Methodical potential of hermeneutics pragmatism in understanding and implementation of the ne bis in idem principle
Keywords:
hermeneutics pragmatism; ne bis in idem; similarity of deed; legal security; fairnessAbstract
The work examines the methodical potential of hermeneutics pragmatism in solving the controversy linked to implementation of the ne bis in idem principle. The key part of the paper is focused at forming adequate criteria for evaluating the similarities of the punishable deed, in situations of application of the principle “evaluating the interests based on evaluating facts”. Thence, a stance based on hermeneutics relativism is to be taken, which has as a consequence a certain relativisation of the principle ne bis in idem with a view of establishing a fitting balance between the principles of legal security and fairness. The work discusses in which way the hermeneutics relativism spills over into hermeneutics pragmatism / sociologism and what are the benefits of that approach for deliberation of the issue of ne bis in idem.
Downloads
References
Bejatović, S. 2003. Krivično procesno pravo. Beograd.
Bidlinski, F. 2011. Pravna metodologija. Podgorica.
Bovan, S. B. 2013. “Slučaj tumačenja kao utemeljenje hermeneutičkog postupka.” Beograd.
Bovan, S. 2013. “Metodska svest – conditio sine qua non digniteta pravničke profesije.” Pravni život, no. 12.
Dimitrijević, D. 1975. Krivično procesno pravo. Beograd.
Dimitrijević, D., M. Stefanović-Zlatić, and Đ. Lazin. 1990. Krivično procesno pravo. Beograd.
Garačić, A., and M. Grgić. 2008. “Ne bis in idem.” Accessed October 29, 2013. http://vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/files/AGaracic_Ne-Bis-In-Idem_Opatija_Zagreb_2008.pdf.
Grubač, M. 1995. Krivično procesno pravo. Beograd.
Engisch, K. 1956. Einführung in das juristische Denken. Stuttgart.
Jekić, Z. 1998. Krivično procesno pravo. Beograd.
Kantorovič, H. 2006. Borba za pravnu nauku. Beograd.
Kaufman, A. 1998. Pravo i razumevanje prava. Beograd – Valjevo.
Larenc, K. 1960. Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft. Berlin-Göttingen-Heildeberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-28410-0
Mole, N., and C. Harby. 2006. The Right to a Fair Trial: A Guide to the Implementation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Handbooks no. 3. Strasbourg.
Ogorek, R. 1986. Richterkönig oder Subsumtionsautomat? Zur Justiztheorie im 19. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/Main.
Pokrovac, Z. 1992. “Sudačka neovisnost, postulat vezanosti zakonom i slobodnopravni pokret.” Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, no. 4.
Puppe, I. 2011. Kleine Schule des juristischen Denkens. Göttingen.
Ros, A. 1996. Pravo i pravda. Podgorica.
Stojanović, Z. 2013. Krivično pravo (opšti deo). Beograd.
Škulić, M. 2012. Krivično procesno pravo. Beograd.
Upmeier, A. 2004. “Der Sachverhalt im juristischen Streit.” In Der juristische Streit. Recht zwischen Rhetorik, Argumentation und Dogmatik, edited by G. Kreuzbauer and S. Augeneder. Stuttgart.
Visković, N. 1981. Pojam prava. Split.
Wüstendörfer, H. 1915–1916. “Zur Hermeneutik der soziologischen Rechtsfindungstheorie.” Archiv für Rechts und Wirtschaftsphilosophie, no. 9.
Rüthers, B. 1999. Rechtstheorie. München.
Zippelius, R. 2003. Juristische Methodenlehre. München.
Zupančić, B. M. 2011. “Ne bis in idem (zabrana ponovnog suđenja za isto delo).” Crimen, no. 2.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2014 Saša B. Bovan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, allowing others to share the work with proper attribution to the authors and acknowledgment of its original publication in this journal.
