The Goal Behind the Integration of European Criminal Systems - Essay Example

Law essay of Law essay The goal behind the integration of European criminal systems: The European Union is now a reality that is here to stay. The basic purpose as everyone knows is to have a strong unified Europe without boundaries (individual nation states continue as before). Many aspects regarding this already exist and have resulted in what is “referred to as the ‘four freedoms’: the free movement of employees, goods, capital and services” (Klip, 2009, 111). In such a situation, the primary reason or goal is that a unified Europe should logically have a unified criminal system. While it is too early to say about the efficacy or effectiveness of a unified system (as of now), one can identify several reasons or goals behind the move apart from the one mentioned above. Relatively unrestricted movement of people has in turn resulted in rising instances of cross border crime. This is apparently the second most important goal in integration. Another major area of concern is terrorism. Even though such acts can be classified under crime, Klip (mentioned above) has specifically stated this aspect as one of the goals that needs a unified criminal law. Inflow of foreign nationals and subsequent European (country wise) citizenship has resulted in a relatively undisturbed movement between member states for them. Those people intent on committing crime have the option to travel freely to another member state. If apprehended, the question as to which country’s law take precedence will be an issue. This is especially true if the culprit is apprehended in their own host country for a crime committed in another member state. 2. Primary difference between a civil law and a common law system To a layperson, there is no apparent difference between the two terms. But in legal parlance, these two terms are different in their evolution and practice. It should be noted that both civil and common law systems are based on justice, but have some fundamental differences. One of the primary differences is the country or region of origin of both these systems. Civil law (the concept) is said to have originated in Rome while common law is based on English court judgments (Lengeling, 2008, 4). Civil is based on codified or specific parameters that govern judicial decisions. In other words, countries that follow civil law depend mostly on these codified predefined laws to enforce judgments. Civil laws have their basis on the constitution and the laws passed by the parliaments (or ruling bodies) of a nation state. Common law on the other hand is a system where judicial precedence is given importance. In other words, the decision of the court is what is taken into consideration rather than codified laws as seen in the (Roman) civil law system. Decisions are taken based on previous judgments especially those of a higher court. So a decision of a higher court becomes an (evolving) law for future law disputes especially in lower courts. It would be difficult to assess which form is better suited for general legal issues. But a free market environment (by nature) is dynamic and a system bound by formalities and rules (as in the case of civil law) may not be able to keep abreast of this dynamism. It would take a lot of time and effort to change or bring about a new legislation for a country solely following civil law. Common law has an advantage here because judges can make a decision based on precedence and if none exists, can give a decision based on the circumstances of each case. Hence a common law system (or a hybrid one) is more suited to a free market environment. 3. History and purpose of the European Union The eventual formation of the European Union (EU) has gone through a series of complicated steps that would not be easy to describe. According to the official EU website, “the European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbors, which culminated in the Second World War” (European Union, n.d.). But the actual ground level situation indicates that the purpose of formation of this Union goes far beyond ending wars between countries in Europe. According to the Union website, the next obvious step was to develop economic cooperation between member states. The forerunner of the present Union was the European Economic Community which was formed in 1958. This was a step forward from the original intention to prevent military hostilities between countries (in Europe). Eventually this economic cooperation evolved into the concept of freedom of movement of people and goods/services within member states. The present form of the EU came into existence in 1993. Apart from the above broad visions, concepts like universal human rights (within the Union), freedom, and equality have been incorporated into the structure of EU. The above mentioned reasons deal with human rights and economic aspects through cooperation. But literature reveals further reasons. One of them is to gain economic advantage and clout with regard to other nations or group of nations of the world. The second one is to have political (and probably military strength) for a region that is finding increasing threats in these three areas. It can be seen that the history and purpose has evolved over the years due to the dynamic changes seen across the world where shifting of balance of power is a feature that cannot be ignored. 4. History and goals of the International Criminal Court. Why did the U.S. decline to participate? “The history of the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) spans over more than a century. The “road to Rome” was a long and often contentious one. While efforts to create a global criminal court can be traced back to the early 19th century, the story began in earnest in 1872 with Gustav Moynier – one of the founders of the International Committee of the Red Cross – who proposed a permanent court in response to the crimes of the Franco-Prussian War” (Coalition for the International Criminal Court, n.d). This statement encapsulates the fundamental purpose of the formation of the Court. The ICC is a baby in the international political arena since it came (officially) into existence in 2002. At present, the ICC is an body that aims to judge and possibly prevent transnational or international crimes classified specifically as crimes against humanity and genocide. The United States has not been supportive of the ICC and it appears that the motive is based on protecting or condemning US citizens based solely on the country’s laws. The President has the power as follows - "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of US and certain allied persons who may be detained or tried by the ICC” (Elsea, 2006, 1). It appears that the United States is taking a stand that shows its distrust of international justice systems. This stand is suspect since the ICC has been recognized by many nations including those in Europe as a recognized international body of justice. 5. Primary dangers to the U.S. judicial and political systems posed by future rulings of the International Criminal Court It would appear that the United States is distancing itself from accepting a system of international justice through the formation of the ICC. Several reasons have been put forth by country in taking this stance. The country feels that its own laws have the supreme ability to uphold human rights as can be seen from the observation by Elsea mentioned above. It should be noted here that the country is still considered to be the sole superpower (economic and military) after the collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union. While the military aspect may still hold true, the economic power of the country is under threat from various other regions including the emerging nations of Asia and South America. If the country continues to take this stance, the United States will eventually face “further isolation by the international community” (Zipprich, 2009). The country, its politicians and policy makers have the liberty to take such a stand. But long term image and support for the country could ultimately depend on how it cooperates with international strategies, policies and politics. It can be concluded that the stand taken is not beneficial to the United States considering the fact that the balance of power in many fronts are changing and also due to the fact that the country is apparently distrustful of the laws of many nations in particular and the international community in general. . References Coalition for the International Criminal Court. (n.d). History of the ICC. Retrieved from http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=icchistory Elsea, J. (2006). Us policy regarding the international criminal court. Retrieved from http://www.iaca.http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31495.pdfws/files/LWB-Manhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31495.pdfagingEditor.pdf European Union. (n.d). The history of the European union. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/index_en.htm Klip, A. (2006). European integration and harmonization and criminal law. In D. Curtin, A. Klip, J. Smits & J. McCahery (Eds.), European Integration and Law (pp. 109-153). Intersentia Lengeling, D. (2008). Common law and civil law – differences, reciprocal influences and points of intersection. Retrieved from http://www.consulegis.com/fileadmin/downloads/thomas_marx_08/DLengeling_paper.pdf Zipprich, S. (2009). The international criminal court: time to adjust American foreign policy. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a510808.pdf Read More