Ein Musterentwurf mit Schlagseite zulasten der Freiheit

Q4 Social Sciences
Verwaltung Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.3790/verw.53.1.39
B. Pieroth
{"title":"Ein Musterentwurf mit Schlagseite zulasten der Freiheit","authors":"B. Pieroth","doi":"10.3790/verw.53.1.39","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This contribution, entitled “A Sample Draft with a Tendency towards Curtailing Freedom”, critically examines the planned project of a standardised police act (Musterpolizeigesetz). This template legislation is discussed by Markus Thiel in the preceding article. Firstly, the lead commission’s approach to standardise “the maximum that is permissible from a constitutional point of view” is considered misguided. It makes extremely one-sided use of the legislator’s corridor between freedom and security, and jeopardises the project as a whole - a project that makes sense in itself. Secondly, the legal concept of “impending danger”, which has already found its way into recent amendments to state police legislation, is criticized linguistically, constitutionally, and politically. The attempt is made to achieve the necessary police-law defence against terrorism through careful adjustments, rather than by overcoming the tried and tested constitutional dogma of the terms “danger” and “responsibility”. Thirdly, reasons are given for why preventive police detention infringes European and constitutional law. Detention is imposed without the existence of a concrete danger, or for a period exceeding 14 days. It is recalled that, in terms of legal history and comparative law, preventive detention is a typical instrument of the state of emergency and of regimes of injustice.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":"1 1","pages":"39-62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Verwaltung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.53.1.39","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This contribution, entitled “A Sample Draft with a Tendency towards Curtailing Freedom”, critically examines the planned project of a standardised police act (Musterpolizeigesetz). This template legislation is discussed by Markus Thiel in the preceding article. Firstly, the lead commission’s approach to standardise “the maximum that is permissible from a constitutional point of view” is considered misguided. It makes extremely one-sided use of the legislator’s corridor between freedom and security, and jeopardises the project as a whole - a project that makes sense in itself. Secondly, the legal concept of “impending danger”, which has already found its way into recent amendments to state police legislation, is criticized linguistically, constitutionally, and politically. The attempt is made to achieve the necessary police-law defence against terrorism through careful adjustments, rather than by overcoming the tried and tested constitutional dogma of the terms “danger” and “responsibility”. Thirdly, reasons are given for why preventive police detention infringes European and constitutional law. Detention is imposed without the existence of a concrete danger, or for a period exceeding 14 days. It is recalled that, in terms of legal history and comparative law, preventive detention is a typical instrument of the state of emergency and of regimes of injustice.
这是一本以自由为代价的蓝图
这份题为“有限制自由倾向的草案样本”的报告批判性地审查了一项标准化警察法(Musterpolizeigesetz)的计划项目。Markus Thiel在前一篇文章中讨论了这种模版立法。首先,领导委员会将“从宪法角度允许的最大限度”标准化的方法被认为是错误的。它极其片面地利用了立法者在自由和安全之间的通道,并危及了整个项目——一个本身有意义的项目。其次,“迫在眉睫的危险”这一法律概念已经出现在最近的州警察立法修正案中,在语言、宪法和政治上都受到了批评。其目的是通过谨慎的调整,而不是克服“危险”和“责任”这两个术语久经考验的宪法教条,来实现对恐怖主义的必要警务保护。第三,给出了为什么预防性警察拘留违反欧洲和宪法的理由。在没有具体危险的情况下实施拘留,或拘留期限超过14天。回顾一下,就法制史和比较法而言,预防性拘留是紧急状态和不公正政权的典型工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Verwaltung
Verwaltung Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信