The chapter will provide a comprehensive typology of norm-making in transnational criminal law, by focusing on both the adoption of norms at the global level and on issues of implementation and compliance. The chapter will look in particular at how the making of global standards in transnational criminal law has shifted from traditional forms of international law-making – namely multilateral international treaties – to other forms of governance including regionalism, ‘soft’ or ‘informal’ law and ‘global administrative law’. The interaction and inter-relationship between these forms of governance in the development of a multi-level paradigm of global governance of transnational crime will be highlighted and the implications of this paradigm on justice and the rule of law will be explored. Questions on justice will focus on issues of inter-state justice, but also on the impact of transnational criminal law on domestic criminal justice systems. A number of parallel and innovative processes of internationalisation and globalisation will be highlighted in this context and their impact on law-making in a complex global arena will be explored.
The chapter examines the relationship between mutual recognition, mutual trust and fundamental rights in European criminal law. By focusing in particular on the operation of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant, the chapter examines the way in which fundamental rights concerns are dealt with by secondary EU law (fundamental rights as grounds of refusal to recognise and execute a judicial decision) as well as by the Court of Justice of the European Union (examining the evolution of the Court’s case law to include recent rulings in Radu, Melloni and Opinion 2/13). A key focus in this context is the extent to which fundamental rights concerns should be examined and serve as limits to mutual recognition and the extent to which the European Union can proactively promote fundamental rights in order to ensure the effective operation of the mutual recognition system.
Extraterritorial immigration control has been increasingly used by states aiming to deflect and prevent flows of migrants and asylum seekers towards their territory. The growing securitisation of migration and asylum flows has led to the proliferation of mechanisms of extraterritorial immigration control, with new responses devised in times of perceived crisis. By focusing primarily on European responses, the aim of this chapter is to offer a typology of mechanisms of extraterritorial immigration control and to map their evolution, taking in particular into account new responses prompted by the emergence in the global securitisation agenda of the fight against human smuggling as a primary security threat. The chapter will begin by an analysis of extraterritorial immigration control by states, as complemented in the case of the EU by the activities of FRONTEX. It will focus on two aspects of extraterritorial immigration control closely linked with the fight against human smuggling: the privatisation of extraterritorial immigration control by criminalising and policing humanitarianism, and the militarisation of extraterritorial immigration control with endeavours such as Operation Sophia. The chapter will place these developments within a multi-layered, interconnected framework of extraterritorial immigration control which extends to cooperative arrangements between the EU and its Member States on the one hand and third countries on the other. The chapter will demonstrate that the many levels of extraterritorial immigration control represent an emerging paradigm of preventive justice, by focusing on the prevention of entry of migrants and refugees in the territory and its Member States. The chapter will also demonstrate how, in this paradigm of preventive justice, the rule of law is undermined.
Valsamis Mitsilegas and Niovi Vavoula
This chapter examines key privacy concerns raised by the establishment and operation of EU large-scale information systems (the Schengen Information System – SIS II, the Eurodac. the Visa Information System – VIS, and the Entry/Exit System – EES) as well as the EU PNR Directive. By dividing the chronology of the EU developments into three waves, it is argued that the current landscape in relation to the systematic collection, storage and further processing of personal data carries the characteristics of mass surveillance of movement through digital technologies. This surveillance of mobility, which is focused on prevention, has become the normal and logical response to future threats disregarding the high standards of privacy protection as advanced by the EU Court of Justice.
Valsamis Mitsilegas, Saskia Hufnagel and Anton Moiseienko
In an increasingly mobile and interconnected world, transnational crime – that is, crime that directly affects more than one country – is more prevalent than ever before. Against this background, transnational crime has become increasingly difficult to study, let alone counteract. Given its sheer diversity, the whole utility of thinking about transnational crime as a field of enquiry may appear questionable. Yet by focusing too closely on specialist areas of concern one risks missing the proverbial wood for the trees – that is, factors common to various strands of transnational crime and the shared challenges of addressing it. The objective of this Handbook is to serve as a guide for the exploration of major types of transnational crime and key geographical regions.
Edited by Valsamis Mitsilegas, Saskia Hufnagel and Anton Moiseienko
Valsamis Mitsilegas, Malgosia Fitzmaurice and Elena Fasoli
The chapter focuses on the relationship between EU criminal law and environmental law in the light of the link between EU and international environmental law. The analysis firstly deals with the constitutional controversy with regard to the use of the protection of the environment as a legitimising factor for the attribution to the Union of competence to define criminal offences and apply criminal sanctions. Secondly, the chapter examines the interactions between EU law and the international agreements containing criminal prohibitions for the protection of the environment (CITES, Basel Convention and MARPOL). It demonstrates that both the environmental crime and the ship-source pollution Directives constitute a step forward in the criminalization of certain activities harmful to the environment. Finally, the chapter investigates the possibility that a more extensive criminalization could lead to an over-criminalization in the field of the environment and concludes that this possibility exists in light of the Intertanko case.