Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-nqqt6 Total loading time: 1.588 Render date: 2022-07-01T08:53:34.022Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Part II - Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2019

Kai Ambos
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Antony Duff
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Julian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend
Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)
Alexander Heinze
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
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: 2020

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

Alexander, L., ‘Criminal Liability for Omissions: An Inventory of Issues’, in Simester, A. and Shute, S. (eds.), Criminal Law Theory: Doctrines of the General Part, Oxford University Press (2002), 121–42.Google Scholar
Allen, M., Textbook on Criminal Law, 14th edn, Oxford University Press (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘The Overall Function of International Criminal Law: Striking the Right Balance between the Rechtsgut and the Harm Principles’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 9 (2015), 301–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Book Review “Schrägle, Unterlassungsdelikt (2017)”’, Criminal Law Forum, 28 (2017), 777–81.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., National Socialist Criminal Law, Baden-Baden and Oxford, Nomos and Hart, (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A., ‘The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions’, Law Quarterly Review, 105 (1989), 424–59.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., ‘Die Rettungspflicht im englischen Recht. Sinnvolle Einschränkungen oder “Island Mentality”?’, in Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Solidarität im Strafrecht: zur Funktion und Legitimation strafrechtlicher Solidaritätspflichten, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2013), 115–31.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., Positive Obligations in Criminal Law, Oxford, Hart (2013).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., Principles of Criminal Law, 7th edn, Oxford University Press (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmaier, L. and del Moral, García A., ‘Spain’, in Verbruggen, F. (ed.), Int. Encyclopaedia: Criminal Law, 4 vols. Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer (2010), IV.Google Scholar
Bohlander, M., The German Criminal Code: A Modern English Translation, Oxford, Hart (2008).Google Scholar
Bell, J., Boyron, S. and Whittaker, S., Principles of French Law, Oxford University Press (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, J. D., An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Kitchener, Batoche Books (2000 [1781]).Google Scholar
Berster, L. C., Die völkerstrafrechtliche Unterlassungverantwortlichkeit, Munich, Utz (2008).Google Scholar
Bosch, N., (and Eisele, J.) ‘Vorbemerkung zu §§ 13 ff.’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), StGB Kommentar, 30th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019), mn. 1161.Google Scholar
Bouloc, B. and Matsopoulou, H., Droit pénal général et procédure pénale, 20th edn, Paris, Dalloz (2016).Google Scholar
Bouzat, P. and Pinatel, J., Traité de droit pénal et de criminologie, Paris, Dalloz (1963).Google Scholar
Brammsen, J., Die Entstehungsvoraussetzungen der Garantenpflichten, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1986).Google Scholar
Cassese, A., ‘Omission Liability and Superior Responsibility’, in Cassese, A. (ed.), International Criminal Law, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press (2013), 180–92.Google Scholar
Chiesa, L. E., ‘Comparative Criminal Law’, in Dubber, M. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 1089–114.Google Scholar
Colvin, E. and Anand, S. S., Principles of Criminal Law, 3rd edn, Toronto, Thomson Carswell (2007).Google Scholar
Debove, F. and Falletti, F., Précis de droit pénal et de procédure pénale, 6th edn, Paris, Puf (2016).Google Scholar
Demetrio, Crespo E., ‘Lección 8: El tipo omisivo’, in Crespo, D. (ed.), Lecciones y materiales para el estudio del Derecho Penal, 7 vols., 2nd edn, Madrid, Iustel (2015), II, 173–93.Google Scholar
Desportes, F. and le Gunehec, F., Droit pénal général, 16th edn, Paris, Economica (2009).Google Scholar
Dias, F., Direito Penal: Parte Especial, 2nd edn, Lissabon, AAFDL (2007).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Oxford, Hart (2007).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., ‘Towards a Modest Legal Moralism’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 8 (2014), 217–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duttwiler, M., ‘Liability for Omission in International Criminal Law’, International Criminal Law Review, 6 (2006), 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. and Simester, A., ‘What’s Public about Crime?’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 37 (2017), 105–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliot, C., French Criminal Law, Uffculme, Willan Publication (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J., Harm to Others, Oxford University Press (1984).Google Scholar
Feldbrugge, F. J. M., ‘Good and Bad Samaritans’, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 14 (1965), 630–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feuerbach, P. J. A., Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland gültigen peinlichen Rechts, 2nd edn, Giessen, Heyer (1803).Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. P., Rethinking Criminal Law, 2nd edn, Boston, Little Brown (1978) [reprint 2002].Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. P., ‘On the Moral Irrelevance of Bodily Movements’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 142 (1994), 1443–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, G. P., Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1998).Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. P., The Grammar of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2007).Google Scholar
Freund, G., ‘§ 13’, in Heintschel-Heinegg, B. von (ed.), Münchener Kommentar StGB, 8 vols., 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017), I.Google Scholar
Gide, A., La Séquestrée de Poitiers, Paris, Éditions Gallimard (1930).Google Scholar
Gómez-Aller, J. D., ‘Criminal Omissions: A European Perspective’, New Criminal Law Review, 11 (2008) 419–51.Google Scholar
Greene, J., ‘From Neural “Is” to Moral “Ought”: What Are the Moral Implications of Neuroscientific Moral Psychology?’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4 (2003), 846–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harzer, R., Die tatbestandsmäßige Situation der unterlassenen Hilfeleistung, Frankfurt a.M., Klostermann (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennau, C. and Verhaegen, J., Droit pénal général, Brussels, Bruylant (2003).Google Scholar
Herzberg, R. D., Die Unterlassung im Strafrecht und das Garantenprinzip, Berlin, De Gruyter (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honoré, T., Responsibility and Fault, Oxford, Hart (1999).Google Scholar
Horder, J., Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hörnle, T., ‘Rights of Others in Criminalisation Theory’, in Simester, A. P., du Bois-Pedain, A. and Neumann, U. (eds.), Liberal Criminal Theory: Essays for Andreas von Hirsch, Oxford, Hart (2014), 169–85.Google Scholar
Hume, D., Treatise of Human Nature, Books I-III (1739), https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hume-a-treatise-of-human-nature.CrossRef
Husak, D. N., Philosophy, Totowa, Rowman & Littlefield (1987).Google Scholar
Husak, D. N., ‘The Alleged Act Requirement in Criminal Law’, in Deigh, J. and Dolinko, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2011), 107–24.Google Scholar
Huschens, W., Die Unterlassene Hilfeleistung im nationalsozialistischen Strafrecht, Speyer am Rhein, Pilger (1938).Google Scholar
Jakobs, G., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 2nd edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (1993).Google Scholar
Jakobs, G., ‘Feuerbachs Verbrechensbegriff: Rechtsverletzung’, in Koch, A., Kubiciel, M., Löhning, M. and Pawlik, M. (eds.), Feuerbachs Bayerisches Strafgesetzbuch, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2014), 209–26.Google Scholar
Jescheck, H.-H., ‘Die Behandlung der unechten Unterlassungsdelikte im deutschen und ausländischen StrafrechtZeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 77 (1965), 109–48.Google Scholar
Jescheck, H.-H., ‘Probleme des unechten Unterlassungsdelikts in rechtsvergleichender Sicht’, in Wolter, J. (ed.), 140 Jahre GA, Heidelberg, Decker’s (1993), 115–29.Google Scholar
Kadish, S. H., Schulhofer, S. J. and Steiker, C. S., Criminal Law and its Processes, 9th edn, New York, Aspen Publishers (2012).Google Scholar
Kadish, S. H., Schulhofer, S. J. and Steiker, C. S., Criminal Law and its Processes, 10th edn, New York, Aspen Publishers (2017).Google Scholar
Kahlo, M., Das Problem des Pflichtwidrigkeitszusammenhangs bei den unechten Unterlassungsdelikten, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1990).Google Scholar
Kant, I., ‘Kritik der reinen Vernunft’, in Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.), Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin, Reimer (1903 [1781]), 3-252, www.korpora.org/kant/aa04/Inhalt4.html; English translation by Meiklejohn, J. M. D., Generic NL Freebook Publisher (1855).Google Scholar
Kargl, W., ‘Unterlassene Hilfeleistung (§ 323c StGB): Zum Verhältnis von Recht und Moral’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 141 (1994), 247–63.Google Scholar
Kaplan, J., Weisberg, R. and Binder, G., Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, 8th edn, New York, Aspen Publishers (2017).Google Scholar
Kaufmann, A., ‘Methodische Probleme der Gleichstellung des Unterlassens mit der Begehung’, Juristische Schulung, 1 (1961), 173–5.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, A., Die Dogmatik der Unterlassungsdelikte, Göttingen, Otto Schwartz (1988 [1959]).Google Scholar
Kirchheimer, O., ‘Criminal Omissions’, Harvard Law Review, 55 (1942), 617–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klotter, J. C. and Pollock, J. M., Criminal Law, 10th edn, Waltham, Elsevier (2013).Google Scholar
Kolb, R., ‘Droit international pénal’, in Kolb, R. and Scalia, D. (eds.), Droit international pénal: Précis, 2nd edn, Bâle, Helbing Lichtenhahn (2012), 195203Google Scholar
Kühl, K., ‘Zur Anwendung des Solidaritätsbegriffs auf die unterlassene Hilfeleistung nach § 323c StGB’, in Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Solidarität im Strafrecht, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2013), 93102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühnbach, L., Solidaritätspflichten Unbeteiligter, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, W. M. and Poser, R. A., ‘Salvors, Finders, Good Samaritans, and Other Rescuers: An Economic Study of Law and Altruism’, Journal of Legal Studies, 7 (1978), 83128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law Commission, Criminal Law: A Criminal Code for England and Wales, London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (1989).
Leroy, J., Droit pénal général, 3rd edn, Paris, LGDJ (2010).Google Scholar
Liszt, F. von, Der Zweckgedanke im Strafrecht, 3rd edn, Frankfurt/Main, Vitorio Klostermann (1968 [1883]).Google Scholar
Luzón Peña, D.-M., ‘Kausalität beim unechten Unterlassungsdelikt?’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 165 (2018), 520–8.Google Scholar
Maihold, H., ‘Jenseits weltanschaulicher Ideologien? – Zur Einführung und Begründung der allgemeinen Nothilfepflicht im Schweizerischen Strafrecht’, in Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Solidarität im Strafrecht, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2013), 131–54.Google Scholar
Maiwald, M., ‘Grundlagenprobleme der Unterlassungsdelikte’, Juristische Schulung, 21 (1981), 473–83.Google Scholar
Malec, A., ‘The Is–Ought Problem and Legal Rationality’, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 24 (2007), 713.Google Scholar
Manning, M., Mewett, A. W. and Sankoff, P., Criminal Law, 4th edn, Markham, Lexis Nexis (2009).Google Scholar
Mayaud, Y., Droit pénal général, 6th edn, Paris, PUF (2018).Google Scholar
Mir Puig, S., Derecho Penal: Parte General, 10th edn, Barcelona, Editorial Reppertor (2016).Google Scholar
Moore, M. S., Act and Crime, Oxford University Press (1993).Google Scholar
Muñoz Conde, F. and García Arán, M., Derecho Penal: Parte General, 9th edn, Valencia, Tirant lo Blanch (2015).Google Scholar
Nagler, J., ‘Die Problematik der Begehung durch Unterlassung’, Der Gerichtssaal, 111 (1938), 163.Google Scholar
Oldnall Russell, W. and Ryan, E. (eds.), ‘Rex v. John Friend and Anne his Wife’, in Oldnall, Russell W. and Ryan, E., Crown Cases Reserved for Consideration and Decided by the Twelve Judges of England from the Year 1799 to the Year 1824, London, Butterworth (1825), 20–2.Google Scholar
Ormerod, D. C. and Laird, K., Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawlik, M., ‘Unterlassene Hilfeleistung: Zuständigkeitsbegründung und systematische Struktur’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 142 (1995), 363–4.Google Scholar
Pawlik, M., Der rechtfertigende Notstand, Berlin, De Gruyter (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawlik, M., Das Unrecht des Bürgers, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2012).Google Scholar
Pedotti, E., Die Unterlassung der Nothilfe mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des geltenden und künftigen schweizerischen Rechtes, Aarau, Sauerländer (1911).Google Scholar
Pfordten, D. von der, ‘Zur Rechtfertigung von Hilfeleistungspflichten’, in Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Solidarität im Strafrecht, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2013), 103–15.Google Scholar
Politoff, I., Koopmans, E. and Ramírez, J. B., ‘Chile’, in International Encyclopaedia of Laws: Criminal Law, Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International (1999), 79.Google Scholar
Pradel, J., Droit pénal général, 20th edn, Paris, Dalloz (2016).Google Scholar
Pradel, J., Droit pénal comparé, 4th edn, Paris, Dalloz (2016).Google Scholar
Pradel, J. and Danti-Juan, M., Droit pénal spécial, 7th edn, Paris, Éditions Cujas (2017).Google Scholar
Pulitanò, D., Diritto Penale, 7th edn, Torino, Giappichelli (2017).Google Scholar
Rebut, D., ‘Omissions de porter secours – entrave aux mesures d’assistance’, Répertoire de droit pénal et de procédure pénale (2017 [2003]).
Roach, K., Criminal Law, 7th edn, Toronto, Irvin Law (2018).Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., ‘Criminal Liability for Omissions: A Brief Summary and Critique of the Law in the United States’, New York Law School Law Review 29 (1984), 101–27.Google Scholar
Romano, M., Commentario sistematico del Codice penale, 3 vols. Milan, Giuffré (2004), I.Google Scholar
Roxin, C., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil II, Munich, C. H. Beck (2003).Google Scholar
Sánchez, S., ‘Entre la omisión de socorro y la comisión por omisión’, Derechos Procesales Fundamentales (Consejo General del Poder Judicial) 4 (1999), 153–72.Google Scholar
Sánchez, S., Estudios sobre los delitos de omisión, Lima, Grijley (2004).Google Scholar
Sánchez, S., ‘Zur Dreiteilung der Unterlassungsdelikte’, in von Schünemann, B., Achenbach, H., Bottke, W., Haffke, B. and Rudolphi, H.-J. (eds.), Festschrift für Claus Roxin zum 70. Geburtstag am 15. Mai 2001, Berlin, De Gruyter (2011), 641–50.Google Scholar
Schaffstein, F., ‘Das Verbrechen als Pflichtverletzung’, in Dahm, G. (ed.), Grundlagen der neuen Rechtswissenschaft, Berlin, Junker & Dünnhaupt (1935), 108–42.Google Scholar
Schiff, D., ‘Samaritans: Good, Bad and Ugly’, Roger Williams University Law Review, 11 (2005), 77141.Google Scholar
Schmidhäuser, E., ‘Über Unterlassensbegriffe – Terminologie und Begriffe’, in Britz, G. and Müller-Dietz, H. (eds.), Grundfragen staatlichen Strafens: Festschrift für Heinz Müller-Dietz, Munich, C. H. Beck (2001), 761–82.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Künzel, B., Die Unterlassungsdelikte im französischen Code Penal unter besonderen Berücksichtigungen der unechten Unterlassensdelikte, Freiburg, Dissertation (1971).Google Scholar
Schmitt, R., ‘Zur Systematik der Unterlassungsdelikte’, JuristenZeitung, 14 (1959) 432–4.Google Scholar
Schöch, H., ‘Zur Strafbarkeit der Behinderung von hilfeleistenden Personen’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 165 (2018), 510–19.Google Scholar
Schrägle, H., Das begehungsgleiche Unterlassungsdelikt: eine rechtsgeschichtliche, rechtsdogmatische und rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung und die Entwicklung eines Systems der Garantietypen, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2017).Google Scholar
Schünemann, B., Grund und Grenzen der unechten Unterlassungsdelikte: zugleich ein Beitrag zur strafrechtlichen Methodenlehre, Göttingen, Schwartz (1971).Google Scholar
Schünemann, B., ‘Zur Garantenstellung beim unechten Unterlassungsdelikt’, in Böse, M. and Sternberg-Lieben, D. (eds.), Grundlagen des Straf- und Strafverfahrensrechts. Festschrift für Knut Amelung, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2010), 303–24.Google Scholar
Seelmann, K., ‘“Unterlassene Hilfeleistung”oder: Was darf das Strafrecht?’, Juristische Schulung, 35 (1995), 281–6.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., Legal Theory, Cambridge University Press (1995).Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., Spencer, J. R., Sullivan, G. R. and Virgo, G. J., Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law, 5th edn, Oxford, Hart (2016).Google Scholar
Smith, J. C., ‘Liability for Omissions in the Criminal Law’, Legal Studies, 14 (1984) 88101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, J. F., A History of the Criminal Law of England, 3 vols. London, Macmillan (1883), III.Google Scholar
Stewart, M. J., ‘How Making the Failure to Assist Illegal Fails to Assist’, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 25 (1998) 385436.Google Scholar
Stuart, D., Delisle, R. J. and Coughlan, S., Learning Canadian Criminal Law, 14th edn, Toronto, Carswell (2018).Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Causation’, in Dubber, M. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 468–89.Google Scholar
Tadros, V., Criminal Responsibility, Oxford University Press (2005).Google Scholar
Thorburn, M., ‘Constitutionalism and the limits of the Criminal Law’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. E., Renzo, M. and Tadros, V. (eds.), The Structures of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2011), 85105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torre, I. B. G. de la and Arroyo Zapatero, L., Curso de Derecho Penal: Parte General, 3rd edn, Barcelona, Ediciones Experiencia (2016).Google Scholar
Véron, M., Droit Pénal Spécial, 15th edn, Paris, Dalloz (2015).Google Scholar
Vranken, M., ‘Duty to Rescue in Civil Law and Common Law: Les extrêmes se touchent?’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 47 (1998), 934–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘§ 13’, in Laufhütte, H. W., Tiedemann, K. and Rissing-van Saan, R. (eds.), Leipziger Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch, 13 vols., 12th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2007).Google Scholar
Williams, G., ‘The Theory of Excuses’, Criminal Law Review, 1 (1982), 732–73.Google Scholar
Williams, G., ‘Criminal Omissions: The Conventional View’, Law Quarterly Review, 107 (1991), 8698.Google Scholar
Winkler, C. W., Dissertation de Crimine Omissionis, Leipzig, Breitkopf (1776).Google Scholar
Wittmann, R., ‘Die unterlassene Hilfeleistung aus rechtsvergleichender und rechtsethischer Sicht’, in Joerden, J. and Schmoller, K. (eds.), Rechtsstaatliches Strafen. Festschrift Yamanaka, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2017), 363–70.Google Scholar
Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. K., ‘Danger: The Ethics of Pre-Emptive Action’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 9 (2012), 647–67.Google Scholar
Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. K., Reflections on Crime and Culpability: Problems and Puzzles, Cambridge University Press (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. K. with Morse, S. J., Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, I: Foundations and General Part, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘§ 24 – Rücktritt’, in Dölling, D., Duttge, G., König, S. and Dieter, R. (eds.), Gesamtes Strafrecht – Handkommentar, 4th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlag (2017), 301–16.Google Scholar
Ambos, K. and Bock, S., ‘Germany’, in Reed, A. and Bohlander, M. (eds.), Participation in Crime: Domestic and Comparative Perspectives, Farnham, Ashgate (2013), 322–39.Google Scholar
American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries, Part I, Philadelphia, The American Law Institute (1985).
Ashworth, A., ‘Defining Criminal Offences without Harm’, in Smith, P. (ed.), Criminal Law: Essays in Honour of J. C. Smith. London, Butterworths (1987), 723.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., ‘Criminal Attempts and the Role of Resulting Harm under the Code, and in the Common Law’, Rutgers Law Journal, 19 (1988), 725–72.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., ‘The Unfairness of Risk-Based Possession Offences’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 5 (2011), 237–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A. and Zedner, L., Preventive Justice, Oxford University Press (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A., Zedner, L. and Tomlin, P. (eds.), Prevention and the Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bein, D., ‘Preparatory Offences’, Israel Law Review, 27 (1993), 185212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, S. and Harrendorf, S., ‘Strafbarkeit und Strafwürdigkeit tatvorbereitender computervermittelter Kommunikation’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 126 (2014), 337–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohlander, M., Principles of German Criminal Law, Oxford, Hart (2009).Google Scholar
Broderick, P. A., ‘Conditional Objectives of Conspiracies’, Yale Law Journal, 94 (1985), 895908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, H., The Preventive Turn in Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, J. J., ‘Exploring the Mens Rea Requirements of the Serious Crime Act 2007 Assisting and Encouraging Offences’, Journal of Criminal Law, 76 (2012), 220–31.Google Scholar
Child, J. J., ‘Understanding Ulterior Mens Rea: Future Conduct Intention is Conditional Intention’, Cambridge Law Journal, 76 (2017), 311–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chou, Y.-Y., Zur Legitimität von Vorbereitungsdelikten, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlag (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, C. M. V., ‘Attempt: The Conduct Requirement’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 29 (2009), 2541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornford, A., ‘Indirect Crimes’, Law and Philosophy 32 (2013), 485514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornford, A., ‘Rethinking the Wrongfulness Constraint on Criminalisation’, Law and Philosophy, 36 (2017), 615–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, I. H., ‘The Rationale of Criminal Conspiracy’, Law Quarterly Review, 93 (1977), 3964.Google Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag, Entwurf eines […] Strafrechtsänderungsgesetzes – Kinderpornographie, Bundestagsdrucksache 12/3001 (1992).
Deutscher Bundestag, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verbesserung des Schutzes der Bevölkerung vor Sexualverbrechen und anderen schweren Straftaten, Bundestagsdrucksache 15/29 (2002).
Dubber, M. D., ‘The Possession Paradigm: The Special Part and the Police Power Model of the Criminal Process’, in Duff, R. A. and Green, S. (eds.), Defining Crimes: Essays on the Special Part of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, (2005) 91118.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., ‘Criminalizing Endangerment’, in Duff, R. A. and Green, S. (eds.), Defining Crimes: Essays on the Special Part of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2005), 4364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime, Oxford University Press (2007).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., ‘Risks, Culpability and Criminal Liability’, in Sullivan, G. R. and Dennis, I. (eds.), Seeking Security: Pre-Empting the Commission of Criminal Harms, Oxford, Hart (2012), 121–42.Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., The Realm of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, R. A. and Hörnle, T., ‘Crimes of Endangerment’, in Ambos, K. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Justice, II, Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).
Edwards, J., ‘Harm Principles’, Legal Theory, 20 (2014), 253–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisele, J., ‘§ 26 – Teilnahme’, in Baumann, J., Weber, U., Mitsch, W. and Eisele, K. (eds.)‚ Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil – Lehrbuch’, 12 edn, Bielefeld, Gieseking Verlag (2016), 797860.Google Scholar
European Commission, Towards an EU Criminal Policy: ‘Ensuring the Effective Implementation of EU Policies through Criminal Law’, COM(2011) 573 final (2011).
Fletcher, G. P., Rethinking Criminal Law, Boston, Little & Brown (1978).Google Scholar
Frisch, W., ‘An den Grenzen des Strafrechts’, in Dencker, F., Marxen, K., Schneider, H.-J., Schumann, H., Struensee, E. and Vormbaum, T. (eds.), Beträge zur Rechtswissenschaft. Festschrift für Walter Stree und Johannes Wessels, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (1993), 69106.Google Scholar
Hassemer, W. and Neumann, U., ‘Vorbemerkung zu § 1’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 5th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlag (2017), 79191.Google Scholar
Heine, G. and Weißer, B., ‘§ 30 – Versuch der Beteiligung’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch – Kommentar, 30th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019), 560–8.Google Scholar
Heine, G. and Weißer, B., ‘§ 31 – Rücktritt vom Versuch der Beteiligung’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch – Kommentar, 30th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2019), 568–71.Google Scholar
Hoffmann-Holland, K., ‘§ 24 – Rücktritt’, in Joecks, W. and Heintschel-Heinegg, B. von (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, I: §§ 1–37, 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017), 1139–219.Google Scholar
Horder, J., Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law, 8th edn, Oxford University Press (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hörnle, T., ‘§ 184b – Verbreitung, Erwerb und Besitz kinderpornographischer Schriften’, in Joecks, W. and Heintschel-Heinegg, B. von (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, III, §§ 80–184j, 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017), 1723–47.Google Scholar
Husak, D. N., ‘The Nature and Justifiability of Nonconsummate Offenses’, Arizona Law Review, 37 (1995), 151–83.Google Scholar
Husak, D. N., ‘The Criminal Law as Last Resort’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24 (2004), 207–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husak, D. N., Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husak, D. N., ‘Preventive Detention as Punishment? Some Potential Obstacles’, in Ashworth, A., Zedner, L. and Tomlin, P. (eds.), Prevention and the Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2013), 178–93.Google Scholar
International Law Commission, Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind with Commentaries (1996).
Jakobs, G., ‘Kriminalisierung im Vorfeld einer Rechtsgutsverletzung’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 97 (1985), 751–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jareborg, N., ‘Criminalization as Last Resort (Ultima Ratio)’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 2 (2005), 521–34.Google Scholar
Jescheck, H. H. and Weigend, T., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts – Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar
Johnson, P. E., ‘The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy’, California Law Review, 61 (1973), 1137–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaspar, J., Verhältnismäßigkeit und Grundrechtsschutz im Präventionsstrafrecht, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katyal, N. K., ‘Conspiracy Theory’, Yale Law Journal, 112 (2003), 1307–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, M., Strafrecht – Allgemeiner Teil, Heidelberg, Springer (1997).Google Scholar
Kühl, K., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 8th edn, Munich, Franz Vahlen (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, N., ‘Historicising Criminalisation: Conceptual and Empirical Issues’, Modern Law Review, 72 (2009), 936–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law Commission, Attempt and Impossibility in Relation to Attempt, Conspiracy and Inrefment, Law Com. No. 102 (1980).
Law Commission, Inchoate Liability for Assisting or Encouraging Crime, Law Com. No. 300 (2006).
Law Commission, Conspiracy and Attempts: Consultation Paper, Law Com. CP No. 183 (2007).
Law Commission, Conspiracy and Attempts: Report, Law Com. No. 318 (2009).
Letzgus, K., Vorstufen der Beteiligung, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1972).Google Scholar
Lilie, H. and Albrecht, D., ‘§ 24 – Rücktritt’, in Laufhütte, H. W., Rissing-van Saan, R. and Tiedemann, K. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch – Leipziger Kommentar, I: Einleitung, §§ 1 bis 31, 12th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2007), 1649–811.Google Scholar
Merten, D., ‘§ 68 Verhältnismäßigkeit’, in Merten, D. and Papier, H. J. (eds.), Handbuch der Grundrechte in Deutschland und Europa, III: Grundrechte in Deutschland: Allgemeine Lehren II, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2009), 517–68.Google Scholar
Miebach, K. and Maier, S., ‘§ 46 – Grundsätze der Strafzumessung’, in Joecks, W. and Heintschel-Heinegg, B. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, II: §§ 38–79b, 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2016), 181337.Google Scholar
Moore, M. S., Causation and Responsibility: An Essay in Law, Morals, and Metaphysics, Oxford University Press (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murmann, U., Grundkurs Strafrecht, 4th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Oberdiek, J., Imposing Risk: A Philosophical Analysis, Oxford University Press (2017).Google Scholar
Ohana, D., ‘Desert and Punishment for Acts Preparatory to the Commission of a Crime’, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 20 (2007), 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormerod, D., ‘Making Sense of Mens Rea in Statutory Conspiracies’, Current Legal Problems, 59 (2006), 185230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormerod, D. and Fortson, R., ‘Serious Crime Act 2007: The Part 2 Offences’, Criminal Law Review (2009), 389–414.
Ormerod, D. and Laird, K., Smith, Hogan and Ormerod’s Criminal Law, 15th edn, Oxford University Press (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paeffgen, H.-U., ‘§ 89a – Vorbereitung einer schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttat’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 5th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2017), 225–67.Google Scholar
Prittwitz, C., Strafrecht und Risiko, Frankfurt, Vittorio Klostermann (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puschke, J., Legitimation, Grenzen und Dogmatik von Vorbereitungstatbeständen, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackow, P., Bock, S. and Harrendorf, S., ‘Überlegungen zur Strafwürdigkeit tatvorbereitender computervermittelter Kommunikation im Internet’, Strafverteidiger, 32 (2012), 687–95.Google Scholar
Renzikowski, J., ‘§ 176 – Sexueller Missbrauch von Kindern’, in Joecks, W. and Heintschel-Heinegg, B. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, III: §§ 80–184j, 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017), 1386–414.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Criminal Law Defenses, 2 vols., St Paul, West (1984).Google Scholar
Rogers, J., ‘The Codification of Attempts and the Case for “Preparation”’, Criminal Law Review (2008), 937–54.
Rook, P. and Robert, W., Rook and Ward on Sexual Offences, 5th edn, London, Sweet & Maxwell (2016).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘Über den Rücktritt vom unbeendeten Versuch’, in Lüttger H. (ed.), Festschrift für Ernst Heinitz, Berlin, De Gruyter (1972), 251–76.CrossRef
Roxin, C., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, II: Besondere Erscheinungsformen der Straftat, Munich, C. H. Beck (2003).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, I: Grundlagen. Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, 4th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2006).Google Scholar
Schäfer, J., ‘§ 129 StGB – Bildung krimineller Vereinigungen’, in Miebach, K. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, II: §§ 80–184j, 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017), 613–64.Google Scholar
Schünemann, B., ‘Kritische Anmerkungen zur geistigen Situation der deutschen Strafrechtswissenschaft’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, 142 (1995), 201–29.Google Scholar
Schünemann, B., ‘§ 30 – Versuch der Beteiligung’, in Laufhütte, H. W., Rissing-van Saan, R. and Tiedemann, K. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch – Leipziger Kommentar, I: Einleitung, §§ 1 bis 31, 12th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2007), 2109–156.Google Scholar
Schünemann, B., ‘§ 31 – Rücktritt vom Versuch der Beteiligung’, in Laufhütte, H. W., Rissing-van Saan, R. and Tiedemann, K. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch – Leipziger Kommentar, I: Einleitung, §§ 1 bis 31, 12th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2007), 2157–169.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘Prophylactic Crimes’, in Sullivan, G. R. and Dennis, I. (eds.), Seeking Security: Pre-Empting the Commission of Criminal Harms, Oxford, Hart (2012), 5978.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘Causation in (Criminal) Law’, Law Quarterly Review, 133 (2017), 416–41.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P. and Hirsch, A. von, Crimes, Harms and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalisation, Oxford, Hart (2011).Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., Spencer, J. R., Stark, F., Sullivan, G. R. and Virgo, G. J., Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, 6th edn, Oxford, Hart/Bloomsbury (2016).Google Scholar
Spencer, J. R., ‘Trying to Help Another Person Commit a Crime’, in Smith, P (ed.), Essays in Honour of J.C. Smith, London, Butterworths (1987), 148–69.Google Scholar
Stark, F., ‘Encouraging or Assisting Clarity?’, Cambridge Law Journal, 72 (2013), 497501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, F., ‘It’s Only Words: On Meaning and Mens Rea’, Cambridge Law Journal, 72 (2013), 155–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, F., Culpable Carelessness: Recklessness and Negligence in the Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, D., Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (Student Edition), 6th edn, Scarborough, Carswell (2011).Google Scholar
Taylor, G., ‘Concepts of Intention in German Criminal Law’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24 (2004), 99127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thalheimer, K., Die Vorfeldstrafbarkeit nach §§ 30, 31 StGB, Frankfurt, Peter Lang (2008).Google Scholar
Wade, C., ‘Prevention of Harm: Legislative Strategies for Law Reform’, Journal of Criminal Law, 72 (2008), 236–50.Google Scholar
Walen, A., ‘The Doctrine of Illicit Intentions’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 34 (2006), 3967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Why Lady Eldon Should Be Acquitted: The Social Harm in Attempting the Impossible’, DePaul Law Review, 27 (1978), 231–73.Google Scholar
Wohlers, W., Deliktstypen des Präventionsstrafrechts – zur Dogmatik ‘moderner’ Gefährdungsdelikte, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2000).Google Scholar
Wörner, L., ‘Die deutsche Versuchsdogmatik – eine Frage der Vorverlagerung des Strafrechts’, in Sinn, A., Gropp, W. and Ferene, N. (eds.), Grenzen der Vorverlagerung in einem Tatstrafrecht, Osnabrück: Universitätsverlag Osnabrück (2011), 135–54.Google Scholar
Wörner, L., ‘Expanding Criminal Laws by Predating Criminal Responsibility: Punishing Planning and Organizing Terrorist Attacks as a Means to Optimize Effectiveness of Fighting against Terrorism’, German Law Journal, 13 (2012), 1037–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaffe, G., Attempts: In the Philosophy of Action and the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2012).Google Scholar
Zaczyk, R., Das Unrecht der versuchten Tat, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaczyk, R., ‘§ 23 – Strafbarkeit des Versuchs’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 5th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2017), 1078–84.Google Scholar
Alldridge, P., ‘The Doctrine of Innocent Agency’, Criminal Law Forum, 2 (1990), 4583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, I: Foundations and General Part, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Ambos, K. and Bock, S., ‘Germany’, in Reed, A. and Bohlander, M. (eds.)‚ Participation in Crime: Domestic and Comparative Perspectives, Aldershot, Ashgate (2013), 323–39.Google Scholar
Baker, D. J., ‘Reinterpreting the Mental Element in Criminal Complicity: Change of Normative Position Theory Cannot Rationalize the Current Law’, Law & Psychology Review, 40 (2016), 119296.Google Scholar
Bloy, R., Die Beteiligungsform als Zurechnungstypus im Strafrecht, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot ( 1985).Google Scholar
Du Bois-Pedain, A., ‘Intentional Killings: the German Law’, in Horder, J. (ed.), Homicide Law in Comparative Perspective, Oxford, Hart (2007), 5581.Google Scholar
Du Bois-Pedain, A., ‘Violent Dynamics: Exploring Responsibility-Attribution for Harms Inflicted during Spontaneous Group Violence’, Oñati Socio-legal Series, 6(4) (2016), 1053–78.Google Scholar
Burchell, J., ‘Joint Enterprise and Common Purpose: Perspectives on English and South African Criminal Law’, South African Journal of Criminal Justice, 10 (1997), 125–40.Google Scholar
Buxton, R., ‘Complicity in the Criminal Code’, Law Quarterly Review, 85 (1969), 252–74.Google Scholar
Child, J., ‘Understanding Ulterior Mens Rea: Future Conduct Intention is Conditional Intention’, Cambridge Law Journal, 76 (2017), 311–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crewe, B., Liebling, A., Padfield, N. and Virgo, G., ‘Joint Enterprise: The Implications of an Unfair and Unclear Law’, Criminal Law Review (2015), 252–69.
Dressler, J., Understanding Criminal Law, 6th edn, New Providence, NJ, LexisNexis (2012).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., ‘Can I Help You? Accessorial Liability and the Intention to Assist’, Legal Studies, 10 (1990), 165–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, R. A., ‘Is Accomplice Liability Superfluous?’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra, 156 (2008), 444–51.Google Scholar
Dyer, A., ‘The “Australian Position” Concerning Criminal Complicity: Principle, Policy or Politics?’, Sydney Law Review, 40 (2018), 289318.Google Scholar
Dyson, M., ‘Principals without Distinction’, Criminal Law Review (2018), 296–320.
Eichmüller, A., Keine Generalamnestie. Die strafrechtliche Verfolgung von NS-Verbrechen in der frühen Bundesrepublik, Munich, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J., ‘Causing Voluntary Actions’, in Feinberg, J., Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility, Princeton University Press (1970) 152–86.Google Scholar
Feuerbach, P. J. A., Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland gültigen peinlichen Rechts, 4th edn, Gießen, Heyer (1808 [1801]).Google Scholar
Gardner, J., ‘Moore on Complicity and Causality’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra, 156 (2008), 432–43.Google Scholar
Gössel, K. H., ‘Dogmatische Überlegungen zur Teilnahme am erfolgsqualifizierten Delikt nach § 18 StGB’, in Warda, G., Waider, H., Hippel, R. and Meurer, D. (eds.), Festschrift für Richard Lange zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter (1976), 219–40.Google Scholar
Greve, M., Der justitielle und rechtspolitische Umgang mit den NS-Gewaltverbrechern in den sechziger Jahren, Frankfurt, Peter Lang (2001).Google Scholar
Haas, V., Die Theorie der Tatherrschaft und ihre Grundlagen, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamdorf, K., Beteiligungsmodelle im Strafrecht. Ein Vergleich von Teilnahme- und Einheitstätersystemen in Skandinavien, Österreich und Deutschland, Freiburg, edition iuscrim (2002).Google Scholar
Hamdorf, K., ‘The Concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise and Domestic Modes of Liability for Parties to a Crime: A Comparison of German and English Law’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 5 (2007), 208–26.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. and Honoré, T., Causation in the Law, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyman, M. G., ‘Losing All Sense of Just Proportion: The Peculiar Law of Accomplice Liability’, St John’s Law Review, 87 (2013), 129–70.Google Scholar
Horder, J., Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law, 8th edn, Oxford University Press (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husak, D., ‘Abetting a Crime’, Law & Philosophy, 33 (2014), 4173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just-Dahlmann, B. and Just, H., Die Gehilfen. NS-Verbrechen und Justiz nach 1945, Frankfurt/Main, Athenäum (1988).Google Scholar
Kadish, S. H., ‘Complicity, Cause and Blame: A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine’, California Law Review, 73 (1985), 323410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadish, S. H., ‘Reckless Complicity’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87 (1997), 369–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, H., Cunningham, S., Walters, M. and Elliot, T., Criminal Law: Text and Materials, London, Sweet & Maxwell (2014).Google Scholar
Kienapfel, D., Der Einheitstäter im Strafrecht, Frankfurt/Main: Klostermann (1971).Google Scholar
Klug, U., ‘Die Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofes in NS-Prozessen’, in Schoeps, H. J. and Hillermann, H. (eds.), Justiz und Nationalsozialismus. Bewältigt – Verdrängt – Vergessen, Stuttgart/Bonn: Burg-Verlag (1987), 92117.Google Scholar
Krebs, B., ‘Joint Enterprise Murder Is Dead – Long Live Joint Enterprise Manslaughter?’, in Krebs, B. (ed.), Accessorial Liability after Jogee, Oxford, Hart/Bloomsbury (forthcoming).
Kriegsmann, H., Mittäterschaft und Raufhandel seit Feuerbach, Breslau, Schlettersche Buchhandlung (1907).Google Scholar
Küpper, G., Grenzen der normativierenden Strafrechtsdogmatik, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1990).Google Scholar
Küpper, G., ‘Der gemeinsame Tatentschluß als unverzichtbares Moment der Mittäterschaft’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 105 (1993), 295305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutz, C., Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age, Cambridge University Press ( 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackner, K. and Kühl, K., Strafgesetzbuch mit Erläuterungen, 29th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar
Law Commission for England and Wales, A Criminal Code for England and Wales (LAW COM. No. 177), London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (1989).
Moore, M., ‘Causing, Aiding and the Superfluity of Accomplice Liability’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 156 (2007), 395452.Google Scholar
Nehmer, B., ‘Täter als Gehilfen? Zur Ahndung der Einsatzgruppenverbrechen’, in Redaktion Kritische Justiz (eds.), Die juristische Aufarbeitung des Unrechtsstaats, Baden-Baden, Nomos (1998), 635–68.Google Scholar
Otto, H., ‘Straflose Teilnahme?’, in Warda, G., Waider, H., von Hippel, R. and Meurer, D. (eds.), Festschrift für Richard Lange zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter (1976), 197217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perels, J., Das juristische Erbe des ‘Dritten Reichs’. Beschädigung der demokratischen Rechtsordnung, Frankfurt/New York, Campus Verlag (1999).Google Scholar
Renzikowski, J., ‘Die fahrlässige Mittäterschaft’, in Dannecker, G., Langer, W., Ranft, O., Schmitz, R. and Brammsen, J. (eds.), Festschrift für Harro Otto zum 70. Geburtstag, Cologne, Heymanns (2007), 423–39.Google Scholar
Rotsch, T., ‘Einheitstäterschaft’ statt Tatherrschaft: Zur Abkehr von einem differenzierenden Beteiligungsformensystem in einer normativ-funktionalen Straftatlehre, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2009).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., Täterschaft und Tatherrschaft, 9th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2015 [1963]).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘§ 25’, in Jähnke, B., Laufhütte, H. W. and Odersky, W. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar, 11th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2003), I.Google Scholar
Samson, E., ‘§ 25’, in Rudolphi, H.-J. and Horn, E. (eds.), Systematischer Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, loose-leaf edn, 22nd instalment, 5th edn, Neuwied, Luchterhand (September 1993).Google Scholar
Schild, W., ‘§ 25’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Nomos-Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 2nd edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2005).Google Scholar
Schöberl, W., Die Einheitstäterschaft als europäisches Modell: Die strafrechtliche Beteiligungsregelung in Österreich und den nordischen Ländern, Vienna, Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag (2006).Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘The Mental Element in Complicity’, Law Quarterly Review, 122 (2006), 578601.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘Accessory Liability and Common Unlawful Purpose’, Law Quarterly Review, 133 (2017), 7390.Google Scholar
Smith, J. C., ‘Criminal Liability of Accessories: Law and Law Reform’, Law Quarterly Review, 113 (1997), 453–67.Google Scholar
Smith, J. C., ‘Joint Enterprise and Accessory Liability’, South African Journal of Criminal Justice, 11 (1998), 337–49.Google Scholar
Smith, K. J. M., A Modern Treatise on the Law of Criminal Complicity, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1991).Google Scholar
Stewart, J. G., ‘Complicity’, in Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 534–59.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. G., ‘The Strangely Familiar History of the Unitary Theory of Perpetration’, in Ackerman, B., Ambos, K. and Sikirić, H. (eds.), Visions of Justice. Liber Amicorum Mirjan Damaška, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2016), 327–52.Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, C. F., ‘Körperverletzung mit Todesfolge bei Exzeß des Mittäters’, in Pawlik, M. and Zaczyk, R. (eds.), Festschrift für Günther Jakobs zum 70. Geburtstag am 26. Juli 2007, Cologne, Heymanns (2007), 693713.Google Scholar
Torp, C., Den danske Strafferets almindelige Del, Copenhagen, G. E. C. Gads Forlag (1905).Google Scholar
Toulson, R., ‘Sir Michael Foster, Professor Williams and Complicity in Murder’, in Baker, D. J. and Horder, J. (eds.), The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law: The Legacy of Glanville Williams, Cambridge University Press (2013), 230–46.Google Scholar
Weißer, B., Täterschaft in Europa. Ein Diskussionsvorschlag für ein europäisches Tätermodell auf der Basis einer rechtsvergleichenden Untersuchung der Beteiligungssysteme Deutschlands, Englands, Frankreichs, Italiens und Österreichs, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2011).Google Scholar
Williams, G., ‘The Theory of Excuses’, Criminal Law Review (1982), 732–42.
Williams, G., Textbook of Criminal Law, 2nd edn, London, Stevens & Sons (1983).Google Scholar
Williams, G., ‘Complicity, Purpose and the Draft Code – 1’, Criminal Law Review (1990), 4–21.
Williams, G., ‘Complicity, Purpose and the Draft Code – 2’, Criminal Law Review (1990), 98–108.
Wilson, W., Criminal Law, 5th edn, Harlow, Pearson ( 2014).Google Scholar
Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Clinton, A. M. and McAuslan, P., ‘Alcohol and Sexual Assault’, Alcohol Research and Health, 25 (2001), 4351.Google ScholarPubMed
Ashworth, A., ‘Comment on R v. G [2008] UKHL’, 37, Criminal Law Review (2008), 818–20.Google Scholar
Bailey, V. and Blackburn, S., ‘The Punishment of Incest Act 1908: A Case Study of Law Creation’, Criminal Law Review (1979), 708–18.
Benyon, C. M., McVeigh, C., McVeigh, L., Leavey, C. and Bellis, M. A., ‘The Involvement of Drugs and Alcohol in Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault: A Systematic Review of the Evidence’, Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 9 (2008), 178–88.Google Scholar
Bowsher, P., ‘Incest – Should Incest between Consenting Adults Be a Crime?’, Criminal Law Review (2015), 208–18.
Brayne, H., Sergeant, L. and Brayne, L., ‘Could Boxing Be Banned? A Legal and Epistemological Perspective’, British Medical Journal, 316 (1998), 1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, B. S., ‘Kant’s Theory of Punishment: Deterrence in its Threat, Retribution in Its Execution’, Law and Philosophy, 8 (1989), 151200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Card, R., Sexual Offences: The New Law, Bristol, Jordans (2004).Google Scholar
Clough, A., ‘Conditional Consent and Purposeful Deception’, The Journal of Criminal Law, 82 (2018), 178–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T., Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar
Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Oxford, Hart (2007).Google Scholar
Duttge, G., ‘Strafbarkeit des Geschwisterinzestes aufgrund ‘eugenischer Gesichtspunkte?’, in Heinrich, M., Jäger, C. and Schünemann, B. (eds.), Strafrecht als Scientia Universalis – Festschrift für Claus Roxin zum 80. Geburtstag am 15. Mai 2011, Berlin, De Gruyter (2011), 227–44.Google Scholar
Eser, A., Perron, W., Sternberg-Lieben, D., Eisele, J., Hecker, B., Kinzig, J., Bosch, N., Schuster, F., Weißer, B. and Schittenhelm, U., in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 29th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2014).Google Scholar
Farmer, L., Making the Modern Criminal Law: Criminalisation and Civil Order, Oxford University Press (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J., Harm to Self, Oxford University Press (1986).Google Scholar
Finnis, J., Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford, Clarendon Press (2004).Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. P., Rethinking Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2000).Google Scholar
Harcourt, B., ‘The Collapse of the Harm Principle’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 90 (1999), 109–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, B, ‘The Collapse of the Harm Principle Redux: On Same-Sex Marriage, the Supreme Court’s Opinion in United States v. Windsor, John Stuart Mill’s Essay On Liberty (1859) and H. L. A. Hart’s Modern Harm Principle’, University of Chicago Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper (2013).
Hart, H. L. A., Law, Liberty and Morality, Oxford University Press (1963).Google Scholar
Herring, J, ‘Mistaken Sex’, Criminal Law Review (2005), 511–24.
Herring, J, Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials, 8th edn, Oxford University Press (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindmarch, I. and Brinkman, R., ‘Trends in the Use of Alcohol and Other Drugs in Cases of Sexual Assault’, Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 14 (1999), 225–31.3.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Home Office, Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sexual Offences, Home Office, London (2000).
Horder, J, Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law, 8th edn, Oxford University Press (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hörnig, D. and Wolff, H. A. (eds.), Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Handkommentar, 12th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2018).Google Scholar
Hörnle, T., ‘Das Verbot des Geschwisterinzests – Verfassungsgerichtliche Bestätigung und verfassungsrechtliche Kritik’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 61 (2008), 2085–8.Google Scholar
Hörnle, T., ‘Das Gesetz zur Verbesserung sexueller Selbstbestimmung’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 13 (2017), 1321.Google Scholar
Hoven, E., ‘Bestechlichkeit als Nötigung?’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 128 (2016), 173–93.Google Scholar
Hoven, E. and Weigend, T., ‘Nein heißt Nein’ – und viele Fragen offen. Zur Neugestaltung der Strafbarkeit sexueller Übergriffe’, Juristenzeitung, 18 (2017), 182–91.Google Scholar
Hoven, E. and Weigend, T., ‘Zur Strafbarkeit von Täuschungen im Sexualstrafrecht’, Kriminalpolitische Zeitschrift, 3 (2018), 156–61.Google Scholar
Hurd, H. M., ‘The Moral Magic of Consent’, Legal Theory 2 (1996), 121–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husak, D., Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2008).Google Scholar
Joecks, W. and Miebach, K. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, IV: §§ 185–262, 4 vols. 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Kant, I., Practical Philosophy, ed. and trans. McGregor, M. J., Cambridge University Press ( 1996).Google Scholar
Kant, I., ‘Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre’, in Höffe, O. (ed.), Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre, Berlin, De Gruyter (1999).Google Scholar
Kell, D., ‘Social Disutility and the Law on Consent’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 14 (1994) 121–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhlen, L., ‘Drohungen und Versprechungen’, in Hefendehl, R., Hörnle, T. and Greco, L. (eds.), Streitbare Strafrechtwissenschaft – Festschrift für Bernd Schünemann zum 70. Geburtstag am 1. November 2014, Berlin, De Gruyter (2014), 611–30.Google Scholar
Laird, K., ‘Rapist or Rogue? Deception, Consent and the Sexual Offences Act 2003’, Criminal Law Review (2014), 492–510.
Laufhütte, H. R., Rissing-van Saan, R. and Tiedemann, K. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch Leipziger Kommentar – Großkommentar, 12th edn, Berlin, De Gruyter (2014).Google Scholar
Law Commission of England and Wales, Consent in the Criminal Law, Consultation Paper 139, London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (1995).
Lyon, M. R., ‘No Means No? Withdrawal of Consent during Intercourse and the Continuing Evolution of the Definition of Rape’, J. Crim. L. and Criminology, 95 (2004), 277314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackinnon, C., Only Words, Harvard University Press (1993).Google Scholar
Mill, J. S., On Liberty (1859), London, Penguin Books (1982).Google Scholar
Miller, F. G. and Wertheimer, A. (eds.), The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice Oxford University Press (2010).Google Scholar
Moran, L. J., ‘Laskey v. The United Kingdom: Learning the Limits of Privacy’, Modern Law Review, 61 (1988), 7784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, V., ‘Sexual Autonomy’, in Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar
Murphy, J. G., Retribution, Justice and Therapy: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Co. (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, J. G., ‘Does Kant Have a Theory of Punishment?’, Columbia Law Review, 87 (1987), 509–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Malley, T., Sexual Offences, 2nd edn, Dublin, Round Hall (2013).Google Scholar
O’Malley, T., ‘The New Law on Sexual Offences’, Irish Criminal Law Journal, 27 (2017), 7889.Google Scholar
O’Neill, O.Between Consenting Adults’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14 (1985), 252–77.Google Scholar
Ormerod, D. and Laird, K., Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law, 15th edn, Oxford University Press (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renzikowski, J., ‘Nein! – Das neue Sexualstrafrecht’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 49 (2016), 3553–8.Google Scholar
Rook, P. and Ward, R., Sexual Offences: Law and Practice, 5th edn, London, Sweet and Maxwell (2016).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil Grundlagen. Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, 4th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2006).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘Zur Strafbarkeit des Geschwisterinzests’, Strafverteidiger, 29 (2009), 544–50.Google Scholar
Ryan, V. M., ‘Intoxicating Encounters: Allocating Responsibility in the Law of Rape’, California Western Law Review, 40 (2004), 407–29.Google Scholar
Sharpe, A., ‘Expanding Liability for Sexual Fraud through the Concept of “Active Deception”: A Flawed Approach’, The Journal of Criminal Law, 80 (2016), 2844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, A., ‘Queering Judgment: The Case of Gender Identity Fraud’, The Journal of Criminal Law, 81 (2017), 417–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shute, S., ‘The Second Law Commission Consultation Paper on Consent’, Criminal Law Review (1996), 684–93.
Simester, A. P., Spencer, J. R., Stark, F., Sullivan, G. R. and Virgo, G. J., Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, 6th edn, Oxford, Hart (2018).Google Scholar
Spencer, J. R., ‘The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (2): Child and Family Offences’, Criminal Law Review (2004), 347–60.
Temkin, J. and Ashworth, A., ‘The Sexual Offences Act 2003: (1) Rape, Sexual Assaults and the Problem of Consent’, Criminal Law Review (2004), 348–6.
Wertheimer, A., ‘Consent and Sexual Relations’, in Miller, F. G. and Wertheimer, A., The Ethics of Consent, Oxford University Press (2010).Google Scholar
Williams, G., ‘Offences and Defences’, Legal Studies, 2 (1992), 233–56.Google Scholar
Williams, R., ‘Deception, Mistake and Vitiation of the Victim’s Consent’, Law Quarterly Review, 124 (2008), 132–59.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Judicial Creativity at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon: Is There a Crime of Terrorism under International Law?’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 24 (2011), 655–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Possession as a Criminal Offence and the Function of the Mental Element: Reflections from a Comparative Perspective’, in Linton, S., Simpson, G. and Schabas, W. A. (eds.), For the Sake of Present and Future Generations: Essays on International Law, Crime and Justice in Honour of Roger S. Clark, Leiden, Boston: Brill Nijhoff. (2015), 391408.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Anmerkung zu einer Entscheidung des BGH, Beschluss vom 06.04.2017 (3 StR 326/16) – Zur Vorbereitung einer schweren staatsgefährdenden Straftat durch die Ausreise aus der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, Juristische Rundschau, 12 (2017), 655–60.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., ‘Four Threats to the Presumption of Innocence’, International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 10 (2006), 241–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A. and Zender, L., Preventive Justice, Oxford University Press (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backes, O., ʿDer Kampf des Strafrechts gegen nicht-organisierten Terror – Anmerkungen zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verfolgung der Vorbereitung von schweren Gewalttatenʾ, Strafverteidiger (2008), 654–60.
Cancio Meliá, M. and Petzsche, A., ‘Precursor Crimes of Terrorism’, in Lennon, G. and Walker, C. (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Law and Terrorism, London and New York: Routledge (2015), 194205.Google Scholar
Cassese, A., ‘The Multifaceted Criminal Notion of Terrorism in International Law’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 4 (2006), 933–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornford, A., ‘Indirect Crimes’, Law and Philosophy, 32 (2013), 485514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornford, A., ‘Narrowing the Scope of Absurdly Broad Offences: The Case of Terrorist Possession’, Statute Law Review, 38 (2017), 286–97.Google Scholar
Deckers, R. and Heusel, J., ʿStrafbarkeit terroristischer Vorbereitungshandlungen rechtsstaatlich nicht tragbarʾ, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik, 6 (2008), 169–73.Google Scholar
Dennis, I., ‘Reverse Onuses and the Presumption of Innocence: In Search of Principle’, Criminal Law Review (2005), 901–36.
Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Oxford: Hart (2007).Google Scholar
Fischer, T. (ed.), Strafgesetzbuch mit Nebengesetzen, 65th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar
Gane, C. H. W., Stoddart, C. N. and Chalmers, J., A Casebook on Scottish Criminal Law, 4th edn, Edinburgh: W. Green (2009).Google Scholar
Gazeas, N. and Grosse-Wilde, T., ‘Anmerkung zu einer Entscheidung des BGH, Beschluss vom 06.04.2017 (3 StR 326/16) – Zur Vorbereitung einer schweren staatsgefährdenden Straftat durch die Ausreise aus der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, Strafverteidiger, 2 (2018), 84–8.Google Scholar
Gazeas, N., Grosse-Wilde, T. and Kießling, A., ‘Die neuen Tatbestände im Staatsschutzstrafrecht – Versuch einer ersten Auslegung der §§ 89a, 89b und 91 StGB’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 11 (2009), 593604.Google Scholar
Gierhake, K., ʿZur geplanten Einführung neuer Straftatbestände wegen der Vorbereitung terroristischer Straftatenʾ, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 9 (2008), 397405.Google Scholar
Heintschel-Heinegg, B. von (ed.), Beck‘scher Online Kommentar StGB, 39rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. and Tadros, V., ‘How to Make a Terrorist out of Nothing’, Modern Law Review, 72 (2009), 984–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Home Office, Operation of Police Powers under the Terrorism Act 2000: Quarterly Update to June 2018: Annual Data Tables (2018).
Hörnle, T., ‘Deskriptive und normative Dimensionen des Begriffs “Feindstrafrecht”’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht (2006), 80–95.
Hunt, A., ‘Criminal Prohibitions on Direct and Indirect Encouragement of Terrorism’, Criminal Law Review (2007), 441–58.
Joecks, W. and Miebach, K. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch, 8. vols., 3rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017), I and III.Google Scholar
Lackner, K. and Kühl, K. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 29th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar
Levanon, L., ‘Criminal Prohibitions on Membership in Terrorist Organisations’, New Criminal Law Review, 15 (2012), 224–76.Google Scholar
Naucke, W., ‘Die robuste Tradition des Sicherheitsstrafrechts’, Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft, 2 (2010), 129–36.Google Scholar
Ormerod, D. and Fortson, R., ‘Serious Crime Act 2007: The Part 2 Offences’, Criminal Law Review (2009), 389–414.
Petzsche, A., ʿThe European Influence on German Anti-Terrorism Lawʾ, 13 German Law Journal, 9 (2012), 1056–65.Google Scholar
Petzsche, A., Strafrecht und Terrorismusbekämpfung – Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Bekämpfung terroristischer Vorbereitungshandlungen in Deutschland, Großbritannien und Spanien, Baden-Baden: Nomos (2013).Google Scholar
Petzsche, A., ‘The Penalization of Public Provocation to Commit a Terrorist Offence’, European Criminal Law Review, 7 (2017), 241–57.Google Scholar
Petzsche, A. and Cancio Meliá, M., ‘Speaking of Terrorism and Terrorist Speech: Defining the Limits of Terrorist Speech Offences’, in Lennon, G., King, C. and McCartney, C. (eds.), Counter-terrorism, Constitutionalism and Miscarriages of Justice – A Festschrift for Professor Clive Walker, Oxford, Hart (2018), 151–66.Google Scholar
Radtke, H. and Steinsiek, M., ʿBekämpfung des internationalen Terrorismus durch Kriminalisierung von Vorbereitungshandlungen? – Zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verfolgung der Vorbereitung von schweren Gewalttaten (Referentenentwurf des BMJ vom 21.4.2008)ʾ, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 9 (2008), 383–96.Google Scholar
Ramsay, P., ‘Preparation Offences, Security Interests, Political Freedom’, in Duff, R. A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. E., Renzo, M. and Tadros, V. (eds.), The Structures of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2011), 203–28.Google Scholar
Saul, B., ‘Attempts to Define Terrorism in International Law’, Netherlands International Law Review, 52 (2005), 5783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sentencing Council, Terrorism Offences: Definitive Guideline (2018), available at www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk.
Sieber, U., ʿLegitimation und Grenzen von Gefährdungsdelikten im Vorfeld von terroristischer Gewalt – eine Analyse der Vorfeldtatbestände im ‘Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verfolgung der Vorbereitung von schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttaten’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 7 (2009), 353–64.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P., ‘Prophylactic Crimes’, in Sullivan, G. R. and Dennis, I. (eds.), Seeking Security: Pre-Empting the Commission of Criminal Harms, Oxford, Hart (2012). 5978.Google Scholar
Simester, A. P. et al., Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, 6th edn, Oxford, Hart (2016).Google Scholar
Stark, F., ‘Rethinking Recklessness’, Juridical Review (2011), 163–203.
Stark, F., Culpable Carelessness: Recklessness and Negligence in the Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tadros, V. and Tierney, S., ‘The Presumption of Innocence and the Human Rights Act’, Modern Law Review, 67 (2004), 402–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weißer, B., ʿÜber den Umgang des Strafrechts mit terroristischen Bedrohungslagenʾ, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 121 (2009), 131–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zöller, M. A., Terrorismusstrafrecht – Ein Handbuch, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2009).Google Scholar