Criminal liability and indirect perpetration through organised structures of power

Posredno storilstvo z uporabo organiziranega aparata moči je način utemeljitve krivde storilcev kaznivih dejanj »za pisarniško mizo«. Po tradicionalni delitvi na storilce in udeleţence so voditelji kriminalnih organizacij, ki ne sodelujejo neposredno pri izvršitvi kaznivega dejanja, zgolj napeljevalci ali pomočniki, v tem institutu pa voditelj, ki ima aparat z velikim številom zamenljivih neposrednih storilcev, de facto nadzoruje kaznivo dejanje in je zato pravilno, da odgovarja kot (posredni) storilec. V prispevku avtor predstavi institut, prikaţe njegovo uporabo na konkretnih zadevah pred sodišči v Nemčiji, Argentini, Peruju, Kolumbiji, Čilu in pred Mednarodnim kazenskim sodiščem v Haagu in se opredeli do pomislekov zoper uporabo instituta. Na koncu še razišče, če ima institut prostor tudi v slovenskem kazenskem pravu.Indirect perpetration through organised structures of power (Organisationsherrschaft) is a mode of liability used to convict perpetrators who commit crimes while “sitting at their desk”. According to traditional modes of liability, the leader of an organization, who does not directly participate in a commission of a crime, could only be held liable as an instigator or an abettor, which is generally considered inaccurate in respect to his actual contribution. This theory proves that a leader of an organization exercises effective control over the commission of the crime through the apparatus when physical perpetrators are interchangeable at will and have no ability to influence whether the crime will be committed, even though they can fully choose whether they will participate in it. The author starts by introducing the theory in depth, demonstrates its use in cases before courts in Germany, Argentina, Peru, Colombia, Chile and International Criminal Court in The Hague and considers some of the most common critiques and responds to them. In the end, the author evaluates whether Slovenian Penal code offers basis for the use of this form of indirect perpetration

The Europeanisation of contested states : comparing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro

This paper compares the European Union (EU) integration process in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro. The analysis centres on the different political systems and conflict-resolution mechanisms in these three countries in order to explain their different progress in EU accession. Our main argument is that consolidated statehood is not only key for effective democratization, but also a prerequisite for EU accession and functional EU integration. Systematically applying these concepts to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro, the paper unpacks the connection between internal contestation and a lack of general consensus on EU integration, as well as the connection between different nation-building projects and limited Europeanisation