Summary
Samenvatting Hoorcollege engels + nederlandse vertaling deel II
- Course
- Institution
Hoorcollege uitgewerkt in het Engels met daarbij de Nederlandse vertaling indien nodig en helpt het bij het beter begrijpen van de stof
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
marjolein1808
Reviews received
Content preview
Part IIHoorcollege 4 25-10-2017
Kontaksperre decision
Legal positivism versus value Jurisprudence?
In de Jaren 70 in West Duitsland aanslagen en ontvoeringen door de Rote Armee
Fraktion (RAF), verschillende leden belanden in de gevangenis. Tweede generatie
Raf-leden probeerden hen vrij te krijgen door dhr Schleder te ontvoeren, om zo de
overheid onder druk te zetten. Kontaksperre-Gesetz: wet die het voor de minister van
justitie mogelijk maakt om aan gedetineerden die wegens terreurdaden zijn
veroordeeld of daarvan worden verdacht, het contact met de buitenwereld te
verbieden. Hier kwam verzet tegen. Gevangen zeiden schending grondrechten,
advocaten dat er schending was van grondwettelijk recht op vrije uitoefening beroep.
De fundamentele mensenrechten worden opgeschort omwille de strijd tegen het
terrorisme.
World War II: Abuse of law
‘corruption’ of democracy (law = will of the ‘Fuehrer’)
Perceived danger of legal positivism (cf. Radbuch: a law is a law)
Post-War german constitution (‘Grundgesetz’) with a strong constitutional court
Constitution as an ‘objective value order’ (cf. Radbuch: puroosiveness &
values)
Constitutional protection of human rights trough judicial review of statutes:
supervision
If a terrorist organsation poses an imminent danger to the life, the physical integrity or
the freedom of a person the kontaktsperre Gesetz authorizes the competent minister
to issue ordinances preventing prisoner’s convicts of terrorism:
To communicate with each other and with the outside world.
To communicate with their defense council (including presence of lawyers at
interrogations and investigative actions)
Dus wanneer de vrijheid van een persoon in acuut gevaar is, mag het contact met de
buitenwereld worden verbroken.
Justification: it can be assumed that Dr. Schleyer is still alive. Given the
extraordinarty situation brought about by the death threat to Dr Schleyer and the
request of the abductors, the State’s obligation to protect the life of Dr Schleyer can
only be fulfilled through a incommunicado detention. Staat is verplicht het leven van
Schleyer te beschermen, hiervoor is incommunicado detentie noodzakelijk
The human rights of the prisoner’s conflict with the human rights of the abducted
Schleyer.
No violation of the human rights of the prisoners: Interference with human rights
of the prisoners is jusftified because it is a necessary and proportionate measure to:
Protect the right to life of Schleyer.
Protect other constitutional goods (security of the State and its population)
Unequal treatment between terrorists and other prisoners is justified.
In this decision, the German Constitution is an objective value order:
The constitution is the moraal ID of the German people.
, Human rights embody values that express the goals and aspirations of the
German people.
If constitutionally protected human rights conflict with each other (negative rights
prisoners, positive richts of Schlayer), they must be weighted.
Value jurisprudence: balancing human rights as values. All human rights embody
values that are equal. If human rights conflict with each other in concrete cases, they
must be weighted to establish an equilibrium. Other constitutionally protected legal
goods can also be considered in the weighting. Wegen geschiedt op grond van
constitutie als waardenordening. Hier heeft men besloten dat de menselijke
waardigheid en het recht op leven de hoogste waarden zijn. Er is welliswaar sprake
van een inbreuk op die negatieve rechten van de gevangenen, maar er is GEEN
sprake van een schending van die rechten. Dit is dus gerechtvaardigd om het recht
van Schleyer te beschermen.
Conflicts between human rights must be resolved on the basis of the ‘constitutional
value order’ (Wertordnung) and with reference to the unity of the constitution’s
fundament
Negatieve rechten RAF leden= rechten die bescherming bieden tegen inmenging
door de staat. Leggen de staat een verplichting op om iets NIET te doen
Positivist critique of value jurisprudence
Constitution as ‘objective’ pre-given order of values:
‘Moralisation’ of the law and imposition of a pre-determined (German) ‘way of
life’ on the people. Moralisering van het recht die een voorgegegeven manier
van leven oplegt aan het volk die geprefereerd wordt boven andere mogelijke
manieren van leven. Recht en moral dus niet gescheiden!
Disempowerment of parliament and the people
(Democracy)
Human rights understood in term of conflicting values:
‘devaluation’ of human rights: trade-offs between conflicting rights.
Wanneer mensenrechten waarden zijn en tegen elkaar worden
afgewegen, kun je dus zeggen dat sommige waarden belangrijker zijn
rechtsonzekerheid
judges as law-makers: they no longer apply the law, but make the law.
(Seperation of powers)
Belmarsh judgement Kontaksperre Decision
Negative rights of the terrorist suspects Negative rights of the prisoners
Positive rights of the UK population to Positive rights of Schleyer
be protected against terrorist threats
UK House of Lords: deference, German constitutional court: balancing
equiality, full scrutiny human rights as values, full, scrutiny
Positivist: courts take ‘political’ decisions Positivist: Court ‘balance’ human rights
against each other
Back to justice Keen
Keen vs Foster
Judges should respect the separation of powers / the separation of law and
morality
, Lord Bingham in Belmarsh: Judges should not interfere with ‘pre-eminently political’
decisions
Critics of value jurisprudence: (constitutional) judges should not approach
constitutionally protected human rights in terms of conflicts between values
Het is niet aan de rechter, maar aan de wetgever om over de morele identiteit van
het volk zorg te dragen.
Keen / Hart / Habermas
From legal positivism to the proceduralisation of positive law:
Justice Keen’s problem: how to provent the invasion of judicial decision-making by
politics and morality?
1. What is law?
2. How should it be interpretated
Seperation of law as it is from law as it ought to be
Interpretation of law according to its letter and plain meaning
Hart and britisch legal positivism
Identification of valid law according to the rule of recognition
Interpretation of law according to its social (not necessarily moral!) purpose
Habermas and proceduralisation of law
Procedural understanding of law that combines positive validity (legality) with
moral validity (legitimacy)
Norm jurisprudence
Herbert Hart and britisch Legal Positivism
Grudge Informer Cases: was the Nazi law as interpreted by Nazi Courts law?
Punishment of informers and judges post-war?
Radbruch: formula of legal injustice:
Appeal to morality to invalidate Nazi law.
Judges should disregard positive law is there is an intolerable conflict with
justice.
Hart: seperation of law and morality:
Nazi law, while immoral, was legally valid.
Duty of judges to faithfully apply and enforce the positive law.
Post-war retroactive criminal legislation to punish the grude informers and
judges.
Hart’s critique of Radbruch (natual law): Radbruch confuses the distinction
between law and morality:
the informers and judges acted in breach of morality and not law.
By denying legal status to immoral law, Radbruchs damages the integrity of both law
and morality:
Danger that law and its authority may be dissolved in man’s conceptions of
what law ought to be. (we should stick to the rules)
Danger that existing law may supplant morality as a final test of conduct as so
escape criticism. (morality is outside the law and has therefore a critical
function)
Seperation of law & morality and the problem of legal validity
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller marjolein1808. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.96. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
52510 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now