles of criminal law and criminal justice at the transstate level? Admittedly, a theoretical framework developed for sovereign states can be adapted to an interstate context. Yet, the inherent weaknesses of the modern principled approach to criminal law remain—for instance, the lack of an empirical basis, and of respect in practice, for the use of the harm criterion or the ultima ratio principle. The result is a certain cynicism regarding the actual capacity of modern criminal law principles to steer legislative and judicial developments. I suggest looking elsewhere when discussing how to govern and imple- ment global criminal justice and advocate a procedural approach, relying on two theoretical frameworks. The first was proposed by Brants, Mevis and Prakken in 2001, and looks to procedurally oriented principles to address criminal justice issues, in particular transparency, accountability and participation. The second is also a call for a procedural approach but launched in the context of the Global Administrative Law project and the debate on global constitutionalism. Can these two approaches be connected? What are their limits and possibilities for global criminal justice and their application for global criminal law? Finally, how do they interrelate and could they provide a way forward in terms of a methodology to judge their application in each and every single case, given the many insights on this to be found in governance literature?
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationTransitional justice and its public spheres
Subtitle of host publicationEngagement, legitimacy and contestation
EditorsChrisje Brants, Susanne Karstedt
PublisherHart Publishing
Pages91-124
Number of pages34
ISBN (Print)10: 1509900179
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

criminal law
transparency
globalization
offense
governance
justice
responsibility
participation
administrative law
constitutionalism
international law
respect
lack
methodology

Keywords

  • global law
  • criminal law
  • international justice

Cite this

de Hert, P. (2017). Globalisation, crime and governance: Transparency, accountability and participation as principles for global criminal law. In C. Brants, & S. Karstedt (Eds.), Transitional justice and its public spheres: Engagement, legitimacy and contestation (pp. 91-124). Hart Publishing.
de Hert, Paul. / Globalisation, crime and governance : Transparency, accountability and participation as principles for global criminal law. Transitional justice and its public spheres: Engagement, legitimacy and contestation. editor / Chrisje Brants ; Susanne Karstedt. Hart Publishing, 2017. pp. 91-124
@inbook{c49aa9b140fc4f9495aaa3c96d340aba,
title = "Globalisation, crime and governance: Transparency, accountability and participation as principles for global criminal law",
abstract = "The aim of this chapter is to look for analytical tools at an abstract level to help further the debate on the many legal and practical issues besetting the public spheres of transitional and international criminal justice. To that end, I propose a global criminal law perspective, encompassing both transitional justice and international criminal law and transnational criminal law, and inquire into the principles that could guide us. Can we simply apply domestic principles of criminal law and criminal justice at the transstate level? Admittedly, a theoretical framework developed for sovereign states can be adapted to an interstate context. Yet, the inherent weaknesses of the modern principled approach to criminal law remain—for instance, the lack of an empirical basis, and of respect in practice, for the use of the harm criterion or the ultima ratio principle. The result is a certain cynicism regarding the actual capacity of modern criminal law principles to steer legislative and judicial developments. I suggest looking elsewhere when discussing how to govern and imple- ment global criminal justice and advocate a procedural approach, relying on two theoretical frameworks. The first was proposed by Brants, Mevis and Prakken in 2001, and looks to procedurally oriented principles to address criminal justice issues, in particular transparency, accountability and participation. The second is also a call for a procedural approach but launched in the context of the Global Administrative Law project and the debate on global constitutionalism. Can these two approaches be connected? What are their limits and possibilities for global criminal justice and their application for global criminal law? Finally, how do they interrelate and could they provide a way forward in terms of a methodology to judge their application in each and every single case, given the many insights on this to be found in governance literature?",
keywords = "global law, criminal law, international justice",
author = "{de Hert}, Paul",
year = "2017",
language = "English",
isbn = "10: 1509900179",
pages = "91--124",
editor = "Brants, {Chrisje } and Susanne Karstedt",
booktitle = "Transitional justice and its public spheres",
publisher = "Hart Publishing",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

de Hert, P 2017, Globalisation, crime and governance: Transparency, accountability and participation as principles for global criminal law. in C Brants & S Karstedt (eds), Transitional justice and its public spheres: Engagement, legitimacy and contestation. Hart Publishing, pp. 91-124.

Globalisation, crime and governance : Transparency, accountability and participation as principles for global criminal law. / de Hert, Paul.

Transitional justice and its public spheres: Engagement, legitimacy and contestation. ed. / Chrisje Brants; Susanne Karstedt. Hart Publishing, 2017. p. 91-124.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterScientificpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Globalisation, crime and governance

T2 - Transparency, accountability and participation as principles for global criminal law

AU - de Hert, Paul

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - The aim of this chapter is to look for analytical tools at an abstract level to help further the debate on the many legal and practical issues besetting the public spheres of transitional and international criminal justice. To that end, I propose a global criminal law perspective, encompassing both transitional justice and international criminal law and transnational criminal law, and inquire into the principles that could guide us. Can we simply apply domestic principles of criminal law and criminal justice at the transstate level? Admittedly, a theoretical framework developed for sovereign states can be adapted to an interstate context. Yet, the inherent weaknesses of the modern principled approach to criminal law remain—for instance, the lack of an empirical basis, and of respect in practice, for the use of the harm criterion or the ultima ratio principle. The result is a certain cynicism regarding the actual capacity of modern criminal law principles to steer legislative and judicial developments. I suggest looking elsewhere when discussing how to govern and imple- ment global criminal justice and advocate a procedural approach, relying on two theoretical frameworks. The first was proposed by Brants, Mevis and Prakken in 2001, and looks to procedurally oriented principles to address criminal justice issues, in particular transparency, accountability and participation. The second is also a call for a procedural approach but launched in the context of the Global Administrative Law project and the debate on global constitutionalism. Can these two approaches be connected? What are their limits and possibilities for global criminal justice and their application for global criminal law? Finally, how do they interrelate and could they provide a way forward in terms of a methodology to judge their application in each and every single case, given the many insights on this to be found in governance literature?

AB - The aim of this chapter is to look for analytical tools at an abstract level to help further the debate on the many legal and practical issues besetting the public spheres of transitional and international criminal justice. To that end, I propose a global criminal law perspective, encompassing both transitional justice and international criminal law and transnational criminal law, and inquire into the principles that could guide us. Can we simply apply domestic principles of criminal law and criminal justice at the transstate level? Admittedly, a theoretical framework developed for sovereign states can be adapted to an interstate context. Yet, the inherent weaknesses of the modern principled approach to criminal law remain—for instance, the lack of an empirical basis, and of respect in practice, for the use of the harm criterion or the ultima ratio principle. The result is a certain cynicism regarding the actual capacity of modern criminal law principles to steer legislative and judicial developments. I suggest looking elsewhere when discussing how to govern and imple- ment global criminal justice and advocate a procedural approach, relying on two theoretical frameworks. The first was proposed by Brants, Mevis and Prakken in 2001, and looks to procedurally oriented principles to address criminal justice issues, in particular transparency, accountability and participation. The second is also a call for a procedural approach but launched in the context of the Global Administrative Law project and the debate on global constitutionalism. Can these two approaches be connected? What are their limits and possibilities for global criminal justice and their application for global criminal law? Finally, how do they interrelate and could they provide a way forward in terms of a methodology to judge their application in each and every single case, given the many insights on this to be found in governance literature?

KW - global law

KW - criminal law

KW - international justice

M3 - Chapter

SN - 10: 1509900179

SP - 91

EP - 124

BT - Transitional justice and its public spheres

A2 - Brants, Chrisje

A2 - Karstedt, Susanne

PB - Hart Publishing

ER -

de Hert P. Globalisation, crime and governance: Transparency, accountability and participation as principles for global criminal law. In Brants C, Karstedt S, editors, Transitional justice and its public spheres: Engagement, legitimacy and contestation. Hart Publishing. 2017. p. 91-124