As shown by the trials of Slobodan Milosevic, Charles Taylor and Saddam Hussein, the large-scale and systematic commission of international crimes is usually planned and set in motion by senior political and military leaders. Nevertheless, the application of traditional forms of criminal liability leads to the conclusion that they are mere accessories to such crimes. This does not reflect their central role and often results in a punishment which is inappropriately low in view of the impact of their actions and omissions. For these reasons, international criminal law has placed special emphasis on the development of concepts, such as control of the crime and joint criminal enterprise (also known as the common purpose doctrine), which aim at reflecting better the central role played by senior political and military leaders in campaigns of large scale and systematic commission of international crimes. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the case law of the ICTY and the ICTR have, in recent years, played a unique role in the achievement of this goal.

This illuminating book offers a timely assessment of the development and proliferation of precursor crimes of terrorism, exploring the functions and implications of these expanding offences in different jurisdictions. In response to new modes and sources of terrorism, attempts to pre-empt potential attacks through precursor offences have emerged. This book examines not only the meanings and effectiveness of this approach, but also the challenges posed to human rights and social and economic development.

If subjecting war to law is one of the most important legal achievements of the 20th century, progressing further in that direction is one of the most important challenges for the 21st century. The problems it poses are many: the term “war” has formally fallen into disuse and we talk about “peacekeeping”; armies are today the product of cooperation between states and international organizations; private contractors increasingly participate in warlike activities, as the case of the Iraq war demonstrates; and the lines between war and very serious forms of crime (terrorism, organized crime) are increasingly blurred. This volume compiles the contributions presented at XVth International Congress on Social Defence, and tackle the criminal-legal issues raised by these new scenarios. It constitutes an innovative volume, gathering together the work of both academic and military authors, who have drawn on their theoretical and practical experience.

Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA on the prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings established an ad hoc procedure for settling conflicts of criminal jurisdiction based on the mutual exchange of information and the establishment of direct consultations between the competent authorities with a view to reaching consensus on an effective solution. However, neither common legally binding criteria for deciding the best jurisdiction nor specific rules for the transfer of proceedings (which can occur after parallel proceedings have been identified) were established in this instrument, or in any other instrument adopted by the EU to date. This book analyses the current EU legal framework on conflicts of jurisdiction and transfer of criminal proceedings, paying special attention to its numerous shortcomings and loopholes from a fundamental rights and due process of law perspective. The book begins with an assessment of the various principles and grounds used by Member States for claiming criminal jurisdiction. Secondly, de lege lata EU procedure on the settlement of conflicts of criminal jurisdiction, as well as its implementation in Spain and Italy, are thoroughly examined. After discussing the main principles and fundamental rights at stake, the author proposes two alternative and original de lege ferenda models for the prevention and settlement of conflicts of criminal jurisdiction and transfer of criminal proceedings, exploring the different possibilities offered by the EU’s primary law.

More than forty years have passed since President Richard Nixon described illegal drugs as “public enemy number one” and declared a “War on Drugs.” Recently the United Nations Global Commission on Drug Policy declared that “the global war on drugs has failed with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world.” Arguably, no other country has suffered as much from the War on Drugs as Mexico. From 2006 to 2012 alone, at least sixty thousand people have died. Some experts have said that the actual number is more than one hundred thousand. Because the war was conceived and structured by US policymakers and officials, many commentators believe that the United States is deeply implicated in the bloodshed. A War that Can’t Be Won is the first book to include contributions from scholars on both sides of the US–Mexico border. It provides a unique breadth of perspective on the many dimensions of the societal crisis that affects residents of both nations—particularly those who live and work in the borderlands. It also proposes practical steps toward solving a crisis that shows no signs of abating under current policies. Each chapter is based on well-documented data, including previously unavailable evidence that was obtained through freedom-of-information inquiries in Mexico. By bringing together views from both sides of the border, as well as from various academic disciplines, this volume offers a much wider view of a complex problem—and possible solutions.

In Corporate Criminal Liability and Compliance Management Systems: A Case Study of Spain, Santiago Wortman Jofre offers a case study where he examines the way in which Spain understands and implements Compliance Management Systems. Corporate criminal liability has become a matter of controversy in civil law countries since it challenges the traditional principle of societas delinquere non potest, by which corporations cannot be held criminally responsible. However, corporations have taken a new position in the world’s political agenda, as evidenced by the 2017 G20’s High Level Principles on the Liability of Legal Persons for Corruption. The new trend in criminal law advocates for the criminal responsibility of legal persons and pushes for the implementation of Compliance Management Systems as deterrent for corporate criminality. Santiago Wortman Jofre then presents evidence on the role of criminal justice and the importance of positive stimuli requirements as effective incentives to drive companies to implement compliance programs.

El origen de este volumen es un simposio organizado en Mayo de 2015 por el Instituto Cultura y Sociedad (ICS) de la Universidad de Navarra. El enfoque de este simposio era muy amplio, como se refleja en las contribuciones que se presentan en este volumen, las cuales abordan temas tan diversos como las conexiones entre la ética material de los valores de inspiración fenomenológica y la idea de Derecho natural, la distinción esfera de lo jurídico/esfera de lo moral, las críticas a la consideración de los derechos humanos como fundados en la ley natural, los motivos por los que tenemos ciertos hechos y deberes como consecuencia de actos sociales, el sentido y significado del término libertad cuando este es empleado en el marco del Derecho penal, o el examen de ciertas concepciones que pretenden reducir la Filosofía del Derecho a una serie de cuestiones psicológicas, sociales o históricas cuando, en realidad, ésta depende de una discusión sobre cuestiones de principios y no de una mera comprobación de hechos. Sin embargo, a pesar de la diversidad de los trabajos que conforman este volumen, puede decirse que son dos los aspectos fundamentales que éstos comparten: por un lado, la necesidad de fomentar el diálogo entre disciplinas diferentes como la Filosofía y el Derecho en torno a una cuestión central, a saber, la existencia de elementos pre-positivos, anteriores a toda legislación positiva y, por otro lado, la convicción de que estos elementos tienen una inteligibilidad propia. *** Der Ursprung des vorliegenden Bandes ist ein im Mai 2015 vom Instituto Cultura y Sociedad der Universität von Navarra veranstaltetes Symposium. Wie die verschiedenen Beiträge zeigen, war die Bandbreite des Symposiums sehr weit gefasst. So wurden Themen behandelt wie die Zusammenhänge zwischen der phänomenologischen materialen Wertethik und der Idee des Naturrechts, die Unterscheidung zwischen der sittlichen und der rechtlichen Sphäre, die Kritik an denjenigen Theorien, die die Menschenrechte im Naturrecht verorten, die Motive, die uns dazu veranlassen, gewisse Tatsachen und Pflichten als Folgen sozialer Akte zu betrachten, der Sinn des Wortes „Freiheit“ im Rahmen des Strafrechts oder die kritische Prüfung derjenigen Auffassungen, die die Rechtsphilosophie auf eine Reihe von psychologischer, sozialer bzw. historischer Fragen zu reduzieren versuchen, wenn sie in Wahrheit auf einer Diskussion über Grundsatzfragen und nicht auf reiner Tatsachenüberprüfung beruht. Trotz ihrer Vielfalt haben alle Beiträge zwei Aspekte gemeinsam: einerseits teilen sie die Überzeugung der Notwendigkeit eines Dialogs zwischen so verschiedenen Disziplinen wie der Philosophie und dem Recht, um die zentrale Frage nach dem Bestehen von vor-positiven Elementen des Rechts aufzuklären, die jeder positiven Gesetzgebung vorangehen; andererseits sind sie der Überzeugung, dass solche Elemente ihre eigene Verständlichkeit haben. This volume contains the proceedings of a conference organized in May 2015 by the Instituto Cultura y Sociedad (University of Navarra). The scope of this conference was very wide as is proved by the variety of the contributions. They deal with such topics as the relationships between material value ethics and the idea of natural law, the distinction between the moral sphere and the sphere of law, the criticisms of those theories which ground human rights in natural law, the motives which lead us to consider certain facts and duties as consequences of social acts, the meaning of “freedom” in criminal law or the critical exam of such views which try to reduce the Philosophy of Law to some psychological, social or historical questions. However, despite their diversity, the contributions share two elements: on the one hand, the emphasis of the necessity of a dialogue between such different disciplines as Philosophy and Law focusing on a central question, namely, the existence of pre-positive elements, prior to every positive legislation and, on the other hand, the conviction that such elements have an own intelligibility.