The Fight Against Impunity In Eu Law

The fight against impunity is an increasingly central concept in EU law-making and adjudication. What is the meaning and the scope of impunity as a legal concept in the EU legal order? How does the fight against impunity influence policy and adjudication? This timely first piece of comprehensive research aims to to address these largely unexplored questions, which involve structural institutional and substantive dilemmas underpinning the most recent developments of the European integration process. In recent years, the fight against impunity has become a pressing concern for the European institutions. It has shaped several EU policies and has led to a recurring argument in the case law of the Court of Justice. The book sheds light on this elusive notion, providing a much needed conceptual appraisal. The first section examines the scope of the notion of impunity, and its role in the EU decision-making process and in the development of EU competences. Subsequent sections discuss the implications of impunity - and of the fight against it - in a variety of complementary domains, namely the allocation of criminal jurisdiction, mutual recognition instruments, the rise of new surveillance technologies and the external dimension of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. This book is an original and timely contribution to scholarship, which is of interest to academics, researchers and policy-makers alike.

On 1 July 2022, the International Criminal Court will celebrate its 20th anniversary. Twenty years ago, the Rome Statute reaffirmed that it is the duty of every state to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for core international crimes - the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The European network of contact points in respect of persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (the Genocide Network), hosted by the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), was created precisely to help Member States fulfil this duty, thus supporting the principle of complementarity. In recent years, several conflicts and situations of massive human rights violations - including in Belarus, Iraq, Libya and Syria, to name a few - have attracted attention from the public and the international community, in part because of the violence of the conflicts, and in part owing to their geographical proximity to the EU and direct impact on refugee flows. As a result, victims, civil society and the public have actively scrutinised Member States' efforts to fight against impunity. At the time of publication of this report, the EU and its Member States are facing a crisis unparalleled since the entry into force of the Rome Statute. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and alleged core international crimes committed in that context have sparked many simultaneous initiatives to promote accountability, including the opening of investigations in 11 Member States. The situation will undoubtedly test the EU and its Member States' readiness to tackle core international crimes committed on a large scale. The EU will also need to take a leading role in coordinating the actions of numerous stakeholders.

This volume presents and critiques the distorted effects of the international human rights movement's focus on the fight against impunity.

Según los términos del Artículo 1 Común a los cuatro Convenios de Ginebra de 1949, los Estados partes quedan sujetos a una obligación de respetar y de hacer respetar el Derecho Internacional Humanitario (DIH). En este libro se analiza si la Unión Europea (UE) y dos de sus Estados Miembros –Francia y España– ejecutan su obligación de hacer respetar el DIH. Concretamente, se trata de analizar cómo dos corpus jurídicos originalmente indiferentes el uno del otro, el DIH y el Derecho de la Unión, llegaron a converger y entrelazarse. Se sostiene que la aplicación del DIH ha de ser analizada desde una perspectiva multinivel. Mientras el DIH depende de los Estados para asegurar su efectividad, el proceso de integración europea obliga a añadir el nivel supranacional: la UE. Esta configuración genera un círculo virtuoso de cumplimiento del DIH según el cual la autoridad jurídica del Artículo 1 Común queda reforzada, lo cual conlleva una mejor implementación del DIH. Asimismo, la UE proyecta sus valores en la escena internacional y se ve reforzada en su calidad de líder en materia de derechos humanos. Además, la UE constituye un nivel adicional tanto de garantía como de actuación para sus Estados Miembros, que la usan para dar efecto a sus obligaciones derivadas del DIH. Se sostiene pues, que la UE se ha establecido como un actor esencial del DIH en la escena internacional. La UE –un autoproclamado líder en materia de derechos humanos– y sus Estados Miembros no solamente quedan vinculados por el Artículo 1 Común, sino que han aceptado de ejecutar su mandato de manera efectiva en la escena internacional.

The EU now possesses a clear legal basis for taking action on criminal law matters and steering the policy and practice of Member States in relation to crime and criminal law. However, for what is now an important area of law, there remains a striking absence or uncertainty regarding its theoretical basis, its legitimacy and its conceptual vocabulary. This book offers a review of the significance of EU criminal law and crime policy as a rapidly emerging phenomenon in European law and governance. Bringing together an international set of contributors, the book questions the nature, role and objectives of such 'criminal law', its relationship with other areas of EU policy and law, and the established rules of criminal law and criminal justice at the Member State level. Taking up such subjects as the application of criminal law across national boundaries and in the broader European context, effective enforcement, and the working out of a new European policy, the book helps to structure an increasingly significant subject in law which is still finding its direction. The book will be of great use and interest to researchers and students of EU law, criminal justice, and criminology.

. . . this book fills a significant gap in the English-language literature and must be read by all who seek to understand why profound reflection is needed on the theoretical underpinnings of EU criminal justice. Samuli Miettinen, Journal of Common Market Studies The book contains a number of interesting arguments and comments on the development of EU criminal law. . . the authors efforts to provide a generalist book in this ever-growing, increasingly important and still under-researched field of EU law must be welcomed. Valsamis Mitsilegas, The Edinburgh Law Review Today, EU criminal law and justice constitutes a significant body of law potentially affecting most aspects of criminal justice. This book provides a comprehensive, accessible yet analytically challenging account of the institutional and legal developments in this field to date. It also includes full consideration of the prospective changes to EU criminal law contained in the recent Lisbon Treaty . While, broadly speaking, the authors welcome the objectives of EU criminal law, they call for a profound rethinking of how the good of criminal justice however defined is to be delivered to those living in the EU. At present, despite sometimes commendable initiatives from the institutions responsible, the actual framing and implementation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) suffers from a failure to properly consider the theoretical implications of providing the good of criminal justice at the EU level. Written shortly before the recent entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, EU Criminal Law and Justice comprises a full overview of the key legal developments and debates and includes a user-friendly guide to the institutional changes contained in the Treaty. This timely book will be of interest to both undergraduate and postgraduate students, as well as to legal practitioners and policy makers at national and EU levels.

European Union Member States have committed themselves, individually and collectively, to the fight against impunity for serious international crimes. The record is, however, ambiguous: support for the current investigations of the International Criminal Court is uneven and Member States are reluctant to exercise universal jurisdiction and develop binding common policies under the 'third pillar'. This article assesses the extent of the discrepancy between stated normative preferences and flexible practices. It argues that this discrepancy results from the clash of accountability with other prevailing norms and interests, on the one hand, and from the lack of effective drivers pushing Member States towards increased commitment to combat impunity through a set of social mechanisms such as rhetorical action and socialization, on the other.