DOCSLIB.ORG

El Principio De Justicia Universal Y Su Aplicación Al Delito De Piratería

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
El Principio De Justicia Universal Y Su Aplicación Al Delito De Piratería UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID FACULTAD DE DERECHO DEPARTAMENTO DE DERECHO PENAL TESIS DOCTORAL El principio de justicia universal y su aplicación al delito de piratería. Crónica de una derogación anunciada MEMORIA PARA OPTAR AL GRADO DE DOCTORA PRESENTADA POR Concepción Aparicio Torres DIRECTORA Carmen Ocaña Díez-Ropero Madrid, 2017 © Concepción Aparicio Torres, 2016 FACULTAD DE DERECHO DEPARTAMENTO DE DERECHO PENAL EL PRINCIPIO DE JUSTICIA UNIVERSAL Y SU APLICACION AL DELITO DE PIRATERIA. CRONICA DE UNA DEROGACION ANUNCIADA Memoria Presentada por Doña Concepción Aparicio Torres Directora Doña Carmen Ocaña Diaz-Ropero Madrid 2015 EL PRINCIPIO DE JUSTICIA UNIVERSAL Y SU APLICACION AL DELITO DE PIRATERIA. CRONICA DE UNA DEROGACION ANUNCIADA Doña Concepción Aparicio Torres Madrid 2015 A Pablo, siempre «Post fata resurgo» Gracias a Concha, Fernando, Isabel, Miguel y Teresa, por su cariño, interés y dedicación. Gracias a Carmen, que me guió y a Manuel que me inspiró. Y a ti Guillermo, por confiar ….. INDICE INDICE ABREVIATURAS ............................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCCION ............................................................................................ 3 ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... 7 CAPITULO 1. EL DERECHO HUMANITARIO COMO PRECUR- SOR DEL PRINCIPIO DE JUSTICIA UNIVERSAL ... 11 1.1. Los principios inspiradores del derecho internacional contemporáneo: soberanía y no intervención como limitativo del derecho de guerra. La preservación de la paz como objetivo primordial ..................................... 11 1.2. El principio de justicia universal inspirador del derecho penal interna- cional: análisis del contexto histórico político creación de los tribuna- les internacionales y la corte penal internacional ................................ 20 1.2.1. Introducción .............................................................................. 20 1.2.2. Análisis del contexto histórico político .................................... 22 1.2.3. La creación de los tribunales internacionales y la corte penal internacional ............................................................................. 25 A) Los Tribunales Internacionales .......................................... 25 A.1. El Tribunal Penal Internacional para Yugoslavia ..... 26 A.2. El Tribunal Penal Internacional para Ruanda ........... 29 A.3. El Tribunal Especial para Sierra Leona .................... 31 A.4. Salas Especiales establecidas en los Tribunales de Camboya .................................................................. 32 A.5. El Tribunal Especial Iraquí ....................................... 33 A.6. El Tribunal Especial de la República Libanesa ........ 34 A.7. ¿Desintegración del Derecho Internacional? ........... 36 EL PRINCIPIO DE JUSTICIA UNIVERSAL Y SU APLICACION AL DELITO DE PIRATERIA. CRONICA DE UNA DEROGACION ANUNCIADA B) La Corte Penal Internacional ............................................. 38 B.1. Orígenes ................................................................... 38 B.2) Naturaleza jurídica ................................................... 40 B.3. Estructura y Composición ........................................ 42 B.4. Jurisdicción .............................................................. 43 1.3. Los derechos humanos como valores supranacionales: la dignidad hu- mana como bien jurídico protegido en los delitos internacionales ...... 47 1.3.1. Introducción .............................................................................. 47 1.3.2. La codificación de los derechos humanos. La declaración uni- versal de derechos humanos y los pactos de 1966 .................... 51 1.3.3. La dignidad humana como bien jurídico protegido ulterior ........ 54 1.3.4. El delito internacional y el principio de responsabilidad penal individual .................................................................................. 58 A) Introducción ....................................................................... 58 B) Concepto y clasificación de delito internacional. Principa- les tipos delictivos ............................................................. 60 C) La responsabilidad penal individual .................................. 77 1.4. Principales manifestaciones del principio de justicia universal en el derecho comparado .............................................................................. 78 1.4.1. Excepciones al principio de territorialidad ............................... 78 1.4.2. Principales regulaciones ........................................................... 92 CAPITULO 2. EL PRINCIPIO DE JUSTICIA UNIVERSAL EN EL ORDENAMIENTO JURIDICO ESPAÑOL. ORIGEN Y EVOLUCION NORMATIVA. PRINCIPALES RE- FORMAS ............................................................................... 135 2.1. Concepto de justicia universal. El principio de legalidad ................... 135 INDICE 2.2. La regulación del principio de justicia universal en la Ley Orgánica 6/1985 de 1 de julio del poder judicial ................................................ 144 2.2.1. Delimitación normativa del principio de justicia universal ...... 144 2.2.2. Problemas interpretativos ......................................................... 146 A) Casos Argentina y Chile .................................................... 146 B) Caso Guatemala ................................................................. 151 C) Las sentencias del Tribunal Constitucional de 26 de sep- tiembre de 2005 y la 227/2007 .......................................... 153 C.1. Sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional de 26 de sep- tiembre de 2005 ........................................................ 153 C.2. La sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional 227/2007. (Caso Tibet) .............................................................. 156 D) Otros sumarios judicializados ante la Audiencia Nacional 159 2.3. La reforma de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial 6/1985 de 1 de julio por ley 1//2009 de 3 de noviembre complementaria de la ley de refor- ma de la legislación procesal para la implantación de la nueva oficina judicial, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 6/1985, de 1 de julio, del Poder Judicial ................................................................................. 165 2.3.1. Antecedentes de la reforma ...................................................... 165 2.3.2. Análisis de la reforma ............................................................... 168 2.3.3. Consecuencias de la reforma .................................................... 174 2.4. La Ley Orgánica 1/2014, de 13 de marzo de modificación de la Ley Orgánica 6/1985 de 1 de julio del Poder Judicial relativa a la justicia universal ............................................................................................... 181 2.4.1. Antecedentes ............................................................................. 181 2.4.2. Análisis de la reforma ............................................................... 184 2.4.3. Consecuencias de la reforma .................................................... 196 EL PRINCIPIO DE JUSTICIA UNIVERSAL Y SU APLICACION AL DELITO DE PIRATERIA. CRONICA DE UNA DEROGACION ANUNCIADA 2.4.4. Las sentencias del Tribunal Supremo n.º 592 /2014 y 1682/2014 200 A) Recurso casación n.º 592/2014 ........................................... 200 B) Recurso de casación 1682/2014 ......................................... 204 CAPITULO 3. EL DELITO DE PIRATERIA EN ALTA MAR ............... 213 3.1. Concepto y delimitación normativa del delito de piratería .................. 213 3.1.1. Referencias históricas y normativa internacional .......................... 213 3.1.2. Delimitación del concepto de piratería y actos de piratería ...... 219 3.1.3. Distinción entre actos de piratería marítima y actos de piratería por analogía .............................................................................. 223 3.2 Regulación del delito de piratería en el derecho español .................... 232 3.2.1 análisis del tipo penal ................................................................ 243 A) Los sujetos y objeto del delito ........................................... 243 B) La acción típica ................................................................... 244 C) Elemento subjetivo del tipo ............................................... 245 3.3. Criterios delimitadores de la competencia ........................................... 247 3.3.1. Caso Alakrana y Nepheli .......................................................... 247 3.3.2. La operación Atalanta ............................................................... 251 3.3.3. La competencia de los tribunales españoles después de las re- formas de la Ley Orgánica del poder judicial de 1 de julio de 1985 .......................................................................................... 256 3.4. Abordaje de embarcaciones en alta mar .............................................. 258 3.4.1. Concepto de buque como domicilio a efectos de registro en los casos de delito flagrante ............................................................ 258 3.4.2. Marco legal de actuación. Requisitos formales ........................ 273 INDICE 3.4.3. Especial referencia al abordaje de buques en aguas internacio- nales por el delito de trafico de estupefacientes tras la reforma de la LOPJ de 1 de julio de 1985 por la Ley de 1/ 2009 de 3 de noviembre y 1/2014 de 13 de marzo ........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Juzgado Central De Instruccion Nº
    [Non-official translation of a court order issued by the judge Fernando Andreu on 29 January 2009] CENTRAL MAGISTRATES’ COURT NO. FOUR AUDIENCIA NACIONAL (SPANISH NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE) MADRID Preliminary Report no.: 157/2.008-G.A. COURT ORDER Madrid, on the twenty-ninth of January two thousand and nine. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. FIRST.- By the representation of Mr. RAED MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MATTAR, Mr. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MATTAR, Mr. RAMI MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MATTAR, Mr. KHALIL KHADER MOHAMMED AL SEADI, Mr. MAHMOUD SOBHI MOHAMMED EL HOUWEIT and Mr. MAHASSEL ALI HASAN AL SAHWWA, an action was filed against Mr. DAN HALUTZ, Commander of the Israeli Air Forces at the time the facts took place Mr. BENJAMIN BEN-ELIEZER, Israeli Defence Minister at the time the denounced facts took place, Mr. DORON ALMOG, Southern Command GOC of the Israel Defence Forces, Mr. GIORA EILAND, Head of the Israeli National Security Council and National Security Advisor, Mr. MICHAEL HERZOG, Military Secretary to the Israel Defence Ministry Mr. MOSHE YA´ALON, Chief of Staff of the Israel Defence Forces, and Mr. ABRAHAM DICHTER, General Director of the General Security Service of Israel, and, that, by virtue of the following facts: “On 22 July 2002, between 23.30 and 24.00 hours, an Israeli F16 fighter plane dropped a one-ton bomb on the Al Daraj neighbourhood of the City of Gaza. The main objective of such attack was the house of Salah Shehadeh, who was suspected of being one of the Hamas commanders, due to which the objective of the mission was killing him.
    [Show full text]
  • Context of the Harvard Sussex Draft Convention a Documented Chronology of Events During 1996 Through 2010
    Context of the Harvard Sussex Draft Convention A Documented Chronology of Events during 1996 through 2010 Nicholas Dragffy HSP Associate 22 March 2011 Published without footnotes in The CBW Conventions Bulletin special issue of February 2011 1 Introduction The Harvard Sussex Draft Convention would make it a crime under international law for any person, regardless of official position, to develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, transfer, or use biological or chemical weapons; to assist, encourage, induce, order, or direct anyone to engage in any such activities; or to threaten or engage in preparations to use such weapons. To do so, the Draft Convention would provide national courts with extensive jurisdiction – including, to a limited extent, universal jurisdiction – over such crimes and remove the defence of state immunity in relation thereto. This chronology sets out developments relevant to the international criminalization of CBW since the Draft Convention was conceived in 1996. The focus is on state behaviour in regard to applicable and developing legal concepts. The chronology also charts the emergence of the Draft Convention into civil society With regard to universal jurisdiction and state immunity, the chronology focuses primarily on developments in Belgium, France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. Each of these states has passed legislation conferring universal jurisdiction on its courts, and in each state both victims and non-governmental organizations have filed lawsuits on universal jurisdiction grounds. Each
    [Show full text]
  • Combating Impunity for International Crimes in Spain: from the Prosecution of Pinochet to the Indictment of Garzón
    Combating impunity for international crimes in Spain: from the prosecution of Pinochet to the indictment of Garzón Claudia Jiménez Cortés Institut Català Internacional per la Pau Barcelona, May 2011 01-80 WP 2011-1 ING.indd 1 27/10/2011 12:36:30 Institut Català Internacional per la Pau Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes 658, baixos · 08010 Barcelona T. +34 93 554 42 70 | F. +34 93 554 42 80 [email protected] | http://www.icip.cat Editors Javier Alcalde and Rafael Grasa Editorial Board Pablo Aguiar, Alfons Barceló, Catherine Charrett, Gemma Collantes-Celador, Caterina Garcia, Abel Escribà, Vicenç Fisas, Tica Font, Antoni Pigrau, Xavier Pons, Alejandro Pozo, Mònica Sabata, Jaume Saura, Antoni Segura and Josep Maria Terricabras Graphic Design Fundació Tam-Tam Translation Charles Southgate Typesseting and printing Ātona, S.L. / gama, sl ISSN 2013-5793 (online edition) 2013-5785 (paper edition) DL B-38.039-2009 01-80 WP 2011-1 ING.indd 2 27/10/2011 12:36:30 T h e A u T h o r Claudia Jimenez is a Professor of Public International Law at the Au- tonomous University of Barcelona. Her main research topics deal with International Criminal Law and Human Rights, an area where she has an LLM from the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex (1990). She has participated as an observer at the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court (2010) and has supervised the doctoral thesis research of Joan Sanchez (2008) on “The observance of the principle of international legality in the progressive development of crimes against humanity”.
    [Show full text]
  • Palestinian Manipulation of the International Community
    PALESTINIAN MANIPULATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY Ambassador Alan Baker (ed.) Palestinian Manipulation of the International Community Edited by Amb. Alan Baker ISBN: 978-965-218-117-6 © 2014 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs 13 Tel Hai Street, Jerusalem, Israel Tel. 972-2-561-9281 Fax. 972-2-561-9112 Contents Overview: Palestinian Manipulation of the International Community Amb. Alan Baker................................................................................................. 5 Manipulating International Law as Part of Anti-Israel “Lawfare” Prof. Robbie Sabel...............................................................................................13 Universal Jurisdiction: Learning the Costs of Political Manipulation the Hard Way Dr. Rephael Ben-Ari...........................................................................................23 The Demonization of Israel at the United Nations in Europe Mr. Hillel Neuer.................................................................................................47 The Role of NGOs in the Palestinian Political War Against Israel Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg...................................................................................65 Politicizing the International Criminal Court Prof. Eugene Kontorovich....................................................................................79 Degrading International Institutions: The United Nations Goldstone Report Amb. Dore Gold .................................................................................................91
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Branches and the Transna- Tional Prosecution of International Crimes
    105 AMJIL 1 Page 1 105 Am. J. Int'l L. 1 American Journal of International Law January, 2011 *1 THE DIPLOMACY OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: THE POLITICAL BRANCHES AND THE TRANSNA- TIONAL PROSECUTION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMES Máximo Langer [FNa1] Copyright © 2011 by The American Society of International Law; Máximo Langer Under universal jurisdiction, any state in the world may prosecute and try the core international crimes--crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, and war crimes--without any territorial, personal, or national-interest link to the crime in question when it was committed. [FN1] The jurisdictional claim is predicated on the atrocious nature of the crime and legally based on treaties or customary international law. Unlike the regime of international criminal tribunals created by the United Nations Security Council and the enforcement regime of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the regime of universal jurisdiction is completely decentralized. Defenders of universal jurisdiction claim that it is a crucial tool for bringing justice to victims, deterring state or quasi-state officials from committing international crimes, and establishing a minimum international rule of law by sub- stantially closing the “impunity gap” for international crimes. [FN2] Critics argue that universal jurisdiction disrupts in- ternational relations, provokes judicial chaos, and interferes with political solutions to mass atrocities. [FN3] *2 One of the issues missing from this debate is the role of the political branches, specifically the executive
    [Show full text]
  • Palestine Chronology 2009
    PALESTINE CHRONOLOGY 2009 JANUARY Jan. 2: Protests against Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza Strip are taking place after Friday prayers throughout the Arab and Islamic world. Jan. 3: Israeli aircraft bombard Gaza and Israeli ground forces enter the Strip to “destroy the Hamas terror infrastructure in the area of operations," according to military spokesperson Maj. Avital Leibovitch. - The OIC FM meeting in Jeddah harshly condemns Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. Jan. 6: Israel shells UNRWA school, killing at least 42 Palestinians. - Egypt and France put forward ceasefire initiative. Jan. 8: UNSC Res. 1860 calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire. Jan. 12: The UN Human Rights Council adopts a resolution strongly condemning Israel’s ongoing military operation in Gaza. Jan. 15: Israeli forces shell the UNRWA HQ in Gaza, destroying tons of food and humanitarian supplies. - Hamas Interior Minister Said Siyam is killed in an Israeli air strike on his brother's home near Gaza City. Jan. 17: Israel declares a unilateral ceasefire in its 22-day offensive in the Gaza Strip. - The PCBS says Israel’s military assault in Gaza caused damage to the Palestinian infrastructure totaling some $476 million. Jan. 18: Hamas announces immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and gives Israel a week to pull its troops out. - European and Arab leaders meet in Sharm Esh-Sheikh to discuss Gaza humanitarian aid and reconstruction. Jan. 19: According to OCHA, 1,314 Palestinians were killed during the Gaza War, 412 of them children and 110 women. Jan. 26: The Arab League files a request for a UN investigation into possible Israeli war crimes in Gaza.
    [Show full text]
  • The Principle and Practice of Universal Jurisdiction: PCHR’S Work in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
    THE PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: PCHR’s Work in the occupied Palestinian territory January 2010 Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) The Principle and Practice of Universal Jurisdiction: PCHR’s Work in the occupied Palestinian territory T A B L E O F C ON T EN T S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 1. INTRODUCTION 11 1.1. Applicable legal framework 14 2. TRADITIONAL JURISDICTION AND THE EVOLUTION OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION 15 2.1. Jurisdictional bases 15 2.2. The evolution of universal jurisdiction 16 2.3. The exercise of universal jurisdiction 18 2.4. Universal jurisdiction in the modern era 18 2.4.1. Treaty based universal jurisdiction obligations 18 2.4.2. Jurisprudence relating to universal jurisdiction in the modern era 20 2.4.3. Individual criminal responsibility and command responsibility 24 2.4.4. Immunity 26 2.4.5. Summary 27 3 3. THE MOTIVATIONS UNDERLYING INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE PURSUIT OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION 29 3.1. Impunity 29 3.2. Deterrence 31 4. AN EXAMINATION OF SELECT INTERNATIONAL CRIMES 33 4.1. The fundamental principles of IHL 33 4.1.1. The principle of distinction 33 4.1.2. The direct targeting civilians or civilian objects 37 4.1.3 Wilful killing 39 4.1.4. Extensive destruction of property 40 4.1.5. Indiscriminate attacks 42 4.2. The prohibition of torture 46 4.2.1. The prohibition of torture in international law 46 4.2.2. The definition of torture 47 4.2.3. The elements of the crime of torture 49 4.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Ius in Bello Norms in Just War Theory the Case of the War in Gaza in 2009
    human rights & human welfare a forum for works in progress working paper no. 51 Intent: Ius In Bello Norms in Just War Theory The Case of the War in Gaza in 2009 by Howard Adelman Professor Emeritus, York University [email protected] Posted on 15 February 2009 http://www.du.edu/gsis/hrhw/working/2009/51-adelman-2009.pdf © Howard Adelman. All rights reserved. This paper may be freely circulated in electronic or hard copy provided it is not modified in any way, the rights of the author not infringed, and the paper is not quoted or cited without express permission of the author. The editors cannot guarantee a stable URL for any paper posted here, nor will they be responsible for notifying others if the URL is changed or the paper is taken off the site. Electronic copies of this paper may not be posted on any other website without express permission of the author. The posting of this paper on the hrhw working papers website does not constitute any position of opinion or judgment about the contents, arguments or claims made in the paper by the editors. For more information about the hrhw working papers series or website, please visit the site online at http://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/working Intent: ius in bello Adelman Intent: Ius In Bello Norms in Just War Theory The Case of the War in Gaza in 2009 by Howard Adelman On the panel “Utility in Ethics: Past Precedents and Future Reforms re: ius in bello ” International Studies Association Theme of “Exploring the Past, Anticipating the Future” 15 February 2009 New York City [email protected] 1 February 2009 2 Intent: ius in bello Adelman I Introduction “I am sure they (the IDF soldiers) committed this crime.”1 I read these words just after I had finished the first draft of this paper on 1 February 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Palestinian Authority, Funded by Spain (AECID And/Or Regions) (2009-2011) Table A-1
    Spanish Government Funding for NGOs: 2009-2011 Assessing Transparency, Accountability, & Impact Soeren Kern, Author May 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Founder Jeff Halper advocates for a one- state formula that would eliminate Jewish Spanish government funding, in different forms, self-determination rights. ICAHD rhetoric is allocated to a number of Palestinian, Israeli, includes accusations of Israeli “apartheid,” and Spanish NGOs that are among the leaders in “bloody and sadistic actions,” and “atrocities.” ideological campaigns to delegitimize Israel via Popular Struggle Coordination Committee BDS, lawfare, and other forms of demonization. (PSCC): €107,700 (2011). PSCC says Between 2009 and 2011, approximately €15 it “aims at strengthening international million in Spanish government funds have been support networks and their direct ties transferred to political advocacy NGOs active to the struggle for liberty in Palestine.” in promoting this agenda through the different According to its mission statement, PSCC funding frameworks (€5 million to Israeli and promotes a “unique form of community 2 Palestinian NGOs, and €10 million to Spanish based organizing and resistance in the NGOs.). Grantees include some of the most tradition of the first Palestinian Intifada…. E radical groups operating in Israel and the These diverse, non-partisan committees lead Palestinian authority: community resistance to Israeli occupation PAG in various forms, such as marches, strikes, Applied Research Institute Jerusalem: demonstrations, direct actions and legal
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Jurisdiction Developments: January 2006- May 2009
    Universal Jurisdiction Developments: January 2006- May 2009 This informal update documents universal jurisdiction developments in 27 countries worldwide from January 2006 to 27 May 2009. It is divided alphabetically into countries, with developments in each country listed either in a chronological order or, where applicable, divided into cases from a certain region or relating to a specific conflict. The information is provided mainly in English and in some cases in French, with links to relevant articles, decisions or press statements. Developments include universal jurisdiction and related cases, relevant legislative reforms, the establishment of specialized war crimes units and relevant articles/ books published over the past three years. All developments are limited to serious international crimes, i.e. genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and enforced disappearances. The update is exclusively based on information publicly available. Victims and/ or NGOs initiated the majority of cases referred to in the update, as ‘parties civiles’ (private parties) where this is provided for in national law, as in France or Spain , or by filing complaints with the relevant national authority. Accordingly, approximately 50 complaints have been filed by third parties, whereas approximately 25 cases have been opened by state authorities, including cases initiated by way of an extradition request. However, national authorities do not always make information on the opening of cases public and therefore the actual number of cases initiated by national authorities is likely to be higher. Success in terms of prosecutions and eventual conviction over the past three years has been mixed, with 5 convictions on the basis of universal jurisdiction of perpetrators of grave violations of international humanitarian law (Belgium ), of torture ( Netherlands and France ), war crimes (Norway ) and genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes ( Canada ).
    [Show full text]
  • LA Jurisdicción Universal Y Su Aplicación En España
    RxDH COL·LECCIÓ RECERCA PER dreTS HUMANS 03 LA JURISDICCIÓN UNIVERSAL Y SU APLICACIÓN EN ESPAÑA: LA PERSECUCIÓN DEL GENOCIDIO, LOS CRÍMENES DE GUERRA Y LOS CRÍMENES CONTRA LA HUMANIDAD POR LOS TRIBUNALES NACIONALES ANTONI PIGRAU SOLÉ PRÓLOGO DE JOSÉ MARÍA MENA RxDH COL·LECCIÓ RECERCA PER dreTS HUMANS Dades Biblioteca de Catalunya - CIP Esta obra está sujeta a licencia Creative Commons Pigrau Solé, Antoni de Reconocimiento – No comercial – Sin obra La Jurisdicción universal y su aplicación en España: derivada 2.5. España la persecución del genocidio, los crímenes de guerra Consúltese la licencia en http://creativecommons. y los crímenes contra la humanidad por los tribunales org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/es/deed.es_CL nacionales. – (RxDH : col·lecció recerca per drets humans; 3) ISBN 9788439381709 I. Catalunya. Oficina de Promoció de la Pau i dels Drets Humans II. Títol III. Col·lecció: RxDH. Castellà; 3 RxDH COL·LECCIÓ RECERCA PER DRETS HUMANS 1. Jurisdicció penal 2. Delictes internacionals 3. Processos – Genocidi – Espanya 4. Processos – El estudio está disponible en formato electrónico en Crims de guerra – Espanya 5. Processos – el web de la Oficina de Promoción de la Paz y de Crims contra la humanitat – Espanya los Derechos Humanos. Se puede copiar, distribuir, 343:341(460) comunicar públicamente, traducir y modificar esta obra siempre y cuando no se realice un uso comercial Colección “Recerca x Drets Humans”, 3 y se reconozca su autoría con la cita siguiente: Barcelona, diciembre de 2009 © Autoria PIGRAU , A. La Jurisdicción Universal y su aplicación Antoni Pigrau en España: la persecución del genocidio, los crímenes de guerra y los crímenes contra la © Edición humanidad por los tribunales nacionales.
    [Show full text]
  • International Legal Updates Carlin Moore American University Washington College of Law
    Human Rights Brief Volume 16 | Issue 2 Article 6 2009 International Legal Updates Carlin Moore American University Washington College of Law Bryan Bach American University Washington College of Law Megan Chapman American University Washington College of Law Soumya Venkatesh American University Washington College of Law Kate Kovarovic American University Washington College of Law See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Moore, Carlin, Bryan Bach, Megan Chapman, Soumya Venkatesh, Kate Kovarovic, Angad Singh, and Juvaria Khan. "International Legal Updates." Human Rights Brief 16, no. 2 (2009): 29-39. This Column is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human Rights Brief by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Carlin Moore, Bryan Bach, Megan Chapman, Soumya Venkatesh, Kate Kovarovic, Angad Singh, and Juvaria Khan This column is available in Human Rights Brief: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/vol16/iss2/6 Moore et al.: International Legal Updates INTERNATIONAL LEGAL UPDATES UNITED STATES Commission received over 200 reports of became significantly less than the sala- human rights violations that occurred in a ries of the male managers with equal or U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation: large-scale police operation in the Mexican less experience. “Ledbetter was the only The Mérida Initiative town of San Salvador Atenco in 2006.
    [Show full text]