DOCSLIB.ORG

The Criminal Law of Genocide the German Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Criminal Law of Genocide the German Perspective ICLA_03_Gropengieber.qxd 7/26/05 12:45 PM Page 329 International Criminal Law Review 5: 329–342, 2005. 329 © 2005 Koninklijke Brill NV. Printed in the Netherlands. The Criminal Law of Genocide The German Perspective HELMUT GROPENGIEßER1 I. The German History of the Law of Genocide The term “genocide” is inseparably connected with German history. When Raphael Lemkin2 coined this concept he had in mind the most heinous atroc- ities committed by Nazi Germany against the Jews, Poles, Gypsies and other groups during the National Socialist dictatorship and World War II which he intended to cover with one single word. But although the representatives of the National Socialist regime were held responsible for their deeds, none of them was punished for “genocide”, neither by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg in 1946 nor later on by German courts. There are two reasons for this – at first glance – astonishing fact: When the high rank perpetrators were charged, tried and sentenced – some of them to death – by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg in 1946,3 the term “genocide” had already been used during the trials, but it had not been written down in the Statute of the IMT itself. Thus no judgement made explicit reference to the notion of genocide;4 the legal basis for those convictions was the offence of crimes against humanity.5 1 Senior Researcher, Former Head of Sections “Spain” and “Portugal” at the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg i. Br., Germany. 2 Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944), pp. 79 et seq.; see also in detail to the ori- gin of the concept Gil Gil, El Genocidio y Otros Crímenes Internacionales (1999), pp. 125 et seq.; Werle, Völkerstrafrecht (2003), para. 536. 3 As to the trials in Nuremberg see Ahlbrecht, Geschichte der völkerrechtlichen Strafgerichtsbarkeit im 20. Jahrhundert (1999), pp. 59 et seq.; Werle, supra note 2, para. 14 et seq. 4 See Fronza in Lattanzi/Schabas (eds.), Essays on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court I (1999), pp. 105–137, at p. 108; Gil Gil, supra note 2, pp. 131 et seq.; Hübner, Das Verbrechen des Völkermordes im internationalen und nationalenPURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d5d760/ Recht (2003), p. 58; Kreß in Joecks/Miebach (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, s. 220a StGB / s. 6 VStGB (2003) para. 22. 5 Art. 6 lit. c) IMT Statute; congruent Art. 5 lit. c) IMTFE Statute. ICLA_03_Gropengieber.qxd 7/26/05 12:45 PM Page 330 330 HELMUT GROPENGIEßER Shortly thereafter, in December 1946 the General Assembly of the United Nations explicitly addressed “genocide”;6 two years later in 1948 the Genocide Convention7 was adopted. From that time at least the con- cept of “genocide” can be considered as well established in international criminal law. In 1954 the Federal Republic of Germany ratified the Genocide Convention and transformed the international regulation – in accordance with their legal obligation to punish perpetrators of genocide8 – into a new offence of genocide in s. 220a of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch; StGB).9 But even then German courts dealing with National Socialist criminality faced constitutional obstacles. According to Article 103 paragraph 2 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz)10 criminal law may not be applied retroactively. The German courts could therefore operate only with rules which had been in force at the time when the atrocities were committed; so it was only possible to punish the accused for murder or other ordinary crimes,11 not for the ex post enacted offence of genocide.12 6 UN Doc. A/Res. 96 (I) of 11 December 1946; see also UN Doc. A/Res. 95 (I) of the same day which confirmed the principles of Nuremberg. 7 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948 (78 UNTS 277). 8 Boed, The Effect of a Domestic Amnesty on the Ability of Foreign States to Prosecute Alleged Perpetrators of Serious Human Rights Violations, Cornell International Law Journal 33 (2000), pp. 297–329, at p. 319; Zimmermann, Auf dem Weg zu einem deutschen Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 2002, pp. 97–102, at p. 98. 9 Gesetz über den Beitritt der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zu der Konvention vom 9. Dezember 1948 über die Verhütung und Bestrafung des Völkermordes vom 9. August 1954 (Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl.] 1954 II, pp. 729 et seq.). See in detail Bremer, Nationale Strafverfolgung internationaler Verbrechen gegen das humanitäre Völkerrecht (1999), pp. 230 et seq.; Jescheck, Die internationale Genocidium-Konvention vom 9. Dezember 1948 und die Lehre vom Völkerstrafrecht, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft (ZStW) 66 (1954), pp. 193–217, at pp. 193 et seq. For an English version of the German “Strafgesetzbuch” see <http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/StGBframe.htm>. 10 Of 23 May 1949; for an English translation see <http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/ index.html>. 11 The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) notes crimes against life (s. 212 et seq. Reichsstrafgesetzbuch [RStGB]) crimes against bodily integrity (s. 223 et seq. RStGB) and deprivation of liberty (s. 239 RStGB); see Amtliche Entscheidungssammlung des Bundesgerichtshofs in Strafsachen (BGHSt) 45, pp. 64–91, at p. 83.PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d5d760/ 12 Jähnke in Jähnke/Laufhütte/Odersky (eds.), Leipziger Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 11th ed., s. 220a (1993) para. 7; Kreß, supra note 2, s. 220a StGB/s. 6 VStGB para. 20; Werl, supra note 2, para. 610. ICLA_03_Gropengieber.qxd 7/26/05 12:45 PM Page 331 THE CRIMINAL LAW OF GENOCIDE 331 For more than four decades section 220a of the Criminal Code contained the only international crime implemented in German Criminal Law,13 a pro- vision which fortunately did not have to be used for a long time, which is why some scholars indicated the offence of genocide as an example for so called “symbolic criminal law”.14 Due to the acts of violence committed in the former Yugoslavia this situation has changed: Some perpetrators were punished for genocide by German courts, but the total number of correspon- ding trials during the last ten years remained very small.15 Finally, in 2002 the German legislator passed the “Code of Crimes Against International Law” (CCAIL – Völkerstrafgesetzbuch [VStGB]). S. 220a of the German Criminal Code was transferred without any significant change of the wording and content16 from the Criminal Code into the newly created s. 6 of the CCAIL.17 Therefore it is still helpful to study the German 13 Kreß, Vom Nutzen eines deutschen VStGB (2000), p. 3; Werle/Jeßberger, Das Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, Juristenzeitung (JZ) 2002, pp. 725–734, at p. 726. 14 Hassemer, Symbolisches Strafrecht und Rechtsgüterschutz, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (NStZ) 1989, pp. 553–559, at p. 554; see also Dietmeier, Völkerstrafrecht und deutscher Gesetzgeber – Kritische Anmerkungen zum Projekt eines “Deutschen Völkerstrafgesetzbuchs”, in Graul/Wolf (eds.), Gedächtnisschrift für Dieter Meurer (2002), pp. 333–343, at p. 340, with further references. 15 Cf. Ambos/Wirth, Genocide and War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia Before German Criminal Courts, in Fischer/Kreß/Lüder (eds.), International and National Prosecution of Crimes Under International Law, pp. 769 et seq.; Kreicker in Eser/Kreicker (eds.), Nationale Strafverfolgung völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen, Landesbericht Deutschland (2003), pp. 427 et seq.; Schabas, National Courts Finally Begin to Prosecute Genocide, the “Crime of Crimes”, Journal of International Criminal Justice (JICL) 1 (2003), pp. 39–63, at pp. 56 et seq.; see also the homepage of the Federal Prosecutor General (Generalbundesanwalt) (<http://www.generalbundesanwalt.de/strafe/vmord.php>). 16 Adopting the international language usage the clause “characterised by its folk customs” was replaced by “ethnic”. See Werle, Konturen eines deutschen Völkerstrafrechts, Juristenzeitung (JZ) 2001, pp. 885–895, at p. 892; Werle/Jeßberger, JZ 2002, supra note 13, p. 727; Zimmermann, supra note 8, p. 101; idem, Bestrafung völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen durch deutsche Gerichte nach In-Kraft-Treten des Völkerstrafgesetzbuchs, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2002, pp. 3068–3070, at p. 3069; idem, Main Features of the new German Code of Crimes against International Law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch), in Neuner (ed.), National Legislation Incorporating International Crimes. Approaches of Civil and Common Law Countries (2003), pp. 137–155, at p. 140. In respect of the content there was no need to adjust the national text to the Rome Statute; see Hermsdörfer, Zum Anpassungsbedarf des deutschen Strafrechts an das Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs, Humanitäres Völkerrecht – Informationsschriften 1999, pp. 22–31, at p. 24; Werle, Völkerstrafrecht und geltendes deutsches Strafrecht, Juristenzeitung (JZ) 2000, pp. 755–760,PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d5d760/ at p. 756. 17 S. 220a StGB was abrogated by Art. 2 no. 1 of the Gesetz zur Einführung des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches (EGVStGB; Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl.] 2002 I, p. 2254 [2258]) at the same time as s. 6 CCAIL was introduced by Art. 1 of the mentioned Act. ICLA_03_Gropengieber.qxd 7/26/05 12:45 PM Page 332 332 HELMUT GROPENGIEßER jurisprudence18 and numerous commentaries19 to the formally abrogated s. 220a. II. A Survey of s. 6 of the CCAIL Although obviously influenced by the text of the Genocide Convention, s. 6 of the CCAIL is more than just a copy; there are some peculiarities by which the German legislator tried to adapt the international model to the national legal system. The following synopsis may provide an overview: Art. 6. ICC-Statute: Genocide Sec. 6 German Code of Crimes against International Law (CCAIL): Genocide20 For the purpose of this Statute, (1) Whoever with the intent of “genocide” means any of the fol- destroying as such, in whole or lowing acts committed with intent in part, a national, racial, reli- to destroy, in whole or in part, a gious or ethnic group national, ethnical, racial or reli- gious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Concept of Stare Decisis in the German Legal System – a Systematically Inconsistent Concept with High Factual Importance
    Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 01/10/2021 21:41:15 Part 4. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia vol. XXVII, 1, 2018 DOI: 10.17951/sil.2018.27.1.121 Peter Stainer Attorney-at-law, Frankfurt am Main, Germany [email protected] Dominik König Inhouse legal counsel, Bad Homburg, Germany [email protected] The Concept of Stare Decisis in the German Legal System – A Systematically Inconsistent Concept with High Factual Importance Koncepcja stare decisis w systemie prawa niemieckiego – niespójna systemowo koncepcja posiadająca wysoką realną wartość SUMMARY It is worth mentioning that the German legal system is based on the codified law. This system lacks in stare decisis and precedentsUMCS in general, which – in principle – does not raise doubts. The role of precedent in the decisional process is relative and dependent on the question as to whether the case may be resolved pursuant to a legal act. In that case, precedents would not play any or almost any role at all. However, the role of precedents increases, when there is a lack of appropriate legal rights, or if legal rights require inter- pretation. It should be emphasised that stare decisis understood as a formally binding precedent refers only to rulings issued by the Federal Constitutional Court, whereas precedents of higher courts have a significant meaning to everyday judicial practice in Germany, despite the fact that they are not formally binding. Keywords: stare decisis; precedent; German legal system; Federal Constitutional Court INTRODUCTION Stare decisis is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere, meaning “to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters”1.
    [Show full text]
  • 86A Stgb Im Spiegel Der Rechtsprechung
    Wissenschaftliche Dienste Infobrief Das strafbare Verwenden von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen § 86a StGB im Spiegel der Rechtsprechung Roman Trips-Hebert © 2014 Deutscher Bundestag WD 7 - 3010 - 028/14 Wissenschaftliche Dienste Infobrief Seite 2 WD 7 - 3010 - 028/14 Das strafbare Verwenden von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen § 86a StGB im Spiegel der Rechtsprechung Verfasser: Oberregierungsrat Dr. Roman Trips-Hebert Aktenzeichen: WD 7 - 3010 - 028/14 Abschluss der Arbeit: 28. Februar 2014 Fachbereich: Fachbereich WD 7: Zivil-, Straf- und Verfahrensrecht, Umweltschutzrecht, Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung Ausarbeitungen und andere Informationsangebote der Wissenschaftlichen Dienste geben nicht die Auffassung des Deutschen Bundestages, eines seiner Organe oder der Bundestagsverwaltung wieder. Vielmehr liegen sie in der fachlichen Verantwortung der Verfasserinnen und Verfasser sowie der Fachbereichsleitung. Der Deutsche Bundestag behält sich die Rechte der Veröffentlichung und Verbreitung vor. Beides bedarf der Zustimmung der Leitung der Abteilung W, Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin. Wissenschaftliche Dienste Infobrief Seite 3 WD 7 - 3010 - 028/14 Inhaltsverzeichnis 1. Einleitung 4 2. Tatbestand, Systematik und Geschichte 5 2.1. Tatbestand 5 2.2. Systematik 6 2.3. Geschichte 6 3. Detailbetrachtung und Rechtsprechung 7 3.1. Erfasste Organisationen 7 3.1.1. Vom Bundesverfassungsgericht für verfassungswidrig erklärte Partei oder eine Partei oder Vereinigung, von der unanfechtbar festgestellt ist, dass sie Ersatzorganisation einer solchen Partei ist (§86Absatz1Nummer1StGB) 8 3.1.2. Vereinigung, die unanfechtbar verboten ist, weil sie sich gegen die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung oder gegen den Gedanken der Völkerverständigung richtet, oder von der unanfechtbar festgestellt ist, dass sie Ersatzorganisation einer solchen verbotenen Vereinigung ist (§ 86 Absatz 1 Nummer 2 StGB) 8 3.1.3. Ehemalige nationalsozialistische Organisation (§ 86 Absatz 1 Nummer 4 StGB) 10 3.2.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Evaluation of the Judicial Systems (2016-2018 Cycle) Germany Generated on : 29/08/2018 11:17
    1. Evaluation of the judicial systems (2016-2018 cycle) Germany Generated on : 29/08/2018 11:17 Reference data 2016 (01/01/2016 - 31/12/2016) Start/end date of the data collection campaign : 01/06/2017 - 31/12/2017 Objective : The CEPEJ decided, at its 28th plenary meeting, to launch the seventh evaluation cycle 2016 – 2018, focused on 2016 data. The CEPEJ wishes to use the methodology developed in the previous cycles to get, with the support of its national correspondents' network, a general evaluation of the judicial systems in the 47 member states of the Council of Europe as well as two observer states (Israel and Morocco). This will enable policy makers and judicial practitioners to take account of such unique information when carrying out their activities. The present questionnaire was adapted by the Working group on evaluation of judicial systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) in view of the previous evaluation cycles and considering the comments submitted by CEPEJ members, observers, experts and national correspondents. The aim of this exercise is to increase awareness of judicial systems in the participating states, to compare the functioning of judicial systems in their various aspects, as well as to have a better knowledge of the trends of the judicial organisation in order to help improve the efficiency of justice. The evaluation questionnaire and the analysis of the results becomes a genuine tool in favour of public policies on justice, for the sake of the European citizens. Instruction : The ways to use the application and to answer the questions are guided by two main documents: -User manual -Explanatory note While the explanatory note gives definitions and explanations on the CEPEJ evaluation questionnaire and the methodology needed for replying, the User manual is a tool to help you navigate through this application.
    [Show full text]
  • The Comparative Law of Flag Desecration: the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, 15 Hastings Int'l & Comp
    Hastings International and Comparative Law Review Volume 15 Article 2 Number 4 Summer 1992 1-1-1992 The ompC arative Law of Flag Desecration: The United States and the Federal Republic of Germany Peter E. Quint Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_international_comparative_law_review Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter E. Quint, The Comparative Law of Flag Desecration: The United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, 15 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 613 (1992). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol15/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Comparative Law of Flag Desecration: The United States and the Federal Republic of Germany By PETER E. QUINT* I. INTRODUCTION I In the American constitutional system, as in many others, freedom of speech generally is viewed as an individual right. Yet, even though the initial focus is on individuals, definition of this right often depends on the weight of governmental interests and the implications of related political and social structures. Because the relationship between speech and poli- tics is particularly close, the definition of "freedom of speech" is often intertwined with the underlying presuppositions of the political system and past or present assessments of its stability. This relationship between speech and political structures is particu- larly evident in the case of political speech, which may stir individuals and groups to action or which may exert a more subtle influence on the nature and continuity of political processes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Debate Over Japan's Rising Sun Flag
    NIDS コメンタリー第 89 号 The Debate over Japan’s Rising Sun Flag SHOJI Junichiro, Vice President for Academic Affairs No. 89, November 26, 2019 Introduction Korea, just as Germany proscribed the Nazi’s In October 2018, South Korea hosted an international predominant symbol, the swastika (known in German as fleet review off the coast of Jeju Island. Their navy the Hakenkreuz, or “hooked cross”). requested that the vessels of participating countries only In this article, I set aside the Japanese Government’s fly their national flag and the South Korean flag at the legal justifications for displaying the Kyokujitsuki. event. This request was chiefly targeted at Japan because Instead, I analyze a key narrative behind the controversy, South Korea wanted Japanese vessels to refrain from which equates the symbol to the Nazi swastika and flying the Kyokujitsuki, or “Rising Sun Flag,” which is identifies it as a “war crime flag.” the naval ensign of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF). 1 The Nazi Swastika: Symbolizing a Regime and its Ideology Japan refused to comply with the request. The Minister of Defense, Itsunori Onodera, replied, “Our naval vessels The swastika is an ancient Sanskrit symbol that can be must display the ensign under domestic laws, according traced back millennia. It has been prominently featured to the Self-Defense Forces Act. Moreover, the United in religions that originated in India, such as Hinduism Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea mandates that and Buddhism. However, in the late nineteenth and early warships must bear an external mark distinguishing the twentieth century, the swastika became entwined with ship’s nationality, and that’s exactly what the flag in nationalist movements, especially in Germany, where it question is.” Since South Korea was unconvinced by this symbolized the Aryan “master race.”1 In the 1920s, the argument, the succeeding Minister of Defense in Japan, Nazi Party adopted the swastika as its official flag.
    [Show full text]
  • German Judicial System
    German Judicial System The German legal system is a civil law based on a comprehensive compendium of statutes, as compared to the common law systems. Germany uses an inquisitorial system where the judges are actively involved in investigating the facts of the case, as compared to an adversarial system where the role of the judge is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecutor and the defendant. The independence of the judiciary is historically older than democracy in Germany. The organisation of courts is traditionally strong, and almost all federal and state actions are subject to judicial review. Law Germany's source of law is the 1949 Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland) – its Constitution - which sets up the modern judiciary, but the law adjudicated in court comes from the German Codes; thus, German law is primarily codal in nature. The court system adjudicates 1. public law (öffentliches Recht), that is, administrative law (civil-government litigation or litigation between two government bodies) and criminal law; and 2. private law (Privatrecht). German law is mainly based on early Byzantine law, specifically Justinian's Code, and to a lesser extent the Napoleonic Code. The Constitution directly invests supreme judicial power in the Constitutional Court as well as other federal courts and the courts of each Federal State (Länder). The court system is inquisitorial, thus judicial officers personally enter proof and testimony into evidence, with the plaintiffs and their counsel merely assisting, although in some courts evidence can only be tendered by plaintiffs. Criminal and private laws are codified on the national level in the Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) and the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Banning the Face Veil 'As a Symbol'
    C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5001400/WORKINGFOLDER/BREMS/9781107058309C07.3D 184 [184–193] 8.5.2014 9:53PM 7 SYMPTOMATIC SYMBOLISM: BANNING THE FACE VEIL ‘AS A SYMBOL’ Jogchum Vrielink ‘The burqa is a symbol of women’s oppression ... It is worse than the swastika’.1 A Belgian public intellectual made this statement, as part of his arguments in favour of the country’s ‘burqa ban’. Similar reasons for banning the face veil have been advanced in both the French and Belgian parliaments, and elsewhere. Proponents of a ban have claimed, for instance, that face veils (or the practice of wearing them) cannot be regarded as anything other than a symbol that entails a ‘debasement of the concepts of humanity and women’.2 Relatedly, the face veil is often regarded as an emblem or sign that is inextricably associated with misogynist and otherwise anti- democratic regimes such as that of the Taliban in Afghanistan,3 and Part of this chapter is based on a text co-authored with Eva Brems and Saïla Ouald Chaib (Brems et al. 2013). 1 Moral philosopher Etienne Vermeersch quoted in Verschelden (2012). After having been called to account on this statement by the editor of a Jewish magazine, Vermeersch apologized for his statement. He did maintain ‘the burqa is a symbol of the oppression of women, and of a whole range of fundamentalist ideas’. 2 Parliamentary proceedings, Belgian Chamber 2010–11, 28 April 2011: 38. See also Parliamentary report, Belgian Chamber 2010–11, no. 53–219/4: 19. For France, see e.g. French Parliament, Assemblée nationale, Rapport d’information fait au nom de la delegation aux droits des femmes et à l’égalité des chances entre les homes et les femmes sur le projet de loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage: 15; French Parliament, Assemblée nationale, Discussion en séance publique, première séance du mercredi 7 juillet 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Für Führer, Volk Und Vaterland (PDF, 3,9
    Justizbehörde Hamburg (Hg.) Dr. Klaus Bästlein, Helge Grabitz, Wolfgang Scheffler (Red.) »FÜR FÜHRER, VOLK UND VATERLAND ...« Hamburger Justiz im Nationalsozialismus Justizbehörde Hamburg (Hg.) »Für Führer, Volk und Vaterland ...« Hamburger Justiz im Nationalsozialismus Dr. Klaus Bästlein, Helge Grabitz, Wolfgang Scheffler (Red.) Justizbehörde Hamburg (Hg.) »Für Führer, Volk und Vaterland ...« Hamburger Justiz im Nationalsozialismus Dr. Klaus Bästlein, Helge Grabitz, Wolfgang Scheffler (Red.) Nachdruck 2019 1. Auflage 1992 © Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, Justizbehörde Herausgeber: Justizbehörde, Drehbahn 36, 20354 Hamburg Umschlag-, Buchgestaltung und Satz Landesbetrieb Geoinformation und Vermessung Alle Rechte vorbehalten. ISBN: 978-3-00-062119-2 E-Book-ISBN: 978-3-00-062120-8 Inhaltsverzeichnis Dr. Till Steffen Vorwort zum Nachdruck S. I Dr. Klaus Bästlein Einführung zur Neuauflage des Bandes „Hamburger Justiz im Nationalsozialismus“ S. III Lore Maria Peschel-Gutzeit Vorwort S. 7 Wolfgang Scheffler/Helge Grabitz/Klaus Bästlein Einführung S. 9 Helge Grabitz In vorauseilendem Gehorsam ... Die Hamburger Justiz im »Führer-Staat«. Normative Grundlagen und politisch-administrative Tendenzen S. 21 Vorbemerkung S. 21 – Einstieg in den Unrechtsstaat 1933–1939 S. 23 – »Der Kampf um Ehre und Recht« 1939–1942 S. 47 – Hitler als Oberster Gerichtsherr 1942–1945 S. 61 – Nachbemerkung S.72. Klaus Bästlein Vom hanseatischen Richtertum zum nationalsozialistischen Justizverbrechen. Zur Person und Tätigkeit Curt Rothenbergers 1896-1959 S. 74 Prägungen: Elternhaus, Schule, Kriegsdienst, Studium und Referendariat S. 76 – Hamburgischer Rich- ter und Verwaltungsbeamter S. 82 – Justizsenator und Präsident des Hanseatischen Oberlandesgerichts S. 94 – Staatssekretär im Reichsjustizministerium S.118 – Angeklagter im Nürnberger »Juristenprozeß« S. 128 – Schleswig-Holsteinischer Pensionär und Hamburger Repetitor S. 133 – Schlußbetrachtung S. 143. Hans-Konrad Stein-Stegemann In der »Rechtsabteilung« des »Unrechts-Staates«: Richter und Staatsanwälte in Hamburg 1933–1945 S.
    [Show full text]
  • Yes German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, Stgb)
    Reference: yes BGHSt: no Publication: yes German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) Section 129a(1), subparagraph 1, Section 129b(1) On participation in the terrorist organisation ‘Islamic State’ as a member through activities in the area under its control (continuation of Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), order of 22 March 2018 - StB 32/17). BGH, order of 15 May 2019 - AK 22/19 FEDERAL COURT OF JUSTICE ORDER AK 22/19 of 15 May 2019 in the criminal proceedings against.... alias:..... for membership in a foreign terrorist organisation inter alia This document has been anonymised. The translation has been provided by GNS and Eurojust and is not an official translation - 2 - ECLI:DE:BGH:2019:150519BAK22.19.0 After hearing the accused and her defence lawyer, the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Federal Court of Justice, in accordance with Sections 121 and 122 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozeßordnung, StPO), ordered as follows on 15 May 2019: The remand detention must be continued. Any further review of the remand detention required will be carried out by the Federal Court of Justice in three months’ time. Until this time, the review of the remand detention is referred to Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court. Reasons: I. 1. On 17 October 2018, the accused was arrested on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by the investigating judge of the Federal Court of Justice (4 BGs 204/18) on 15 October 2018 and has been in uninterrupted remand detention since this time. 2. The subject of the arrest warrant is the charge
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecuting War Crimes of Outrage Upon Personal Dignity Based On
    Prosecuting war crimes of outrage upon personal dignity based on evidence from open sources – Legal framework and recent developments in the Member States of the European Union The Hague, February 2018 i The Genocide Network The ‘European Network of contact points in respect of persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes’ (the ‘Genocide Network’) was established by the Council of the EU in 2002 to ensure close cooperation between the national authorities in investigating and prosecuting the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Network facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, encourages cooperation between national authorities in different Member States and provides a forum for sharing knowledge and best practice. The Genocide Network is supported in its work through its Secretariat, based at Eurojust in The Hague. This report has been prepared by the Secretariat of the Genocide Network and is meant solely for information. For further information, please contact: Genocide Network Secretariat EUROJUST, Johaan de Wittlaan 9, 2517 JR The Hague P.O. Box 16183, 2500 BD The Hague Phone: +31 70 412 5579 – Fax: +31 70 412 553 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.genocidenetwork.eurojust.europa.eu ii Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Legal Framework: outrages upon personal dignity .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Germany to the Questionnaire from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion Or Belief to States on Antisemitism
    Answer by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Questionnaire from the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief to States on antisemitism The Federal Government is deeply committed to combating antisemitism in all its forms. One of the Federal Governments’ measures recently taken in that regard, has been the creation of the office of the Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Antisemitism in May 2018. The office is based at the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community. The Commissioner’s central tasks are to ensure that measures and activities aimed at fighting antisemitism are better coordinated both at federal and state level, and to provide support to a wide range of civil society actors. The majority of federal states have also appointed their own commissioners, whose role among other things is to reinforce the fight against antisemitism. As far back as 20 September 2017, the Federal Cabinet took note of an expanded version of the working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). This meant the endorsement of the working definition of antisemitism, highlighting the Federal Government’s commitment to fighting antisemitism at national and international level. The Federal Government recommends taking the expanded working definition into account in full. Although the recommendation is not legally binding, the political message conveyed by the recommendation can prompt all users to consider the definition as a shared standard, so that this definition can indirectly influence action. 1. Judaism Within the State: The Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief Question 1a: Is Judaism recognized as a religion in law? If so, what is the definition of Judaism in law? What is its status compared with other religions? The freedom of religion or belief is enshrined in Article 4 of the German Basic Law (constitution).
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, Stgb)
    Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) As promulgated on 13 November 1998 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 945, p. 3322). Translation provided by the Federal Ministry of Justice and reproduced with kind permission.
    [Show full text]