No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
1 For an English translation, see, 1 The Annual for German and European Law [AGEL] (2004) and the attending summary, Safferling, Report - German Public Law Legislation - 2001/2002: Das Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, 1 AGEL 574 (2004). See also Werle, & Jessberger, , International Criminal Law is Coming Home: The New German Code of Crimes Against International Law, 13 Criminal Law Forum 191 (2002).Google Scholar
2 See, decision of the General Public Prosecutor at 60 Juristenzeitung [JZ] 311 (2005), and the final decision in this regard by the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (OLG-Higher Regional Court), 26 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht [NStZ] 117 (2006); see also Ambos, , Völkerrechtliche Kernverbrechen, Weltrechtsprinzip und § 153f StPO - Zugleich Anmerkung zu GBA, JZ 2005, 311 und OLG Stuttgart, NStZ 2006, 117, in: 26 NStZ 434 (2006).Google Scholar
3 Keller, , 153 Goltdammer's Archiv 34 (2006); Ambos, Internationales Strafrecht, § 5 Rn 95 (2006).Google Scholar
4 A short analysis of the Post-Nuremberg Process in Germany can be found at a later stage in this book. Wolfgang Kaleck in his article on the German situation regarding international criminal law spends a few paragraphs on this problem (pp. 95–98).Google Scholar
5 See, e.g., Rüping, , Between Law and Politics: The Prosecution of NS-Criminals in the Two German States after 1945, in The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law Since 1945, 186 (Reginbogin and Safferling, eds., 2006); Wittmann, , The Normalization of Nazi Crime in Postwar West Germany, in The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law Since 1945, 196 (Reginbogin and Safferling, eds., 2006).Google Scholar
6 See, Schlink, Vergangenheitsbewältigung durch Recht (2002)Google Scholar
7 See, e.g., Safferling, , Can Criminal Prosecution be the Answer to Massive Human Rights Violations, 5 German Law JOUrnal 1469 (2004).Google Scholar
8 See, e.g., Ambos, Internationales Strafrecht, § 8 MN. 7; Schabas, The International Criminal Court, 54 et subs. (2001).Google Scholar
9 Kai Ambos has written a great volume on eneral Principles of International Criminal Law and has, at the beginning of 2007, issued a general compilation, called “Internationales Strafrecht”, comprising both international criminal law and European criminal law.Google Scholar
10 See, e.g., Sec. 152 (2) of the German Criminal Procedural Code (StPO); see also, Safferling, Towards an International Criminal Procedure 76 (2003).Google Scholar
11 To date, there are four investigations under way, all of them are either state referrals or rely on the UN Security Council.Google Scholar
12 See e.g., Johnson, Dominic, Anklage mangelhaft, DIE TAGESZEITUNG, 29 January 2007, available at: http://www.taz.de/index.php?id=archivseite&dig=2007/01/29/a0173 (20 August 2007).Google Scholar
13 See, Zimmermann, , in The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law Since 1945 196 (Reginbogin and Safferling, eds., 2006); Kress, Versailles-Nürnberg-Den Haag: Deutschland und das Völkerstrafrecht, 61 JZ 981 (2006); Werle, , Festschrift Küper 675 (2007).Google Scholar
14 The case which has led to this discussion is now pending before the European Court on Human Rights Gäfgen/Deutschland, Appl. No. 22978/05, declared partly admissible by the Court on 10 April 2007; the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court can be found at: 58 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 656 (2005); see also: Brugger, 55 JZ 165 (2000); Saliger, 116 ZStW 35 (2004); Erb, Jura 24 (2005); Ellbogen, Jura 339 (2005); Herzberg, 60 JZ 321 (2005); Jerouschek, 45 JuS 296 (2005); Kudlich, 45 JuS 376 (2005); Roxin, FS Eser, 461 (2005).Google Scholar
15 See the original version of Sec. 14 of the Luftsicherheitsgesetz (Air Security Act), BGBl. 2005 I 48 and the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 15 February 2006, (available at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20060215_1bvr035705.html) declaring this law unconstitutional,; see also, Safferling, Terror and Law: German Responses to 9/11, 4 JICJ (Please write out in small caps) 1152 at 1153-1156 (2006).Google Scholar
16 See, http://www.focus.de/intern/archiv/todesschuss_aid_67213.html (23 July 2007).Google Scholar
17 For an interesting legal analysis of the status of the detainees, see, Stuckenberg, Das zähe Ringen um die Rechtsstellung der Gefangenen von Guantánamo Bay, 61 JZ 1142 (2006).Google Scholar
18 For further information on the second complaint of 2006 see: http://www.rav.de/ag_voelkerrecht.htm Google Scholar
You have
Access