Abstract
Judges may find themselves in situations where they contribute to or are the direct perpetrators of substantial and obvious infringements of individual rights. Despite this, it may not always be just to prosecute them and hold them criminally responsible for this. As we have seen, judges are under pressure from different values and ideals when it comes to their duty to uphold the law. The decision of whether to stay on the bench, giving support to the regime while trying to do justice as far as possible, or to resign is not an easy decision. Since open defiance often will undermine the effective role of the judiciary as a modifying factor, it is also hard to know to what extent it serves justice to apply techniques to modify suppressive measures. For such reasons, judicial responsibility must be confined to the more obvious infringements of fundamental rights. But even in these cases, there may be circumstances excluding individual criminal responsibility for the judge. Such circumstances may be found under the principle of culpability under the general principles of the ICC Statute, Articles 30–33.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Jescheck (2004), p. 44.
- 2.
Jescheck (2004), p. 47.
- 3.
The Justice Case (1951), pp. 977–978.
- 4.
Reported in NRT 1949, p. 935.
- 5.
Submission to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission by the following members of the Supreme Court of Appeal: Mr. Justice J.W. Smalberger, Mr. Justice C.T. Howie, Mr. Justice R.M. Marais, and Mr. Justice D.G. Scott, 115 S. African Law Journal 1998, pp. 45–46.
- 6.
See Paulson (1994).
- 7.
See Chap. 14 below.
- 8.
Schorn (1959), p. 23.
- 9.
Schorn (1959), pp. 30–31.
- 10.
Schorn (1959), p. 31.
- 11.
NRT 1946, p. 1268.
- 12.
See Freudiger (2002), pp. 336–350.
- 13.
BGH, Urteil vom 30. 4. 1968-5 StR 670/67.
- 14.
The Justice Case (1951), p. 38.
- 15.
Radbruch (1946).
- 16.
See Senat, NJW 1995, p. 3324, and BGH, Urteil vom 16.11.1995 5 StR 747/94, p. 857.
- 17.
BGH, Urteil vom 16.11.1995 5 StR 747/94 p. 857 on p. 862.
- 18.
The Justice Case (1951), p. 978.
- 19.
Oppler (1947).
- 20.
Figge (1947).
- 21.
NRT 1949, p. 935.
- 22.
Arendt (2003), p. 17, quoting Mary McCarthy.
- 23.
Freudiger (2002), p. 416.
- 24.
NRT 1946, p. 1139.
References
Arendt H (2003) Responsibility and judgment. Schocken Books, New York
Figge R (1947) Die Verantwortlichkeit des Richters. Süddeutsche Juristen-Zeitung, col. 179–183
Freudiger K (2002) Die juristische Aufarbeitung von NS-Verbrechen. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Jescheck H-H (2004) The general principles of international criminal law set out in Nuremberg, as mirrored in the ICC Statute. J Int Crim Justice 2:38–55
Oppler K (1947) Justiz und Politik. Deutsche Rechts-Zeitschrift 2:323–326
Paulson SL (1994) Lon L. Fuller, Gustav Radbruch and the “Positivist” theses. Law Philos 13:313–359
Radbruch G (1946) Gesetzliches Unrecht und übergesetzliches Recht. Süddeutsche Juristen-Zeitung 105–108 [English translation Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law, Translated by Bonnie Litschewski Paulson and Stanley L. Paulson, 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 2006, pp. 1–11]
Schorn H (1959) Der Richter im Dritten Reich Geschichte und Dokumente. Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main
Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, vol III, the Justice Case, Washington, 1951
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Graver, H.P. (2015). Justification of Judicial Oppression. In: Judges Against Justice. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44293-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44293-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-44292-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-44293-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)