Taylor, Greg --- "Retrospective Criminal Punishment Under the German and Australian Constitutions" [2000] UNSWLawJl 31; (2000) 23(2) UNSW Law Journal 196
[#] The author is grateful to Professor Michael Detmold, Rosemary Owens and the anonymous referees for their comments on earlier drafts of this article, and to Herr stud iur Jochen Weller for supplying material. The research on German law which forms the basis of this article was conducted while the author was studying at the Philipps-Universität, Marburg, Germany, as Sir George Murray Scholar of the University of Adelaide, and with the assistance of a grant from the St Peter’s Collegians’ Tertiary Students’ Care Trust. The author thanks those bodies for their support.
[*] Lecturer, Law School, University of Adelaide.
[1] See, for example, L Zines, High Court and the Constitution, Butterworths (4th ed, 1997) p 210; G Williams, Human Rights Under the Australian Constitution, Oxford (1999) p 216. However, Gummow J seems to think that there was no such doubt as to the Court’s holding in the case: Nicholas v R [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 234, per Gummow J; see also at 259 n 353 and 260f n 358, per Kirby J.
[2] [1991] HCA 32; (1991) 172 CLR 501 (“The War Crimes Act Case”).
[3] Health Insurance Commission v Peverill [1994] HCA 8; (1994) 179 CLR 226 at 237, 256. For the English approach see Heil v Rankin [2000] EWCA 53; [2000] 2 WLR 1173 at 1190, 1192f.
[4] See the discussion of this point in L Zines, note 1 supra, p 211.
[5] B Markesinis, “Privacy, Freedom of Expression, and the Horizontal Effect of the Human Rights Bill: Lessons from Germany” (1999) 115 LQR 47 at 86.
[6] Leask v Commonwealth [1996] HCA 29; (1996) 187 CLR 579 at 594f, 600f, 615f; but see Levy v Victoria [1997] HCA 31; (1997) 189 CLR 579 at 645f.
[7] See A Marfording, “Federalism and Judicial Review in Germany: Lessons for Australia?” [1998] UNSWLawJl 41; (1998) 21 UNSWLJ 155 at 155f.
[8] M Bagaric and T Lakic, “Victorian Sentencing Turns Retrospective: The Constitutional Validity of Retrospective Criminal Legislation after Kable” (1999) 23 Crim LJ 145. It is assumed here, on the basis of the arguments adduced in that article, that the arguments for the existence of a prohibition of retrospective State criminal laws are at least no stronger than those in relation to retrospective Commonwealth criminal laws and that they do not therefore require separate treatment.
[9] [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173.
[10] See M Bagaric and T Lakic, note 8 supra.
[11] For reasons of space, the distinction between war crimes and crimes against humanity - which is more important in international law than in prosecutions for homicide under domestic law - is not always drawn below; rather, the general term “war crimes” is used for both categories.
[12] For further historical background and references see, for example, E Eberle, “Public Discourse in Contemporary Germany” (1997) 47 Case Western LR 797 at 800-4.
[13] Translation in E Hucko (ed), The Democratic Tradition: Four German Constitutions, Oxford (1987) p 239.
[14] See, for example, H Roberts, “Retrospective Criminal Laws and the Separation of Judicial Power” (1997) 8 PLR 170 at 180 n 137; M Bagaric and T Lakic, note 8 supra at 155 n 80, 157.
[15] On the status of the principle against retrospectivity in international courts see R v Kirk [1984] EuGH 2689; SW v United Kingdom, Eur Court HR, judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no 335-B; CR v United Kingdom, Eur Court HR, judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no 335-C; P Albrecht, S Kadelbach, NJ 1992, 137, 142; G Dannecker, Das intertemporale Strafrecht [Intertemporal Criminal Law], JCB Mohr (1993) pp 177-81, 253; G Gornig, NJ 1992, 4, 12; RH Graveson, MDR 1947, 278, 278f; M Kenntner, NJW 1997, 2298, 2298-300; W Kiesselbach, MDR 1947, 2, 3-5; V Krey, Keine Strafe ohne Gesetz [No Punishment Without Written Law], de Gruyter (1993) pp 104-9; HC Maier, Die Garantiefunktion des Gesetzes im Strafprozeßrecht [The Guarantee Function of Written Law in Criminal Procedure], Centaurus (1991) p 5; T Maunz, G Dürig (eds), Grundgesetz Kommentar [Basic Law Commentary], CH Beck (loose-leaf, 32nd service, October 1996), art 103 II, p 57f; G Stratenwerth, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil I: Die Straftat [Criminal Law General Principles I: the Offence], Carl Heymann (3rd ed, 1981) p 42; GL Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part, Stevens (2nd ed, 1961) pp 576-8; PJ Winters, Deutschland Archiv 30, 696.
[16] See, for an example of such an exception in ancient Rome, W Hassemer in AK-StGB, p 140f; V Krey, note 15 supra, p 49f; J Pföhler, Zur Unanwendbarkeit des strafrechtlichen Rückwirkungsverbots im Strafprozeßrecht in dogmenhistorischer Sicht [On the Inapplicability of the Prohibition of Retrospective Criminal Legislation in the Law of Criminal Procedure from the Point of View of Doctrinal History], Duncker & Humblot (1988) pp 88, 90f; H Schreiber, Gesetz und Richter: Zur geschichtlichen Entwicklung des Satzes nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege [Written Law and the Judge: On the Historical Development of the Principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege], Alfred Metzner (1976), pp 18-20; G Stratenwerth, note 15 supra, p 41.
[17] For recent discussions of this question, see R v Bow Street Magistrate; Ex parte Pinochet [1999] UKHL 17; [1999] 2 WLR 827 at 840, 923; Nulyarimma v Thompson [1999] FCA 1192; (1999) 96 FCR 153.
[18] For a brief survey, see A Eide et al (eds), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Commentary, Oxford (1992) p 182f.
[19] C Kleßmann, Zwei Staaten, eine Nation: Deutsche Geschichte 1955-1970 [Two States, one Nation: German History 1955-1970], Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (1988) p 321.
[20] Not under international law, on which see KA Adams, “What is Just?: The Rule of Law and Natural Law in the Trials of Former East German Border Guards” (1993) 29 Stanford JIL 271 at 281-7.
[21] (West) German Criminal Code, ss 211, 212. Under s 211, murder is committed only if there is also present one of the Mordmerkmale - indicia of murder - such as the use of generally dangerous means or unnecessary cruelty or some particularly objectionable modus operandi (such as taking advantage of the victim’s lack of reason to suspect deadly force) or motive (such as the sheer desire to kill, sexual motives, greed, etc). Other cases are manslaughter only.
[22] BGHSt 41, 101, 112.
[23] Gesetzblatt der DDR [Government Gazette of the German Democratic Republic], 29 March 1982 at 201.
[24] “… die sich den Umständen nach als ein Verbrechen darstellt”.
[25] C Starck, VVDStRL 51, 7, 15-18; R Wassermannn, NJW 1997, 2152, 2153.
[26] From 1968, under s 213 of the East German Criminal Code, which provided for prison sentences of up to eight years for illegally crossing a border (and in earlier years under other provisions).
[27] D Schultke, “Das Grenzregime der DDR: Innenansichten der siebziger und achtziger Jahre [The Border Regime of the GDR: A View from the Inside in the 1970s and 1980s]” in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B 50/97, 05 December 1997 at 48f; S Wolle, Die heile Welt der Diktatur: Alltag und Herrschaft in der DDR 1971-1989 [The Happy World of Dictatorship: Everyday Life and Rule in the GDR 1971-1989], Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (1998) p 283f.
[28] For arguments to the effect that the interests of reliance may sometimes support retrospective criminal laws, see C Hochman, “The Supreme Court and the Constitutionality of Retroactive Legislation” (1960) 73 Harv LR 692 at 693; A Palmer and C Sampford, “Retrospective Legislation in Australia: Looking Back at the 1980s” (1994) 22 FLR 217 at 248-50.
[29] For a non-trite discussion of these principles and related matters see A Palmer and C Sampford, ibid at 218-34.
[30] See, on the common-law presumption generally, cases such as J Arnold v Neilsen (1976) 9 ALR 191; Samuels v Songaila (1977) 16 SASR 397; Daire v Stokes (1982) 32 SASR 402 at 405, 409f; Question of Law Reserved (No 2 of 1996) [1996] SASC 5674; (1996) 67 SASR 63 at 68-70; Owen v South Australia; R v Owen [1996] SASC 5574; (1996) 66 SASR 251; DC Pearce, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, Butterworths (4th ed, 1996) pp 231f.
[31] English authority differs on this point: see the discussion of English authority in Samuels v Songaila (1977) 16 SASR 397; R v Dube (1987) 46 SASR 118 at 121; R v D [1997] SASC 6350; (1997) 69 SASR 413 at 424, 431; DC Pearce, note 30 supra, pp 231f. But see Siganto v R (1998) 73 ALJR 162; R v Truong [2000] 1 Qd R 663 at 669. New South Wales has regulated by statute the questions arising on adjustments of penalties: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 19.
[32] Rodway v R [1990] HCA 19; (1990) 169 CLR 515 at 519; Nicholas v R [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 198, 203, 212, 278f.
[33] R v Kidman [1915] HCA 58; (1915) 20 CLR 425 at 437; Newell v R [1936] HCA 50; (1936) 55 CLR 707 at 711; Rodway v R [1990] HCA 19; (1990) 169 CLR 515 at 518-23; Samuels v Songaila (1977) 16 SASR 397 at 400f, 408.
[34] Footnotes 3-4 and accompanying text.
[35] [1915] HCA 58; (1915) 20 CLR 425.
[36] Ibid at 459; J Goldsworthy, “Implications in Language, Law and the Constitution” in G Lindell (ed), Future Directions in Australian Constitutional Law (1994) 150 at 175f; G Kennett, “Individual Rights, the High Court and the Constitution” [1994] MelbULawRw 4; (1994) 19 MULR 581 at 592.
[37] Art I ss 9 cl 3 and 10 cl 1.
[38] Note 35 supra at 442, 463. The same point was made in the War Crimes Act Case, note 2 supra at 537, 648f, 720.
[39] Note 35 supra at 443, 450f, 456f, 462.
[40] Although admittedly not the person punished in the first case in which the law concerned is applied retrospectively, who had ex hypothesi no reason to fear the retrospective punishment when committing the offence: Samuels v Songaila (1977) 16 SASR 397 at 399f.
[41] GL Williams, note 15 supra at 580f, puts the opposite argument, relying on Hobbes; and see ibid at 600f.
[42] Note 35 supra at 434.
[43] Ibid at 436.
[44] See, for example, Nicholas v R [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173; Winstone v Kelly (1987) 46 SASR 461; Owen v South Australia; R v Owen [1996] SASC 5574; (1996) 66 SASR 251.
[45] Note 2 supra.
[46] [1996] HCA 24; (1996) 189 CLR 51.
[47] See M Bagaric, T Lakic, note 8 supra.
[48] This short summary of the facts is adapted from the War Crimes Act, note 2 supra at 524f. See also G Triggs, “Australia’s War Crimes Trials: A Moral Necessity or a Legal Minefield?” [1987] MelbULawRw 23; (1987) 16 MULR 382 at 382-5.
[49] Note 2 supra at 523, 594-6.
[50] Ibid at 643.
[51] Ibid at 626, 705.
[52] New South Wales v Commonwealth [1915] HCA 17; (1915) 20 CLR 54 (“The Wheat Case”).
[53] See note 1 supra.
[54] Note 2 supra at 554.
[55] See now Victoria v Commonwealth (1996) 187 CLR 416 at 458 (“The Industrial Relations Act Case”).
[56] Note 2 supra at 588, 592f.
[57] See T Blackshield and G Williams, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory: Commentary and Materials, Federation (2nd ed, 1998) p 1147; G Lindell, “Recent Developments in the Judicial Interpretation of the Australian Constitution” in G Lindell (ed), note 36 supra 34 at 34; C Parker, “Protection of Judicial Process as an Implied Constitutional Principle” [1994] AdelLawRw 13; (1994) 16 Adel LR 341 at 346f.
[58] Note 2 supra at 607.
[59] Ibid at 610. See, for example, Chu Khing Lim v Minister (1992) 176 CLR 1 at 27f; L Zines, note 1 supra, p 187f.
[60] Note 2 supra at 536, 647-51 and 721.
[61] [1967] AC 259. See also the comprehensive survey of authority by Fitzgerald P (dissenting) in Laurance v Katter [2000] 1 Qd R 147 at 159-84; Rann v Olsen [2000] SASC 83; (2000) 172 ALR 395 at 429.
[62] G Kennett, note 36 supra at 592.
[63] Note 2 supra at 612-14, 704-6.
[64] Ibid at 613, 706f.
[65] L Zines, note 1 supra, p 211; see also H Roberts, “A Judicially Created Bill of Rights?” [1994] SydLawRw 14; (1994) 16 Syd LR 166 at 169-72.
[66] Such as South Australian Act No 10 of 1852. This Act was one of the many enactments held by Boothby J to be ultra vires the Provincial legislature - not, however, because of any infringement of the separation of powers, but because of its repugnancy to the law of England. See South Australian Parliamentary Papers, no 154/1861, pp 3-5, 13f; no 142/1864, pp 47, 56, 61; no 5/1866-7, pp 1f; RM Hague, The Judicial Career of Benjamin Boothby, unpublished (1992) p 77. The cure, if necessary at all, was effected by the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (Imp) ss 2, 3 and 5.
[67] S McMurtrie, “The Constitutionality of the War Crimes Act 1991” (1992) 13 Statute LR 128 at 146-8; AT Richardson, “War Crimes Act 1991” (1992) 55 MLR 73 at 78. On the nature and illegality of Bills of attainder, see the interesting discussions in L Zines, note 1 supra, pp 206-10; T Campbell, “Democratic Aspects of Ethical Positivism” in RM Hague and J Goldsworthy (eds), Judicial Power, Democracy and Legal Positivism (2000) 3 at 32.
[68] Nicholas v R [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173 at 186-91.
[69] Note 2 supra at 649, 721f. See also ibid at 234.
[70] H Roberts, note 14 supra at 183.
[71] L Zines, note 65 supra, p 172.
[72] AT Richardson, note 67 supra at 87.
[73] Nulyarimma v Thompson [1999] FCA 1192; (1999) 96 FCR 153 at 161f; A Mitchell, “Genocide, Human Rights Implementation and the Relationship between International and Domestic Law: Nulyarimma v Thompson” [2000] MelbULawRw 2; (2000) 24 MULR 15 at 45 (although this author should not necessarily be taken to agree with other points made on that page).
[74] Note 2 supra at 689.
[75] Ibid at 691.
[76] L Zines, note 65 supra, p 172.
[77] Note 68 supra at 202f.
[78] Note 2 supra at 642-5, 649.
[79] Introduction, ss 14-21.
[80] G Dannecker, note 15 supra, pp 99-101; V Krey, note 15 supra, pp 7f; J Pföhler, note 16 supra, pp 237-9; H Schreiber, note 16 supra, pp 85-9. Interestingly, an article written during the Nazi years went to great pains to maintain the opposite (H von Weber, ZStW 56, 653, 670), doubtless so that Frederick the Great was not associated with anything as suspect as human rights.
[81] H Jescheck, W Ruß, G Willms, Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar [Criminal Code: the Leipzig Commentary], de Gruyter (10th ed, 1985) p 5. See A Ransiek, Gesetz und Lebenswirklichkeit: das strafrechtliche Bestimmtheitsgebot [The Written Law and the Real World: the Certainty Clause in the Criminal Law], von Decker (1989) p 11f.
[82] Reproduced in E Hucko (ed), note 13 supra, p 175.
[83] G Dannecker, note 15 supra, pp 162f; Düringer, JW 1919, 701, 702; L Gruchmann, Justiz im Dritten Reich 1933-1940: Anpassung und Unterwerfung in der Ära Gürther [The Justice System in the Third Reich 1933-1940: Conformity and Submission in the Gürther Era], R Oldenbourg (1988) pp 827-9; H Jescheck, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts: Allgemeiner Teil [Textbook of Criminal Law: General Part], Duncker & Humblot (5th ed, 1996) p 132 n 21; H Jescheck, W Ruß, G Willms, note 81 supra, p 5; L Käckell, ZStW 41, 680, 684; V Krey, note 15 supra, p 25f; H Rüping in Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz [The Bonn Commentary on the Basic Law], (Heidelberg, 1997) Art 103 II, p 7; W Sax, “Grundsätze der Strafrechtspflege [Basic Principles of Criminal Law]” in KA Bettermann, HC Nipperdey, U Scheuner (eds), Die Grundrechte: Handbuch der Theorie und Praxis der Grundrechte [The Basic Rights: Handbook of the Theory and Practice of the Basic Rights] (2nd ed, 1972) 909 at 1004; H Schreiber, note 16 supra, pp 181-3; G Werle, Justiz - Strafrecht und polizeiliche Verbrechensbekämpfung im Dritten Reich [The Justice System - Criminal Law and Police Efforts to Suppress Crime in the Third Reich], de Gruyter (1989) p 75.
[84] RH Graveson, MDR 1947, 278, 278; L Gruchmann, note 83 supra, p 851; G Grünwald, ZStW 76, 1, 2; W Hassemer in AK-StGB, p 143; H Freiherr von Hodenberg, SJZ 1947, 113, 118; H Jescheck, note 83 supra, p 132; H Jescheck, W Ruß, G Willms (eds), note 81 supra at 5f; V Krey, note 15 supra, pp 31f; HC Maier, note 15 supra, pp 4f; U Meyer-Cording, JZ 1952, 161, 162; W Naucke, “Die Mißachtung des strafrechtlichen Rückwirkungsverbots 1933-1945: zum Problem der Bewertung strafrechtlicher Entwicklungen als „unhaltbar“ [The Flouting of the Prohibition on Retrospective Criminal Laws from 1933 to 1945: on the Problem of Describing Developments in the Criminal Law as ‘unsustainable’]” in N Horn (ed), Europäisches Rechtsdenken in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Festschrift für Helmut Coing zum 70. Geburtstag [European Legal Thought in the Past and Today: Festschrift for Helmut Coing’s 70th Birthday], vol 1 (1982) 225 at 226; H Rüping, note 83 supra, Art 103 II, pp 7f; W Sax, note 83 supra at 993; E Schmidt, Einführung in die Geschichte der deutschen Strafrechtspflege [Introduction to the History of German Criminal Law], Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (3rd ed, 1965) pp 434f; G Werle, note 83 supra, pp 160-4; H Wrobel and I Renlen (eds), Strafjustiz im totalen Krieg: aus den Akten des Sondergerichts Bremen 1940 bis 1945 [The Criminal Justice System in Total War: From the Files of the Bremen Special Court, 1940-1945], vol 1, Freie Hansestadt Bremen (1991) pp 11f.
[85] RH Graveson, MDR 1947, 278, 278; L Gruchmann, note 83 supra, p 829; H Jescheck, note 83 supra, p 132 n 21; V Krey, note 15 supra, p 30; E Schmidt, note 84 supra, p 430; H Schreiber, note 16 supra, pp 197, 199; G Werle, note 83 supra, p 75.
[86] Reichsgesetzblatt [Reich Government Gazette] 1933 vol I, p 151; G Dannecker, note 15 supra, pp 174f; L Gruchmann, note 83 supra, pp 764, 826-9; H Hillesmeier (ed), “Im Namen des Deutschen Volkes!”: Todesurteile des Volksgerichtshofes [“In The Name of the German People!”: Death Sentences of the People’s Court], Luchterhand (2nd ed, 1982), p 31; W Naucke, note 84 supra at 227; G Werle, note 83 supra, pp 73-5.
[87] But valid according to the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE 6, 309, 331) - not because it was in accordance with the Weimar Constitution, but because it was a revolutionary act which succeeded in establishing itself in fact.
[88] Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich [Law to Remove the Distress of People and Reich], Reichsgesetzblatt 1933 vol I, p 141.
[89] OLG Hamm, MDR 1947, 203, 205. See also note 85 supra.
[90] H Jescheck, note 83 supra at 132 n 21; H Wagner, “Das Strafrecht im Nationalsozialismus [Criminal Law in National Socialism]” in FJ Säcker, Recht und Rechtslehre im Nationalsozialismus [Law and Legal Doctrine in National Socialism] (1992), p 147; G Werle, note 83 supra, p 75.
[91] L Gruchmann, note 83 supra, p 829.
[92] Reichsgesetzblatt 1938 vol I, p 651; G Dannecker, note 15 supra, p 175; L Gruchmann, note 83 supra, p 841; V Krey, note 15 supra, pp 30f; U Meyer-Cording, JZ 1952, 161, 162; W Naucke, note 84 supra at 227-33; B Pieroth, Jura 1983, 122, 124; E Schmidt, note 84 supra, p 436; H Schreiber, note 16 supra, p 199.
[93] Reichsgesetzblatt 1945 vol I, p 34; G Werle, note 83 supra, p 479.
[94] W Naucke, note 84 supra at 226.
[95] Kontrollrat Proklamation Nr 3 vom 20.10.1945 [Control Council Proclamation No 3 of 20.10.1945], reproduced in Amtsblatt der Militärregierung Deutschland - Britisches Kontrollgebiet [Government Gazette of the Military Government of Germany - British Zone], No 5; Gesetz Nr 1: Aufhebung des nationalsozialistischen Rechts [Law No 1: Repeal of National Socialist Law], Art IV.7, reproduced in Amtsblatt der Militärregierung Deutschland - Amerikanische Zone [Government Gazette of the Military Government of Germany - US Zone]; G Gornig, NJ 1992, 4, 11f; W Hassemer in AK-StGB, p 143; H Freiherr von Hodenberg, SJZ 1947, 113, 118; H Jescheck, note 83 supra, pp 132f; V Krey, note 15 supra, pp 34f; B Pieroth, JuS 1977, 394, 395f; W Sax, note 83 supra at 993; H Schreiber, note 16 supra, p 201.
[96] H Jescheck, W Ruß, G Willms (eds), note 81 supra, p 6; M Kenntner, NJW 1997, 2298, 2299; V Krey, note 15 supra, pp 34, 66-71, 112.
[97] H Jescheck, W Ruß, G Willms (eds), note 81 supra, p 6; W Kiesselbach, MDR 1947, 2, 2.
[98] M Kenntner, NJW 1997, 2298, 2299.
[99] For further details see FA Mann, “Germany’s Present Legal Status Revisited” (1967) 16 ICLQ 760 at 764f.
[100] This is a difficult question of constitutional law which it is not necessary to discuss here. The German courts have not measured the validity of Nazi laws against the basic rights guaranteed by the Weimar Constitution, partly because of uncertainty about the extent to which some of its provisions continued to exist and partly because of express suspensions of those rights by legislation in the Nazi era.
[101] R v Bow Street Magistrate; Ex parte Pinochet [1999] UKHL 17; [1999] 2 WLR 827 at 908; OGHSt 1, 1, 4f; OLG Hamm, MDR 1947, 203, 205; RH Graveson, MDR 1947, 278, 278; S Zimmermann, JuS 1996, 865, 867.
[102] On the German State Constitutions, which were first in point of time as the Allies re-built the almost completely destroyed German system of government from the bottom up, see H Schreiber, note 16 supra, pp 201f.
[103] G Dannecker, note 15 supra, p 3; K von Doemming, RW Füßlein, W Matz, Entstehungsgeschichte der Artikel des Grundgesetzes [The Drafting History of the Articles of the Basic Law], JöR nF, 1951, 41; G Grünwald, ZStW 76, 1, 17; M Kenntner, NJW 1997, 2298, 2298; V Krey, note 15 supra, p 100; B Pieroth, Jura 1983, 122, 124; H Schreiber, note 16 supra, p 11; R Wassermann in AK-GG, pp 1208f. On the re-introduction of the prohibition into the provisions of the Criminal Code, see H Schreiber, note 16 supra, p 204.
[104] BVerfGE 25, 269, 287.
[105] The translation of art 103 II quoted above does not use ‘punishability’ for reasons of clarity.
[106] There were other minor syntactic differences between art 116 and art 103 II: BVerfG (Kammer), NJW 1994, 2412, 2412; W Strauß, SJZ 1949, Sp 523, 523. See also on this theme BVerfGE 25, 269, 287f; K von Doemming, RW Füßlein, W Matz, note 103 supra, pp 741-3; V Krey, note 15 supra, pp 99-101; H Rüping note 83 supra, Art 103 I, p 2; H Schreiber, note 16 supra, pp 202-4.
[107] BVerfGE 25, 269, 286; H Rudolphi et al, Systematischer Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch (Berlin, loose-leaf, 26th service June 1997), s 1, p 3; H Schreiber, note 16 supra, p 212.
[108] See BVerfGE 71, 108, 114f; BVerfG (Kammer) NJW 1994, 2412, 2412; F Haft, JuS 1975, 477, 477; W Hassemer in AK-StGB p 143; H Jescheck, W Ruß, G Willms, note 81 supra, p 4; V Krey, note 15 supra, pp 109f; P Kunig (ed), Grundgesetz-Kommentar [Basic Law Commentary], Münch/Kunig (3rd ed, 1996), p 803; HC Maier, note 15 supra, p 6; J Pföhler, note 16 supra, p 29, H Rüping, note 83 supra, Art 103 II, p 5; R Schmitt, “Der Anwendungsbereich von § 1 Strafgesetzbuch (Art 103 Abs. 2 Grundgesetz) [The Area in which s 1 of the Criminal Code (Art 103 para 2 of the Basic Law) Applies]” in T Vogler (ed), Festschrift für Hans-Heinrich Jescheck zum 70. Geburtstag [Festschrift for Hans-Heinrich Jescheck’s 70th Birthday] (1985) 223 at 223f; W Straßburg, ZStW 82, 948, 948.
[109] The most infamous example of this is Shaw v DPP [1961] UKHL 1; [1962] AC 220, on which see, for example, J Popple, “Right to Protection” (1989) 13 Crim LJ 251 at 257f. See also A Ransiek, note 81 supra, p 8; H Rudolphi et al, note 107 supra, s 1, p 7; H Schreiber, JZ 1973, 713, 715. It has recently been said that “[i]n the business of criminal offences, the common law is past child bearing”: Lipohar v R [1999] HCA 65; (1999) 168 ALR 8 at 64, per Kirby J.
[110] BVerfGE 14, 174; BVerfGE 26, 41; BVerfGE 32, 346; N Groß, GA 1971, 13, 16; A Ransiek, note 81 supra, pp 8f; W Straßburg, ZStW 82, 948, 949f; H Tröndle, “Rückwirkungsverbot bei Rechtsprechungswandel? Eine Betrachtung zu einem Scheinproblem der Strafrechtswissenschaft [Prohibition on Retrospectivity when the Case Law Changes? An Essay on an Illusory Problem in Criminal Law Scholarship]” in Festschrift für Eduard Dreher [Festschrift for Eduard Dreher], de Gruyter (1977), pp 135f. See also note 108 supra.
[111] See, for example, BVerfGE 30, 367, 385f.
[112] G Werle, “‘We Asked for Justice and We Got the Rule of Law’: German Courts and the Totalitarian Past” (1995) 11 South African Journal of Human Rights 70 at 72.
[113] M Kenntner, NJW 1997, 2298, 2298.
[114] On this tension, see BVerfGE 2, 380, 403-5; BVerfGE 3, 225, 237; BVerfGE 15, 313, 319f; R Alexy, Mauerschützen: Zum Verhältnis von Recht, Moral und Strafbarkeit [Soldiers at the Wall: On the Relationship between Law, Morality and Punishment], Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (1993) p 35; G Grünwald, MDR 1965, 521, 523; G Grünwald, ZStW 76, 1, 17f; K Grupp, NJ 1996, 393, 398; M Kenntner, NJW 1997, 2298, 2298; V Krey, JR 1995, 221, 227; V Krey, ZStW 1989, 838, 871f; K Lüderssen, ZStW 104, 735, 756f; H Rüping, note 83 supra, Art 103 III, pp 8f; H Schreiber, ZStW 80, 348, 366; K Vogel, JZ 1988, 833, 834f.
[115] On Radbruch the man, see A Kaufmann, NJW 1995, 81; HLA Hart, “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals” (1958) 71 Harv LR 593. For a brief work on this topic by Radbruch in English translation, see G Radbruch, “Five Minutes of Legal Philosophy” in J Feinberg and H Gross (eds), Philosophy of Law (3rd ed, 1986) 109 at 109f.
[116] G Radbruch, SJZ 1946, 105, 107. The expression in the original for ‘illegal law’ is unrichtiges Recht, which could also be translated as ‘incorrect law’ or ‘false law’. See also KA Adams, note 20 supra at 301-6.
[117] H Frank, Nationalsozialistisches Handbuch für Recht und Gesetzgebung [National Socialist Handbook on Law and Legislating], Zentralverlag der NSDAP (1935) p 1322.
[118] OGHSt 1, 1, 4f; OGHSt 2, 231, 232f; OGHSt 2, 269, 272f; BGHSt 1, 91, 98f; BGHSt 2, 173, 177; BGHSt 2, 234, 237-9; BGHSt 3, 357, 362f.
[119] BGHSt 2, 234, 239.
[120] OGHSt 2, 231, 232f; BGHSt 1, 391, 398f. On the question whether a perpetrator can be said to have appreciated the wrongfulness of the acts, see BGHSt 3, 110, 127; BGHSt 3, 357, 366; KA Adams, note 20 supra at 302f. On perversion of the course of justice by Nazi judges, see BGHSt 3, 110, 116-119; G Grünwald, ZStW 76, 1, 4-6. On cases involving denunciations: BGHSt 3, 110, 116-118; OLG Hamm, MDR 1947, 203; OLG Bamberg, (1951) 64 Harv LR 1005; H Freiherr von Hodenberg, SJZ 1947, 113.
[121] BVerfGE 6, 132, 198-200; BVerfGE 6, 309, 332; BVerfGE 6, 389, 414f.
[122] BVerfGE 6, 309, 332; see BVerfGE 6, 389, 414f.
[123] BVerfGE 6, 132, 198.
[124] OLG Hamm, MDR 1947, 203, 205; RH Graveson, MDR 1947, 278, 280; G Grünwald, ZStW 76, 1, 6; G Radbruch, SJZ 1947, 131, 134; A Wimmer, SJZ 1947, 123, 127-9. But see R Dreier, JZ 1997, 421, 432.
[125] See KA Adams, note 20 supra at 275-9; G Triggs, note 48 supra at 391.
[126] M Kenntner, NJW 1997, 2298, 2298.
[127] On this question, see OLG Hamm, MDR 1947, 203, 205; G Gornig, NJ 1992, 4, 7; H Jescheck, W Ruß, G Willms, note 81 supra, p 6; A Kaufmann, NJW 1995, 81, 81; W Kiesselbach, MDR 1947, 2, 2; K Lüderssen, ZStW 104, 735, 767; S McMurtrie, note 67 supra at 143-6; W Naucke, note 84 supra at 241-4; B Pieroth, VVDStRL 51, 91, 104; G Radbruch, SJZ 1947, 131, 134; GL Williams, note 15 supra, pp 577f; A Wimmer, SJZ 1947, 123, 124-6; S Zimmermann, JuS 1996, 865, 867; and see note 128 infra. On the question of the applicability of the statute of limitations, see, for example, BVerfGE 25, 269; H Arndt, JZ 1965, 145; J Berlit, DRiZ 1965, 89.
[128] G Dannecker, note 15 supra, pp 267-71; L Fuller, “Positivism and Fidelity to Law - A Reply to Professor Hart” (1958) 71 Harv LR 630 at 649; HLA Hart, Concept of Law, Oxford (2nd ed, 1994) pp 209-12; HLA Hart, note 115 supra; S Zimmermann, JuS 1996, 865, 866f.
[129] BVerfG (Kammer), NJW 1998, 2587, 2588; R Dreier, “Gesetzliches Unrecht im SED-Staat? Am Beispiel des DDR-Grenzgesetzes [Injustice by Means of Written Law under the Rule of the Communist Party of East Germany? The Case of the East German Border Law]” in Festschrift für Arthur Kaufmann [Festschrift for Arthur Kaufmann], CF Müller (1993) 58 at 58f; M Frommel, “Die Mauerschützenprozesse - eine unerwartete Aktualität der Radbruch’schen Formel [Prosecutions of the Soldiers at the Wall - the Radbruch Formula unexpectedly becomes relevant again]” in Festschrift für Arthur Kaufmann, CF Müller (1993) 86; B Pieroth, VVDStRL 51, 91, 97; C Starck, VVDStRL 51, 7, 15-17; R Wassermannn, NJW 1997, 2152, 2153; R Wassermannn, RuP 1999, 101, 104f.
[130] BGHSt 41, 101, 107, 109; R Alexy, note 114 supra, pp 6, 23; J Arnold, JuS 97, 400, 401; G Dannecker, Jura 1994, 585, 590f; G Gornig, NJ 1992, 4, 14; W Gropp, NJ 1996, 393, 396; J Limbach, DtZ 1993, 66, 68; H Ott, NJ 1993, 337, 339; M Pawlik, GA 1994, 472, 473; B Pieroth and T Kingreen, JZ 1993, 385, 390; J Polakiewicz, EuGRZ 1992, 177, 181; H Rittstieg, DuR 1991, 401, 407, 413. But see R Dreier, note 129 supra at 58f; J Polakiewicz, EuGRZ 1992, 177, 186.
[131] Articles 315-315c of the Introductory Law to the Criminal Code contain the main details.
[132] D Schultke, note 27 supra at 49-53.
[133] BVerfGE 95, 96. This decision is available on the Internet, together with a somewhat indifferent and unhelpful English translation of the headnote, available at
<http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/dfr/bv095096.html> .
[134] See note 23 supra.
[135] BVerfGE 95, 96, 131f; BGHSt 39, 1, 27f; R Dreier, note 129 supra, pp 67f; V Erb, ZStW 108, 266, 266, 274f; W Gropp, NJ 1996, 393, 394; A Kaufmann, NJW 1995, 81, 83; H Rittstieg, DuR 1991, 404, 411.
[136] In relation to the democratic control of legislation, see Kruger v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 27; (1997) 190 CLR 1 at 105-7, per Gaudron J.
[137] BVerfGE 95, 96, 132f.
[138] BVerfGE 95, 96, 133 (translation by the author of this article).
[139] BVerfGE 95, 96, 133, 136.
[140] Sophocles, “Antigone” in R Fagles (Tr), The Three Theban Plays, Penguin Books (1982) p 64.
[141] Ibid, p 64.
[142] BVerfGE 95, 96, 136f.
[143] OLG Düsseldorf, NJW 1979, 53, 63; OLG Düsseldorf, NJW 1983, 1277, 1278; LG Stuttgart, NJW 1964, 101, 101f; M Frommel, note 129 supra, p 87; W Gropp, NJ 1996, 393, 393; G Grünwald, JZ 1966, 633; V Krey, JR 1980, 45, 49. See also KA Adams, note 20 supra at 299f.
[144] BGHSt 44, 68, 72; A Kaufmann, NJW 1995, 81, 84; E Schlüchter, G Duttge, NStZ 1996, 457, 457 n 2.
[145] BGHSt 39, 1, 15; BGHSt 39, 168, 175-85; BGHSt 39, 353, 370f; BGHSt 40, 113, 116f; BGHSt 40, 218, 232; BGHSt 40, 241, 244; BGHSt 41, 101, 105-7, 111; BGHSt 41, 157, 164f; BGHSt 41, 247, 257; BGHSt 42, 65, 70f.
[146] BGHSt 40, 241, 244. The relationship between the ‘Radbruch formula’ and norms of international law will be considered in more detail below.
[147] BGHSt 42, 356, 361f.
[148] BGH, NStZ 1993, 488, 489.
[149] BVerfGE 95, 96, 140-3; BGHSt 39, 1, 34; BGHSt 39, 168, 175, 185; BGHSt 40, 113, 116f; BGHSt 41, 101, 110; LG Stuttgart, NJW 1964, 101, 104f. See also note 120 supra.
[150] BGHSt 40, 272, 278; BGHSt 41, 247, 259; BGHSt 44, 68, 72. But see BGH, NJW 1997, 2609, 2610; G Küpper, H Wilms, ZRP 1992, 91, 93.
[151] See, for example, BVerfGE 95, 96, 135; BGHSt 40, 30, 41f; BGHSt 40, 241, 244-8; BGHSt 41, 101, 105, 109; BayVerfGH, NJW 1961, 1619, 1619; LG Stuttgart, NJW 1964, 101, 102; K Amelung, JuS 1993, 637, 640; R Dreier, JZ 1997, 421, 426.
[152] “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”: quoted in I Brownlie, Basic Documents in International Law, Clarendon (4th ed, 1995) p 258.
[153] BGHSt 39, 1, 24-30; BGHSt 39, 168, 175-85; BGHSt 40, 30, 40-2; BGHSt 40, 241, 250; BGHSt 40, 272, 278f; BGHSt 41, 101, 110-112; BGHSt 41, 157, 161-3; BGHSt 44, 207, 209.
[154] R Alexy, note 114 supra, pp 10-12, 14f, 30; K Amelung, JuS 1993, 637, 638f; G Dannecker, Jura 1994, 585, 591f; R Dreier, JZ 1997, 421, 426f; V Erb, ZStW 108, 266, 267f; W Fiedler, JZ 1993, 206, 208; M Frommel, note 1299 supra, pp 84f; W Gropp, NJ 1993, 393, 395; K Günther, StV 1993, 18, 19-23; J Herrmann, NStZ 93, 118, 118-20; G Jakobs, GA 1994, 1, 7 fn 25, 9; P Kunig, note 108 supra at 832; O Luchterhandt, “Was bleibt vom Recht der DDR [What’s Left of East German Law]” in E Schmidt (ed), Vielfalt des Rechts - Einheit der Rechtsordnung [Diversity of Law within One Legal Order] (1994) 184 at 184-8; K Lüderssen, ZStW 104, 735, 748; B Pieroth, VVDStRL 51, 91, 97f; J Renzikowski, ZStW 106, 93, 102, 120; B Schlink, NJ 1994, 433, 434-6; C Starck, VVDStRL 51, 7, 14, 17f, 142; S Zimmermann, JuS 1996, 865, 870f.
[155] G Dannecker, Jura 1994, 585, 592; M Frommel, note 129 supra, p 90f; J Herrmann, NStZ 93, 118, 120.
[156] See further BGHSt 44, 204 on the extent to which accessories could take advantage of unobjectionable criminal defences, such as withdrawal from attempt, if the principal offender, acting on the order of the accessory, was responsible for the withdrawal.
[157] R Wassermannn, RuP 1999, 101, 102.
[158] BVerfG, 2 BvQ 60/99 vom 12.1.2000, available at <http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de> . According to a report in the Berliner Morgenpost of 22 March 2000, a panel (Kammer) of the Federal Constitutional Court had on the previous day refused leave to appeal to four former border guards who had been sentenced to several years’ imprisonment each. According to the report, the Court essentially repeated the rulings described in the text. A copy of the panel’s decision was not available to the author at the time of writing.
[159] Der Spiegel, 2/2000, 10 January 2000 at 52.
[160] Criminal Code, s 9 I 2nd half-sentence.
[161] BVerfGE 92, 277, 325-37. See BGHSt 39, 206; BGHSt 43, 129, 142-5; BGH, NJW 1997, 668; BGH, NJW 1997, 670; P Albrecht, S Kadelbach, NJ 1992, 137, 142, 145; G Dannecker, note 15 supra, p 287; P Huber, Jura 1996, 301, 304-7; H Jarass, B Pieroth, Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Kommentar [Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany: Commentary], CH Beck (4th ed, 1997) p 940; G Leibholz, H Rinck, D Hesselberger, Grundgesetz Kommentar [Basic Law Commentary], Dr Otto Schmidt (3rd ed, 1993) p 74; R Lippold, NJW 1992, 18, 23-5; E Schlüchter, G Duttge, NStZ 1996, 457, 458-60; T Maunz, G Dürig (eds), note 15 supra, Art 103 II, pp 63f; K Volk, NStZ 1995, 367. But see H Arndt, NJW 1991, 2466, 2467; H Arndt, NJW 1995, 1803, 1803f; CD Classen, NStZ 1995, 371, 371f; CD Classen, JZ 1991, 713, 718; B Simma, K Volk, NJW 1991, 871, 874f; HC Maier, NJW 1991, 2460, 2461-4.
[162] BGHSt 40, 125; BGHSt 42, 275; BGH, NJW 1997, 2609. See BVerfG (Kammer), DtZ 1996, 341; G Grünwald, StV 1991, 31, 34f; R Lippold, NJW 1992, 18, 25; E Reimer, NStZ 1995, 83. For similar examples from the Nazi period see BGHSt 3, 110, 116-18; OLG Hamm, MDR 1947, 203; OLG Bamberg, note 120 supra. And see the interesting debate between L Fuller, note 128 supra, and HLA Hart, note 115 supra; see also L Fuller, The Morality of Law, Yale (revised ed, 1969), pp 245-53, reprinted in J Feinberg, H Gross, note 115 supra at 111-14; HO Pappe, “On the Validity of Judicial Decisions in the Nazi Era” (1960) 23 MLR 260; R Alexy, “A Defence of Radbruch’s Formula” in D Dyzenhaus (ed), Recrafting the Rule of Law: Limits of the Legal Order (1999); J Rivers, “The Interpretation and Invalidity of Unjust Laws” in: D Dyzenhaus (ed), ibid. For a prosecution that failed for reasons of the immunity of the Head of State, see Re Honecker (1984) 80 ILR 365; BGHSt 33, 97. After the Wall had fallen, Honecker was put on trial but released as too sick and near to death to stand trial: BerlVerfGH, NJW 1993, 515.
[163] There were ‘elections’ in East Germany along Soviet lines with ‘unity lists’ set down and results rigged by the Communist party. See BVerfG (Kammer), NJW 1993, 2524; BGHSt 43, 183; S Höchst, JR 1992, 360; K Lüderssen, ZStW 104, 735, 760f; F Schroeder, NStZ 1993, 216, 218.
[164] BGHSt 40, 30, 40-2; BGHSt 40, 169, 178f; BGHSt 41, 157, 161-5; BGHSt 41, 247, 253, 268-77; BGHSt 41, 317, 321, 330ff; BGHSt 44, 275, 298; BGH, NJW 1998, 248; R Dreier, JZ 1997, 421, 431; G Grünwald, StV 1991, 31, 36; H Jarass, B Pieroth, note 1611 supra, pp 939f.
[165] BVerfG (Kammer), NJW 1998, 2585, 2585f; BVerfG (Kammer), NJW 1998, 2587, 2588f.
[166] R Alexy, note 114 supra, pp 29f; K Amelung, JuS 1993, 637, 642; K Amelung, NStZ 1995, 29, 30; K Günther, StV 1993, 18, 23; A Kaufmann, NJW 1995, 81, 84; V Krey, JR 1980, 45, 49; G Küpper, H Wilms, ZRP 1992, 91, 93; J Limbach, DtZ 1993, 66, 68f; E Schmidt-Bleibtreu, F Klein, Kommentar zum Grundgesetz [Commentary on the Basic Law], Luchterhand (8th ed, 1995) pp 1321, 1324. Calling for even more retrospectivity: R Wassermannn, RuP 1999, 101.
[167] See also the bibliography in H Jescheck, note 83 supra, p 11 n 5.
[168] T Hobbes (ed R Tuch), Leviathan, Cambridge (1991) pp 208-11.
[169] For some suggested differences between Nuremberg and the border guard trials, see M Goodman, “After the Wall: The Legal Ramifications of the East German Border Guard Trials in United Germany” (1996) 29 Cornell ILJ 727 at 743-9.
[170] R Alexy, note 114 supra, p 11; H Jarass, B Pieroth, note 161 supra, p 939; FL Lorenz, JZ 1994, 388, 393; M Pawlik, GA 1994, 472, 474f; B Pieroth, VVDStRL 51, 91, 97f; B Schlink, NJ 1994, 433, 436; T Maunz, G Dürig (eds), note 15 supra, Art 103 II, p 63. But see G Dannecker, note 15 supra, p 271f; M Frommel, note 129 supra, p 83. See also BGHSt 39, 353, 360.
[171] BGHSt 39, 1, 30; BGHSt 39, 260, 270f; BGHSt 41, 101, 111f; BGHSt 42, 275, 282; G Dannecker, Jura 1994, 585, 592f; V Erb, ZStW 108, 266, 280; T Lenckner et al, Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar [Criminal Code Commentary], CH Beck (23rd ed, 1988), p 48; M Frommel, note 129 supra, p 91; J Herrmann, NStZ 93, 118, 120; P Huber, Jura 1996, 301, 306; U Klug JZ 1965, 149, 151; R Lippold, NJW 1992, 18, 25; H Schreiber, ZStW 80, 348, 350, 359-61; R Schmitt, note 108 supra at 230; H Tröndle, note 110 supra at 122. For an interesting argument on this point, see A Palmer and C Sampford, note 28 supra at 230-2.
[172] V Erb, ZStW 108, 266, 280. See also K Letzgus, NStZ 1994, 57, 59f.
[173] BVerfGE 36, 1.
[174] J Herrmann, NStZ 29, 118, 120; O Luchterhandt, note 1544 supra at 189f.
[175] Section 95 of the East German Criminal Code. This provision, unlike those considered by M Goodman, note 169 supra, pp 749-51, extended beyond international crimes (such as genocide) to include other acts that violated basic human rights.
[176] R Alexy, note 114 supra, p 21; M Pawlik, GA 1994, 472, 473; J Polakiewicz, EuGRZ 1992, 177, 181, 186; C Starck, VVDStRL 51, 7, 143; PJ Winters, note 15 supra at 693, 695.
[177] See note 152 supra.
[178] R Alexy, note 114 supra, pp 24f. See HLA Hart, note 128 supra, p 209.
[179] BVerfGE 3, 225, 232f; OGHSt 2, 269, 269; BGHSt 41, 101, 107f; BGHSt 41, 247, 257; R Alexy, note 114 supra, p 4; R Dreier, note 129 supra, at 69; W Gropp, NJ 1996, 393, 397; H Ott, NJ 1993, 337, 339. See Francome v Mirror Group Newspapers [1984] 1 WLR 892 at 897, 901.
[180] V Krey, JR 1995, 221, 227; V Krey, ZStW 1989, 838, 871f.
[181] W Gropp, NJ 1996, 393, 398; B Pieroth, VVDStRL 51, 91, 103f; B Schlink, NJ 1994, 433, 436; H Schreiber, JZ 1973, 713, 713.
[182] See note 23 supra; BGHSt 39, 353, 366f; R Dreier, note 129 supra at 66; G Jakobs, GA 1994, 1, 4; O Luchterhandt, note 12954 supra, p 185.
[183] For example, s 27 V, which provided firstly that human life was “to be spared if possible” when using weapons at the border, secondly that weapons were not to be used against young people and women “if possible”, and thirdly that first aid was to be given “having regard to the necessary security precautions”.
[184] KA Adams, note 20 supra at 297-9, 313f; R Alexy, note 114 supra, p 21f; R Dreier, note 129 supra at 66-8; W Gropp, NJ 1996, 393, 397f; H Jarass, B Pieroth, note 161 supra at 939; K Lüderssen, ZStW 104, 735, 739f; J Polakiewicz, EuGRZ 1992, 177, 179, 189f; H Rittstieg, DuR 1991, 401, 409, 421.
[185] M Frommel, note 129 supra, pp 82, 85f; O Luchterhandt, note 154 supra, p 185; C Starck, VVDStRL 51, 7, 17f.
[186] See note 183 supra.
[187] K Lüderssen, ZStW 104, 735, 741f.
[188] G Jakobs, GA 1994, 1. See K Lüderssen, ZStW 104, 735, 742.
[189] W Naucke, note 84 supra at 244-6.
[190] H Schreiber, note 16 supra, p 209. See also note 15 supra.
[191] R Dreier, JZ 1997, 421, 432; J Polakiewicz, EuGRZ 1992, 177. See A Palmer and C Sampford, note 28 supra at 277.
[192] For an excellent summary of the debate and further references, see L Lustgarten, “Taking Nazi Law Seriously” (2000) 63 MLR 128 at 130-2. See also the discussion in R Alexy, note 162 supra, and J Rivers, note 162 supra. For a recent discussion of the place of morality in positivism and further references, see J Coleman, “Constraints on the Criteria of Legality” (2000) 6 Legal Theory 171.
[193] J Arnold, JuS 1997, 400, 402; G Jakobs, GA 1994, 1, 11f. See HLA Hart, note 128 supra, pp 209-12.
[194] G Dannecker, Jura 1994, 585, 585; G Dannecker, K Stoffers, JZ 1996, 490, 492; P Kunig, note 108 supra at 832; T Maunz, G Dürig (eds), note 15 supra, Art 103 II, p 63.
[195] K Amelung, JuS 1993, 637, 640; R Dreier, JZ 1997, 421, 429.
[196] G Dannecker, K Stoffers, JZ 1996, 490, 492.
[197] B Pieroth, VVDStRL 51, 91, 168 (‘unsauber’).
[198] R Dreier, JZ 1997, 421, 425.
[199] R Alexy, note 114 supra, p 16f; R Dreier, note 129 supra at 64; G Grünwald, StV 1991, 31, 37; H Ott, NJ 1993, 337, 341f; B Pieroth, VVDStRL 51, 91, 98; J Polakiewicz, EuGRZ 1992, 177, 184f.
[200] K Amelung, JuS 1993, 637, 640; M Goodman, note 1619 supra at 755; J Polakiewicz, EuGRZ 1992, 177, 186.
[201] H Ott, NJ 1993, 337, 341f. See R Alexy, note 114 supra, p 27; G Grünwald, StV 1991, 31, 37.
[202] But see International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997 (Cth).
[203] R Alexy, note 114 supra, p 10; K Amelung, JuS 1993, 637, 639; R Dreier, note 129 supra, p 66; H Ott, NJ 1993, 337, 340f, 343; J Polakiewicz, EuGRZ 1992, 177, 184f; H Rittstieg, DuR 1991, 404, 417-20.
[204] R Alexy, note 114 supra, pp 16f; K Amelung, JuS 1993, 637, 641; G Dannecker, Jura 1994, 585, 590f; R Dreier, JZ 1997, 421, 425; M Goodman, note 169 supra at 751-6; W Gropp, NJ 1996, 393, 395f; G Grünwald, StV 1991, 31, 39; P Kunig, note 108 supra at 832; H Ott, NJ 1993, 337, 340f; M Pawlik, GA 1994, 472, 474; B Pieroth, VVDStRL 51, 91, 98; H Rittstieg, DuR 1991, 404, 417.
[205] K Amelung, NStZ 1995, 29, 30. See R Dreier, JZ 1997, 421, 426; W Gropp, NJ 1996, 393, 396; A Palmer and C Sampford, note 28 supra at 250.
[206] R Alexy, note 114 supra, pp 35-8; K Amelung, NStZ 1995, 29, 30; J Arnold, JuS 1997, 400, 404; G Dannecker, Jura 1994, 585, 593f; R Dreier, JZ 1997, 421, 430; M Frommel, note 129 supra at 92; W Gropp, NJ 1996, 393, 396f; H Jarass, B Pieroth, note 161 supra at 939; J Polakiewicz, EuGRZ 1992, 177, 187. See O Luchterhandt, note 154 supra, p 189.
[207] Criminal Code, s 19 (persons under 14 years are minors under German criminal law).
[208] Ibid s 17. In practice, this particular exemption is very rarely applied.
[209] J Arnold, JuS 1997, 400, 402. See OLG Bamberg, note 120 supra at 1007; KA Adams, note 20 supra at 308f.
[210] See BVerfGE 95, 96, 142f. The Court stated that the criminal courts had not considered whether “the individual soldier, having regard to his education, indoctrination and other circumstances, was beyond doubt capable of recognising the illegality of his acts”. However, the Court recognised that the criminal courts had dealt with the question of recognition of wrongfulness to some extent. They had held that even indoctrinated soldiers should have been able to recognise the wrongfulness of killing unarmed refugees at the border, and this was a sufficient consideration of the problem for constitutional purposes.
[211] Note 138 supra.
[212] O Dixon, “The Common Law as an Ultimate Constitutional Foundation” (1957) 31 ALJ 240; Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45; (1992) 177 CLR 106 at 135.
[213] See Basic Law, Art 20 II 2.
[214] BVerfGE 71, 108, 114; BVerfGE 78, 374, 382; BVerfGE 95, 96, 113.
[215] BVerfGE 45, 363, 371; BVerfGE 48, 48, 56f; BVerfGE 75, 329, 333; G Dannecker, note 15 supra, p 250f; G Grünwald, ZStW 76, 1, 16; V Krey, note 15 supra, p 1f; A Ransiek, note 81 supra, pp 40-4.
[216] In Germany, by the Basic Law, art 80 I.
[217] T Maunz, G Dürig (eds), note 15 supra, Art 103 II, p 52.
[218] A Ransiek, note 81 supra, pp 40-4; H Rudolphi et al, note 107 supra, s 1, p 3. See B Haffke, Das Rückwirkungsverbot des Art 103 II bei Änderung der Rechtsprechung zum materiellen Recht, zugleich ein Beitrag zum Problem des Strafbarkeitsbewußtseins [The Prohibition on Retrospective Criminal Law in Article 103 para 2 when Substantive Case Law Changes, together with a Contribution on the Problem of Consciousness of Criminal Guilt], (PhD thesis, Göttingen 1970) p 125; P Kunig, note 108 supra at 822. But see V Krey, note 15 supra, p 133.
[219] [1997] HCA 25; (1997) 189 CLR 520 at 566f.
[220] [1996] HCA 48; (1996) 186 CLR 140 at 168-70, 182f, 231-6, 284f.
[221] G Dannecker, note 15 supra, p 4; F Haft, JuS 1975, 477, 477; H Jescheck, W Ruß, G Willms, note 81 supra, p 5; P Kunig, note 108 supra at 822; B Pieroth, VVDStRL 51, 91, 102f; A Ransiek, note 81 supra, pp 40-4; T Maunz, G Dürig, note 15 supra, Art 103 II, p 17; H Schreiber, note 16 supra, pp 215, 219; H Schreiber, ZStW 80, 348, 362-4; A Wimmer, SJZ 1947, 123, 126. See V Krey, note 15 supra, p 133. In earlier times, protection not just from arbitrary legislation but from arbitrary judges was desired.
[222] BVerfGE 1, 264, 280; BVerfGE 3, 225, 237f; BVerfGE 63, 343, 356f; BVerfGE 78, 374, 382; BVerfGE 95, 96, 131; P Albrecht, S Kadelbach, NJ 1992, 137, 146f; G Dannecker, note 15 supra, p 4; V Erb, ZStW 108, 266, 275f; G Grünwald, ZStW 76, 1, 17f; B Haffke, note 218 supra, pp 120-3; W Hassemer in AK-StGB, p 151; H Jescheck, note 83 supra, p 138; H Jescheck, W Ruß, G Willms, note 81 supra, p 5, 15f; V Krey, note 15 supra, p 132; P Kunig, note 108 supra at 822; U Meyer-Cording, JZ 1952, 161, 164-7; B Pieroth, Jura 1983, 122, 123; B Pieroth, JuS 1977, 394, 396; B Pieroth, JZ 1984, 971, 976; B Pieroth, VVDStRL 51, 91, 102f; O Ranft, JuS 1992, 468, 470; A Ransiek, note 81 supra, pp 40-4; H Rudolphi et al, note 107 supra, s 1, pp 3, 5; H Rüping, note 83 supra, Art 103 II, pp 9f, 25; E Schmidt-Bleibtreu, F Klein, note 166 supra, p 1321; H Schreiber, note 16 supra, pp 213f; H Schreiber, JZ 1973, 713, 715; H Schreiber, ZStW 80, 348, 350; W Straßburg, ZStW 82, 948, 948; R Wassermannn in AK-GG, pp 1223-5. See BVerfGE 2, 380, 396, 403; BVerfGE 13, 261, 271; H Schreiber, JZ 1973, 713, 713 and Shaw v DPP [1961] UKHL 1; [1962] AC 220 at 281, per Lord Reid (dissenting).
[223] DP Kommers, “The Jurisprudence of Free Speech in the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany” (1980) 53 Southern Cal LR 657 at 657f.
[224] Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45; (1992) 177 CLR 106 at 136.
[225] A Palmer and C Sampford, note 28 supra; the minuscule volume of retrospective criminal laws is referred to at 236-7.
[226] At least, this rather than any concept of individual rights was the original justification for the doctrine: H Roberts, note 14 supra at 175f.