Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-w5x57 Total loading time: 1.448 Render date: 2022-07-05T04:43:36.032Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Part I - Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

Kai Ambos
Affiliation:
Judge Kosovo Specialist Chambers, The Hague
Antony Duff
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Alexander Heinze
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Julian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend
Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarnio, A., Alexy, R. and Peczenik, A., On Coherence Theory of Law, Juristförlaget i Lund (1998).Google Scholar
Borghetti, J.-S., ‘Legal Methodology and the Role of Professors in France. Professorenrecht is not a French Word!’, in Basedow, J., Fleischer, H. and Zimmermann, R. (eds.), Legislators, Judges, and Professors, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2016), 209–22.Google Scholar
Burchard, C., ‘Strafverfassungsrecht – Vorüberlegungen zu einem Schlüsselbegriff’, in Tiedemann, K., Sieber, U., Satzger, H., Burchard, C. and Brodowski, D. (eds.), Die Verfassung moderner Strafrechtspflege, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2016), 2562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, J., ‘“Frenzied Law Making”: Overcriminalization by Numbers’, Current Legal Problems, 67 (2014), 483502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christopher, R., ‘Tripartite Structures of Criminal Law in Germany and Other Civil Law Jurisdictions’, Cardozo Law Review, 28 (2007), 2675–95.Google Scholar
Dubber, M., ‘The Promise of German Criminal Law: A Science of Crime and Punishment’, German Law Journal, 6 (2005), 1049–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyson, M., ‘Overlap, Separation and Hybridity across Crime and Tort’, in Dyson, M. and Vogel, B. (eds.), The Limits of Criminal Law, Cambridge, Intersentia (2018), 79106.Google Scholar
Dyson, M. and Green, S., ‘The Properties of the Law: Restoring Personal Property through Crime and Tort’, in Dyson, M. (ed.), Unravelling Tort and Crime, Cambridge University Press (2014), 389421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyson, M. and Randall, J., ‘England’s Splendid Isolation’, in Dyson, M. (ed.), Comparing Tort and Crime, Cambridge University Press (2015), 1872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engisch, K., Einführung in das juristische Denken, 11th edn, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer (2010).Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. P., Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1998).Google Scholar
Grammar of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2007).Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., ‘The Ascription of Responsibility and Rights’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 49 (1949), 171–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahn, M., ‘Strafverfassungsrecht: Das Grundgesetz als Herausforderung für die Dogmatik des Straf- und Strafverfahrensrechts’, in Tiedemann, K., Sieber, U., Satzger, H., Burchard, C. and Brodowski, D (eds.), Die Verfassung moderner Strafrechtspflege, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2016), 6386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar
Naucke, W., ‘An Insider’s Perspective on the Significance of the German Criminal Theory’s General System for Analyzing Criminal Acts’, Brigham Young University Law Review, 305 (1984), 305–21.Google Scholar
Radbruch, G. L., ‘Jurisprudence in the Criminal Law’, Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 18 (1936), 212–25.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., ‘Should the Criminal Law Abandon the Actus Reus-Mens Rea Distinction?’, in Robinson, P. H. and Barton, J. S. (eds.), The Structure and Limits of Criminal Law, Farnham, Ashgate (2014), 126.Google Scholar
Simpson, A. W. B., Cannibalism and the Common Law, University of Chicago Press (1984).Google Scholar
Stark, F., ‘It’s Only Words: On Meaning and Mens Rea’, Cambridge Law Journal, 72 (2013), 155–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thier, A., ‘Das Werk von Claus-Wilhelm Canaris und die europäische Rechtstradition: Das “System” als Beispiel’, in Grigoleit, H. C. and Petersen, J. (eds.), Privatrechtsdogmatik im 21. Jahrhundert. Festschrift für Claus-Wilhelm Canaris zum 80. Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter (2017), 2950.Google Scholar
Whitman, J., ‘No Right Answer?’, in Jackson, J., Langer, M. and Tillers, P. (eds.), Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context, Oxford, Hart (2008), 371–92.Google Scholar
Wolf, W., ‘Richterliche Entscheidungsroutinen als Gegenstand und Leitfaden der juristischen Methodenlehre: zivilrechtliche Perspektiven’, in Reimer, F. (ed.), Juristische Methodenlehre aus dem Geist der Praxis?, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2016), 7590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. (with Morse S.), Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law, New York, Cambridge University Press (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Omissions’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. and Weigend, T. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, New York, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 1753.Google Scholar
Bennett, J., The Act Itself, New York, Oxford University Press (1995).Google Scholar
Burgstaller, M., Das Fahrlässigkeitsdelikt im Strafrecht, Vienna, Manz (1974).Google Scholar
Dressler, J., Understanding Criminal Law, 7th edn, New Providence, NJ, Matthew Bender & Co. (2015).Google Scholar
Duttge, G., ‘§ 15’, in Joecks, W. and Miebach, K. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch, 4th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2020).Google Scholar
Eisele, J., ‘Kausalität und objektive Zurechnung’, in Baumann, J., Weber, U., Mitsch, W. and Eisele, J. (eds.), Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 12th edn, Bielefeld, Gieseking (2016), 190247.Google Scholar
Eisele, J., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu §§ 13 ff.’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 30th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar
Engisch, K., Die Kausalität als Merkmal der strafrechtlichen Tatbestände, Tübingen, Mohr (1931).Google Scholar
Engisch, K., ‘Das Problem der psychischen Kausalität beim Betrug’, in Welzel, H. (ed.), Festschrift für Hellmuth von Weber, Bonn, Röhrscheid Verlag (1963), 247–70.Google Scholar
Fletcher, G., Rethinking Criminal Law, New York, Oxford University Press (2000).Google Scholar
Frank, R., Das Strafgesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich, 18th edn, Tübingen, Mohr (1931).Google Scholar
Freund, G., ‘Vor § 13’, in Joecks, W. and Miebach, K. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch, 4th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2020).Google Scholar
Frisch, W., Tatbestandsmäßiges Verhalten und Zurechnung des Erfolgs, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (1988).Google Scholar
Frisch, W., ‘Erfolgsgeschichte und Kritik der objektiven Zurechnungslehre – zugleich ein Beitrag zur Revisionsbedürftigkeit des Straftatsystems’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht (2018), 553–72.Google Scholar
Frister, H., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 9th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeckenjan, I., Revision der Lehre von der objektiven Zurechnung, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gössel, K.-H., ‘Objektive Zurechnung und Kausalität’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht (2015), 1834.Google Scholar
Greco, L., ‘Kausalitäts- und Zurechnungsfragen bei unechten Unterlassungsdelikten’, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 6 (2011), 674–91.Google Scholar
Heine, G. and Weisser, B., ‘§ 27’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 30th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar
Hörnle, T., ‘Plädoyer für die Aufgabe der Kategorie “bedingter Vorsatz”’, Juristenzeitung, 74 (2019), 440–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobs, G., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 2nd edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts, Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar
Kadish, S., ‘Complicity, Cause and Blame: A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine’, California Law Review, 73 (1985), 323410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadish, S., Schulhofer, S. and Barkow, R., Criminal Law and Its Processes: Cases and Materials, 10th edn, New York, Wolters Kluwer (2017).Google Scholar
Kaufmann, A., ‘Die Dogmatik im Alternativ-Entwurf’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 80 (1968), 3453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, A., ‘Zum Stand der Lehre vom personalen Unrecht’, in Stratenwerth, G., Kaufmann, A., Geilen, G., Hirsch, H. J., Schreiber, H.-L., Jakobs, G. and Loos, F. (eds.), Festschrift für Hans Welzel, Berlin, De Gruyter (1974), 393414.Google Scholar
Kindhäuser, U., ‘Zurechnung bei alternativer Kausalität’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht (2012), 134–48.Google Scholar
Kindhäuser, U., ‘Verursachen und Bedingen. Zur Regressverbotslehre Reinhard Franks’, in Stuckenberg, C.-F. and Gärditz, K. F. (eds.), Festschrift für Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2015), 131–51.Google Scholar
Kindhäuser, U., ‘Zur Alternativstruktur des strafrechtlichen Kausalbegriffs – Zugleich eine Entgegnung auf Puppes Kritik der conditio per quam’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 11 (2016), 574–93.Google Scholar
Maurach, R. and Zipf, H., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil 1, 8th edn, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (1992).Google Scholar
McMahan, J., ‘Killing, Letting Die, and Withdrawing Aid’, Ethics, 103 (1993), 250–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merkel, R., ‘Über einige vernachlässigte Probleme des Kausalitätsbegriffs im Strafrecht und Ingeborg Puppes Lehren dazu’, in Paeffgen, H.-U., Böse, M., Kindhäuser, U., Stübinger, S., Verrel, T. and Zaczyk, R. (eds.), Festschrift für Ingeborg Puppe, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2011), 151–69.Google Scholar
Mezger, E., Strafrecht, 3rd edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, M., Causation and Responsibility: An Essay in Law, Morals, and Metaphysics, New York, Oxford University Press (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, D. and Rickless, S., ‘So Close, Yet So Far: Why Solutions to the Closeness Problem for the Doctrine of Double Effect Fall Short’, Noûs, 49 (2015), 376409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puppe, I., ‘Der Erfolg und seine kausale Erklärung im Strafrecht’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 92 (1980), 863911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puppe, I., ‘Lob der Conditio-sine-qua-non-Formel’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht (2010), 551–70.Google Scholar
Puppe, I., ‘Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Lehre von der Verursachung im Recht’, Rechtswissenschaft, 2 (2011), 400–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puppe, I., ‘Vor §§ 13 ff.’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Nomos-Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch, 5th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2017).Google Scholar
Robinson, P., ‘The Model Penal Code’s Conceptual Error on the Nature of Proximate Cause, and How to Fix it’, Crim. Law Bulletin, 51 (2015), 1311–25.Google Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘Pflichtwidrigkeit und Erfolg bei fahrlässigen Delikten’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 74 (1962), 411–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘Gedanken zur Problematik der Zurechnung im Strafrecht’, in Festschrift für Richard M. Honig, Göttingen, Schwartz (1970), 133–50.Google Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘Das strafrechtliche Unrecht im Spannungsfeld von Rechtsgüterschutz und individueller Freiheit’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 116 (2004), 929–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roxin, C., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil I, 4th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2006).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘Der Verunglückte und Unglück bewirkende Retter im Strafrecht’, in Paeffgen, H.-U., Böse, M., Kindhäuser, U., Stübinger, S., Verrel, T. and Zaczyk, R. (eds.), Festschrift für Ingeborg Puppe, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2011), 909–31.Google Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘Retterschäden als Fahrlässigkeitstaten des Verursachers – eine Bilanz’, in Böse, M., Schumann, K. and Toepel, F. (eds.), Festschrift für Urs Kindhäuser, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2019), 407–23.Google Scholar
Roxin, C. and Greco, L., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil I, 5th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2020).Google Scholar
Sartorio, C., ‘Review: Causation and Responsibility’, Mind, 119 (2010), 830–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, J., ‘Disconnection and Responsibility’, Legal Theory, 18 (2012), 399435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg-Lieben, D. and Schuster, F., ‘§ 15’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 30th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘“Risikoabnahme” – Zur Begrenzung der Zurechnung in Retterfällen’, in Heinrich, M., Jäger, C., Achenbach, H., Amelung, K., Bottke, W., Haffke, B., Schünemann, B. and Wolter, J. (eds.), Festschrift für Claus Roxin II, Berlin, De Gruyter (2011), 411–24.Google Scholar
Tadros, V., ‘Wrongful Intentions without Closeness’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 43 (2015), 5274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, J. and Bülte, J., ‘§ 15’, in Cirener, G., Radtke, H., Rissing-van Saan, R., Rönnau, T. and Schluckebier, W. (eds.), Leipziger Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch, Band 1, 13th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2020).Google Scholar
von Beling, E., Grundzüge des Strafrechts, 11th edn, Tübingen, Mohr (1930).Google Scholar
von Kries, J., ‘Über die Begriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeit und Möglichkeit und ihre Bedeutung im Strafrecht’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 9 (1889), 528–37.Google Scholar
Walen, A., The Mechanics of Claims and Permissible Killing in War, New York, Oxford University Press (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walen, A., ‘More Contra Moore on Omissions as Causes’, Criminal Law Bulletin (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Walter, T., ‘Vor §§ 13 ff.’, in Cirener, G., Radtke, H., Rissing-van Saan, R., Rönnau, T. and Schluckebier, W. (eds.), Leipziger Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch, Band 1, 13th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2020).Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Zwischen Vorsatz und Fahrlässigkeit’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 93 (1981), 657700.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Selbst Schuld? Zur Zurechnung von Tatfolgen, an deren Entstehung der Verletzte mitgewirkt hat’, in Hecker, B., Weisser, B. and Brand, C. (eds.), Festschrift für Rudolf Rengier, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018), 135–46.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘§13’, in Cirener, G., Radtke, H., Rissing-van Saan, R., Rönnau, T. and Schluckebier, W. (eds.), Leipziger Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch, Band 1, 13th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2020).Google Scholar
Weisser, B., Kausalitäts- und Täterschaftprobleme bei der strafrechtlichen Würdigung pflichtwidriger Kollegialentscheidungen, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisser, B., ‘Zur Zurechnung von Verletzungserfolgen beim Konsum illegaler Betäubungsmittel’, in Zöller, M., Hilger, H., Küper, W. and Roxin, C. (eds.), Festschrift für Jürgen Wolter, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2013), 541–55.Google Scholar
Weisser, B., ‘Strafrecht am Ende des Lebens – Sterbehilfe und Hilfe zum Suizid im Spiegel der Rechtsvergleichung’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 128 (2016), 106–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westen, P., ‘Why Criminal Harm Matters’, in Robinson, P., Ferzan, K., and Garvey, S. (eds.), Criminal Law Conversations, New York, Oxford University Press (2009), 155–7.Google Scholar
Williams, G., ‘Finis for Novus Actus?Cambridge Law Journal, 48 (1989), 391416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. and Puppe, I., ‘Causation: Linguistic, Philosophical, Legal and Economic’, Chicago-Kent Law Review, 91 (2016), 461502.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Der Anfang vom Ende der actio libera in causa?Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 49 (1997), 2296–344.Google Scholar
Bommer, F., ‘Die strafrechtliche Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichts im Jahr 2010’, ZBJV, 151 (2015), 350–74.Google Scholar
Bommer, F., ‘Article 19’, in Niggli, M. A. and Wipraechtiger, H. (eds.), Basler Kommentar Strafrecht II, 4th edn, Basle, Helbing Lichtenhahn (2019), art. 19, no. 99.Google Scholar
Bommer, F., ‘Article 263’, in Niggli, M. A. and Wipraechtiger, H. (eds.), Basler Kommentar Strafrecht II, 4th edn, Basle, Helbing Lichtenhahn (2019), art. 263, no. 4.Google Scholar
Byrd, B. Sh., Kant’s Doctrine of Right: A Commentary, Cambridge University Press (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, D. A., ‘Bifurcations of Consciousness: The Elimination of the Self-Induced Intoxication Excuse’, Missouri Law Review, 64 (1999), 383436.Google Scholar
Deddens, R., ‘Volitional Fault and the Intoxicated Criminal Offender’, University of Cincinnati Law Review, 36 (1967), 258305.Google Scholar
Dimock, S., ‘Actio Libera in Causa’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 7 (2013), 549–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, J., Understanding Criminal Law, New York, Lexis Nexis (1995).Google Scholar
Dripps, D. A., ‘Rehabilitating Bentham’s Theory of Excuses’, Texas Tech Law Review, 42 (2009), 383418.Google Scholar
Dubber, M. and Hörnle, T., Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar
Ege, G., Der Affekt im schweizerischen Strafrecht (Dissertation, Zurich, Schulthess, 2017).Google Scholar
Feulner, T., ‘The Minotaur Defense: The Myth of the Pathological Intoxication Defense’, American Criminal Law Review, 49 (2012), 1969–99.Google Scholar
Frister, H., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 8th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar
Gardner, S., ‘The Importance of Majewski’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 14 (1994), 279–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gless, S. and Loughnan, L., ‘Understanding the Law on Intoxicated Offending: Principle, Pragmatism and Legal Culture’, Journal of International and Comparative Law, 3 (2016), 345–73.Google Scholar
Graven, P. and Sträuli, B., L’infraction pénale punissable, 2nd edn, Bern, Stämpfli (1995).Google Scholar
Hale, M., Historia placitorum coronae [The History of the Pleas of the Crown], 1st American edn, trans. by Stokes W. A. and Ingersoll E., Philadelphia, PA, Robert H. Small (1847), Vol. 1.Google Scholar
Hall, J., ‘Intoxication and Criminal Responsibility’, Harvard Law Review, 57 (1944), 1045–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hettinger, M., Die ‘actio libera in causa’: Strafbarkeit wegen Begehungstat trotz Schuldunfähigkeit?, Eine historisch-dogmatische Untersuchung, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horder, J., ‘Sobering Up? The Law Commission on Criminal Intoxication’, Modern Law Review, 58 (1995), 534–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horder, J., ‘Criminal Law’, in Cane, P. and Tushnet, M. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies, Oxford University Press (2003), 226–49.Google Scholar
Hruschka, J., ‘Ordentliche und ausserordentliche Zurechnung bei Pufendorf, Zur Geschichte und zur Bedeutung der Differenz von actio libera in se und actio libera in sua causa’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 96 (1984), 661702.Google Scholar
Hruschka, J., ‘Imputation’, Brigham Young University Law Review, 11 (1986), 669710.Google Scholar
Husak, D., ‘Intoxication and Culpability’, Criminal Law & Philosophy, 11 (2012), 363–79.Google Scholar
Ingle, M. P., ‘Law on the Rocks: The Intoxication Defenses Are Being Eighty-Sixed’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 55 (2019), 613–14.Google Scholar
Jescheck, H. H. and Weigend, Th., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts, Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar
Johnstone, G., ‘From Vice to Disease? The Concepts of Dipsomania and Inebriety, 1860–1908’, Social and Legal Studies, 5 (1996), 3756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadish, S. H., Schulhofer, St. J. and Barkow, R. E., Criminal Law and Its Processes: Cases and Materials, Alphen aan den Rijn, Wolters Kluwer (2016).Google Scholar
Kant, I., Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre, Königsberg, 1797, in ‘6 Kant’s gesammelte Schriften’, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften (1907), available at https://korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/kant/aa06/227.html.Google Scholar
Keiter, M., ‘Just Say No Excuse: The Rise and Fall of the Intoxication Defense’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87 (1996–7), 482520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kindhäuser, U., Gefährdung als Straftat: Rechtstheoretische Untersuchungen zur Dogmatik der abstrakten und konkreten Gefährdungsdelikte, Frankfurt am Main, Klostermann (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinschrod, A. G., Entwurf eines peinlichen Gesetzbuches für die kurpfalzbaierischen Staaten, Munich, Hübschmann (1802).Google Scholar
Law Commission for England and Wales, Legislating the Criminal Code: Intoxication and Criminal Liability (Law Com. No. 229, 1995).Google Scholar
Loughnan, A., Manifest Madness: Mental Incapacity in Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, M. S., Act and Crime, Oxford University Press (1993).Google Scholar
Neumann, U., ‘Erfolgshaftung bei selbstverschuldeter Trunkenheit’, Strafverteidiger, 23 (2003), 527–31.Google Scholar
Paeffgen, H. U., ‘Actio libera in causa und § 323a StGB’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 97 (1985), 513–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paeffgen, H. U., ‘§ 323a’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H. U. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch, 5th edn, Munich, Nomos (2017), Vorbemerkungen zu § 323a nos. 1–4 and § 323a nos. 1–3.Google Scholar
Perron, W. and Weisser, B., in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch, 30th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar
Petrig, A. and Zurkinden, N., Swiss Criminal Law, Zurich, Dike (2015).Google Scholar
Pfander, H., ‘Punishment and Other Methods of Dealing with Offenders According to the Swiss Penal Code’, Howard Journal, 6 (1944–5), 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puppe, I., ‘Die Norm des Vollrauschtatbestandes’, Goltdammer’s Archiv, 122 (1974), 98115.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., ‘Causing the Conditions of One’s Own Defense: A Study of the Limits of Theory in Criminal Law Doctrine’, Virginia Law Review, 71 (1985), 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Structure and Function in Criminal Law, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. H., ‘A Brief Summary and Critique of Criminal Liability Rules for Intoxicated Conduct’, Journal of Criminal Law, 82 (2018), 381–7.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Kussmaul, M., Stoddard, C., Rudyak, I. and Kuersten, A., ‘The American Criminal Code: General Defenses’, Journal of Legal Analysis, 7 (2015), 37126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roxin, C. and Greco, L., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil Band 1: Grundlagen. Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, 5th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safferling, C., ‘Insanity and Intoxication’, in Dubber, M. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach, Oxford University Press (2014), 654–76.Google Scholar
Seelmann, K., ‘Personalität und Zurechnung von der Aufklärung bis zur Philosophie des Idealismus’, in Heer, M., Heimgartner, S., Niggli, M. and Thommen, M. (eds.), Toujours agité – jamais abattu, Festschrift für Hans Wiprächtiger, Basle, Helbing Lichtenhahn (2011), 575–85.Google Scholar
Seelmann, K. and Geth, Ch., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 6th edn, Basle, Helbing Lichtenhahn (2016).Google Scholar
Seelmann, M. and Wiprächtiger, H., ‘Ausgekuschelt!?’ Aktuelle Juristische Praxis (2018), 734–47.Google Scholar
Stratenwerth, G., Schweizerisches Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil I: Die Straftat, 4th edn, Bern, Stämpfli (2011).Google Scholar
Streng, F., ‘“Actio libera in causa” und Vollrauschstrafbarkeit – rechtspolitische Perspektiven’, JuristenZeitung, 55 (2000), 20–7.Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, C. F., ‘Comparing Legal Approaches: Mental Disorders as Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility’, Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, 4 (2016), 4864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolmie, J., ‘Alcoholism and Criminal Liability’, Modern Law Review, 64 (2001), 688709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valverde, M., ‘“Slavery from Within”: The Invention of Alcoholism and the Question of Free Will’, Social History, 22 (1997), 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diseases of the Will: Alcohol and the Dilemmas of Freedom, Cambridge University Press (1998).Google Scholar
Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. K., Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A. J., ‘The Unfairness of Risk-Based Possession Offences’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 5 (2011), 237–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A. J. and Blake, M., ‘The Presumption of Innocence in English Criminal Law’, Criminal Law Review (1996), 306–17.Google Scholar
Bock, S. and Stark, F., ‘Preparatory Offences’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. and Weigend, T. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 5493.Google Scholar
Chiao, V., ‘Intention and Attempt’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4 (2010), 3755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornford, A., ‘Rethinking the Wrongness Constraint’, Law and Philosophy, 36 (2017), 615–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornford, A. and Petzsche, A., ‘Terrorism Offences’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. and Weigend, T. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 172209.Google Scholar
Dan-Cohen, M., ‘Decision Rules and Conduct Rules: On Acoustic Separation in Criminal Law’, Harvard Law Review, 97 (1984), 625–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimock, S., ‘Contractarian Criminal Law Theory and Mala Prohibita Offences’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. E., Renzo, M. and Tadros, V. (eds.), Criminalization: The Political Morality of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 151–81.Google Scholar
Donnelly-Lazarov, B., A Philosophy of Criminal Attempt, Cambridge University Press (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubber, M. D., ‘Policing Possession: The War on Crime and the End of Criminal Law’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 91 (2001), 829996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T., Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., Criminal Attempts, Oxford University Press (1996).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Oxford, Hart (2007).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., The Realm of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, R. A. and Marshall, S. E., ‘“Abstract Endangerment”, Two Harm Principles, and Two Routes to Criminalisation’, Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 3 (2015), 131–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, R. A. and Marshall, S. E., ‘Civic Punishment’, in Dzur, A. W., Loader, I. and Sparks, R. (eds.), Democratic Theory and Mass Incarceration, Oxford University Press (2016), 3359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J., ‘Criminalization without Punishment’, Legal Theory, 23 (2017), 6995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J., ‘The Expressive Function of Punishment’, in Doing and Deserving, Princeton University Press (1970), 95118.Google Scholar
Harm to Others, Oxford University Press (1984).Google Scholar
Finkelstein, C., ‘Is Risk a Harm?’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(2003), 9631001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frister, H., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 8th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar
Gordon, G. H., The Criminal Law of Scotland, 3rd edn by M. G. A. Christie, Edinburgh, W. Green (2001).Google Scholar
Green, S. P., ‘Why It’s a Crime to Tear the Tag off a Mattress: Over-Criminalization and the Moral Content of Regulatory Offenses’, Emory Law Journal, 46 (1997), 1533–615.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., ‘Negligence, Mens Rea, and Criminal Responsibility’, in Punishment and Responsibility, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (2008), 136–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzberg, R., ‘Setzt “vorsätzliches Handeln” (§ 15 StGB) ein “Wollen” der Tatbestandsverwirklichung voraus?’, Juristenzeitung, 73 (2018), 122–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hörnle, T., ‘Plädoyer für die Aufgabe der Kategorie “bedingter Vorsatz”’, Juristenzeitung, 74 (2019), 440–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husak, D. N, Ignorance of Law: A Philosophical Analysis, Oxford University Press (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar
Kindhäuser, U., Gefährdung als Straftat – Rechtstheoretische Untersuchungen zur Dogmatik der abstrakten und konkreten Gefährdungsdelikt, Berlin, Klostermann (1989).Google Scholar
Krebs, B., Joint Criminal Enterprise in English and German Law (DPhil. thesis, 2015; Oxford University Research Archive), available at https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:34e2c466-33c0-45ea-8790-338c4f4c893d.Google Scholar
Kühl, K., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 8th edn, Munich, Vahlen (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhlen, L., ‘Umweltstrafrecht – auf der Suche nach einer neuen Dogmatik’, Zeitschrift für die gesamten Strafrechtswissenschaften, 105 (1993), 697726.Google Scholar
Law Commission for England and Wales, A Criminal Code for England and Wales (Law Com. No. 177, 1989).Google Scholar
Kuhlen, L., Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts (Law Com. CP No. 195, 2010).Google Scholar
Mandiberg, S. and Faure, M., ‘A Graduated Punishment Approach to Environmental Crimes: Beyond Vindication of Administrative Authority in the United States and Europe’, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 34 (2009), 447511.Google Scholar
Matuschek, M., Erinnerungsstrafrecht, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberdiek, J., Imposing Risk: A Normative Framework, Oxford University Press (2017).Google Scholar
Ormerod, D. and Laird, K., Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law, 15th edn, Oxford University Press (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puppe, I., ‘Vorbemerkungen zu den §§ 13 ff. StGB’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum StGB, 5th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Raz, J., ‘Authority, Law, and Morality’, The Monist, 68 (1985), 295324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Structure and Function in Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roxin, C. and Greco L., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, S. V., ‘The Moral Neglect of Negligence’, in Sobel, D., Vallentyne, P. and Wall, S. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press (2017), Vol. 3, 197228.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘Can Negligence Be Culpable?’, in Horder, J. (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, 4th Series, Oxford University Press (2000), 85106.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., (ed.), Appraising Strict Liability, Oxford University Press (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘Is Strict Liability Always Wrong?’, in Appraising Strict Liability, Oxford University Press (2005), 2150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simester, A. P., Spencer, J. R., Stark, F., Sullivan, G. R. and Virgo, J., Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, 6th edn, Oxford, Hart (2016).Google Scholar
Simester, A. P. and von Hirsch, A., Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalisation, Oxford, Hart (2011).Google Scholar
Singer, R., ‘On Classism and Dissonance in the Criminal Law: A Reply to Professor Dan-Cohen’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77 (1986), 69100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. J. M., ‘Liability for Endangerment: English Ad Hoc Pragmatism and American Innovation’, Criminal Law Review (1983), 127–36.Google Scholar
Stark, F., Culpable Carelessness: Recklessness and Negligence in the Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, G., ‘Concepts of Intention in German Criminal Law’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24 (2004), 99127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Hirsch, A., ‘Extending the Harm Principle: “Remote” Harms and Fair Imputation’, in Simester, A. P. and Smith, A. T. H. (eds.), Harm and Culpability, Oxford University Press (1996), 259–76.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Subjective Elements of Criminal Liability’, in Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 490511.Google Scholar
Zieschang, F., Die Gefährdungsdelikte, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×