Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ws8qp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T06:47:19.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Evidence across traditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

John D. Jackson
Affiliation:
University College Dublin
Sarah J. Summers
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Get access

Summary

Introduction: the convergence debate

Within the last 30 years there has been a renewal of interest among teachers and students in comparative criminal justice as a field of study. With growing pressure on legal systems to respond to the demands of globalisation and cosmopolitanism, penal law has become one of a growing number of areas of law that is engaging with comparative legal studies. Much of the debate has centred on whether or not these demands are driving legal systems towards convergence. A combination of pressures would seem to be supporting the convergence thesis within criminal justice. National legal systems plagued by common problems of rising crime, concern for victims and the growing cost and delay in processing cases through the courts would seem to have led to a willingness to seek ‘foreign’ solutions to similar problems. In addition to these internal pressures, there have been external pressures on states to find common transnational solutions to deal with the problems of organised crime and drug trafficking.

In addition to this, international terrorism and the growing ethnic and religious conflicts around the world pose a particular challenge for international law as to whether these problems can be resolved by international legal co- operation or whether as protagonists of the ‘war on terror’ would have it they are better met through the exercise of hegemonic power with international law being reduced to accommodate the demands of the most powerful states. Those who would seek to deal with these problems through international law need to develop common legal solutions. An example of this is the effort made by the international legal community to deal with those who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity through international criminal tribunals applying international criminal law. But if this new international regime is to work successfully, there needs to be a consensus on the appropriate rules of evidence and procedure for holding such trials.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence
Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions
, pp. 3 - 29
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

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

Frase, R. S.Main-Streaming Comparative Criminal Justice: How to Incorporate Comparative and International Concepts and Materials into Basic Criminal Law and Procedure Courses 1998 100 West Virginia Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Nelken, D.Comparative Criminal Justice: Making Sense of DifferenceLondonSage 2010Google Scholar
Twining, W.Globalisation and Legal TheoryLondonButterworths 2000Google Scholar
P. Roberts 2002 55 Current Legal Problems
Roberts, P.On Method: The Ascent of Comparative Criminal Justice 2002 22 Oxford Journal of Legal StudiesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markesinis, B. S.The Gradual ConvergenceOxfordClarendon Press 1994 30Google Scholar
Legrand, P.European Legal Systems Are Not Converging 1996 45 International & Comparative Legal QuarterlyGoogle Scholar
Heymann, P. B.Terrorism, Freedom and SecurityBostonMIT Press 2003Google Scholar
Kahn, P. W.Sacred Violence: Torture, Terror and SovereigntyAnn ArborUniversity of Michigan Press 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, C.Campbell, C.Aoláin, F. NiThe Battle For Transitional Justice: Hegemony, Iraq and International LawMorison, J.McEvoy, K.Anthony, G.Judge, Transition and Human Rights: Essays in Memory of Stephen LivingstoneOxford University Press 2007Google Scholar
Robertson, G.Crimes against Humanity: The Struggle for Global JusticeLondonPenguin 2002Google Scholar
May, R.Wierda, M.Trends in International Criminal Evidence: Nuremberg, Tokyo, The Hague, Arusha 1999 37 Columbia Journal of Transnational LawGoogle Scholar
Boas, G.Creating Laws of Evidence for International Criminal Law: The ICTY and the Principle of Flexibility 2001 12 Criminal Law ForumGoogle Scholar
Zacklin, R.The Failings of the Ad Hoc International Tribunals 2004 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitsilegas, V.EU Criminal LawOxfordHart Publishing 2009Google Scholar
Peers, S.EU Criminal Law and the Treaty of Lisbon 2008 33 European Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Gless, S.Beweisrechtsgrundsätze einer grenzüberschreitenden StrafverfolgungBaden BadenNomos 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vervaele, J. A. E.European Evidence Warrant: Transnational Judicial Inquiries in the EUAntwerpenIntersentia 2005Google Scholar
Jörg, N.Field, S.Brants, C.Are Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems Converging?Criminal Justice in Europe: A Comparative StudyOxford University Press 1995Google Scholar
Ellison, L.The Adversarial Process and the Vulnerable WitnessOxfordClarendon Press 2001Google Scholar
Langer, M.From Legal Transplants to Legal Translations: The Globalisation of Plea Bargaining and the Americanization Thesis in Criminal Processes 2004 45 Harvard International Law JournalGoogle Scholar
Duff, P.Changing Conceptions of the Scottish Criminal Trial: The Duty to Agree Uncontroversial EvidenceThe Trial on Trial (1): Truth and Due ProcessOxfordHart 2004Google Scholar
Bradley, C.Criminal Procedure: A Worldwide StudyDurhamCarolina Academic Press 1998Google Scholar
Van Kessel, G.European Trends Towards Adversary Styles in Procedure and EvidenceThe Japanese Adversary System in ContextBasingstokeMacmillan 2002Google Scholar
Mathias, E.The Balance of Power between the Police and the Public ProsecutorEuropean Criminal ProceduresCambridge University Press 2002Google Scholar
McEwan, J.Cooperative Justice and the Adversarial Criminal Trial: Lessons from the Woolf ReportThe Judicial Role in Criminal ProceedingsOxfordHart 2000Google Scholar
Jackson, J.The Adversary Trial and Trial by Judge AloneThe Handbook of the Criminal Justice ProcessOxford University Press 2002Google Scholar
Smith, A. T. H.Criminal Law – The Future 2004 Criminal Law Review 971 972Google Scholar
Langbein, J. H.The Influence of Comparative Procedure in the United States 1995 43 American Journal of Comparative LawCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, A.Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative LawAthensUniversity of Georgia Press 1993Google Scholar
Boari, N.On the Efficiency of Penal Systems: Several Lessons from the Italian Experience 1997 17 International Review of Law and EconomicsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teubner, G.Legal Irritants: Good Faith in British Law or How Unifying Law Ends Up in New Divergences 1998 61 Modern Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Damaška, M.The Uncertain Fate of Evidentiary Transplants: Anglo-American and Continental Experiments 1997 45 American Journal of Comparative LawCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pizzi, W. T.Montagna, M.The Battle to Establish an Adversarial Trial System in Italy 2004 25 Michigan Journal of International LawGoogle Scholar
Grande, E.Italian Criminal Justice: Borrowing and Resistance 2000 48 American Journal of Comparative LawCrossRefGoogle Scholar
M. DamaškaThe Faces of Justice and State AuthorityNew HavenYale University Press 1986Google Scholar
Field, S.Fair Trials and Procedural Tradition in Europe 2009 29 Oxford Journal of Legal StudiesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J.The Effect of Human Rights on Criminal Evidentiary Processes: Towards Convergence, Divergence or Realignment 2005 68 Modern Law ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damaška, M.Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study 1973 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, P.Zuckerman, A.Criminal EvidenceOxford University Press 2010Google Scholar
Moos, R.Die Reform des Vorverfahrens im österreichischen StrafverfahrenFestschrift für Heike Jung zum 65. GeburtstagBaden-BadenNomos 2007Google Scholar
Van Den Wyngaert, C.Criminal Procedure Systems in the European CommunityLondonButterworths 1992Google Scholar
Jung, H.Der Untersuchungsrichter – ein Nachruf?Strafprozessrecht im Wandel: Festschrift für Roland Miklau zum 65, GeburtstagInnsbruckStudienverlag 2006Google Scholar
Wohlers, W.Art 147Kommentar zur Schweizerischen Strafprozessordnung (StPO)ZurichSchulthess 2010Google Scholar
Albrecht, P.Was bleibt von der Unmittelbarkeit? 2010 128 Schweizerische Zeitschrift für StrafrechtGoogle Scholar
Arquint, S.Summers, S.Konfrontationen nur vor dem Gericht 2008 2 PlädoyerGoogle Scholar
Weigend, T.The Decay of the Inquisitorial Ideal: Plea Bargaining Invades German Criminal ProcedureCrime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context: Essays in Honour of Mirjan DamaškaOxfordHart 2008Google Scholar
Gilléron, G.Strafbefehl und plea bargaining als Quelle von FehlurteilenZurichSchulthess 2010Google Scholar
Saks, M.Park, R. C.Evidence Scholarship Reconsidered: Results of the Interdisciplinary Turn 2006 47 Boston College Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Twining, W.Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory EssaysCambridge University Press 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, R.Evidence Scholarship: Old and New 1991 75 Minnesota Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J.Analysing the New Evidence Scholarship: Towards a New Conception of the Law of Evidence 1996 16 Oxford Journal of Legal StudiesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symposium, New Perspectives on Evidence 2001 87 Virginia Law Review1491Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D.Modern Trends in Evidence Scholarship: Is All Rosy in the Garden? 2003 21 Quinnipiac Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Roberts, P.Redmayne, M.Innovations in Evidence and ProofOxfordHart 2007Google Scholar
Tillock, G.Trials on Trial: The Pure Theory of Legal ProcedureNew YorkColumbia University Press 1980Google Scholar
Posner, R.An Economic Approach to the Law of Evidence 1999 51 Stanford Law ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langbein, J.The German Advantage in Civil Procedure 1985 52 University of Chicago Law ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langbein, J.The Origins of the Adversary Criminal TrialOxford University Press 2003Google Scholar
Damaška, M.Evidence Law AdriftNew HavenYale University Press 1997Google Scholar
Posner, R. A.Frontiers of Legal TheoryCambridge, MAHarvard University Press 2001 340Google Scholar
Damaška, M.Presentation of Evidence and Factfinding Precision 1975 123 University of Pennsylvania Law ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillers, P. 2006
Allen, R.Kock, S.Riecherberg, K.Rosen, D. T.The German Advantage in Civil Procedure: A Plea for More Details and Fewer Generalities in Comparative Scholarship 1988 82 Northwestern University Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Langbein, J. H.Trashing the German Advantage 1988 82 Northwestern University Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
South African Law Commission 2002
Damaška, M.The Death of Legal Torture 1987 87 Yale Law JournalGoogle Scholar
Damaška, M.Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited 1997 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative LawGoogle Scholar
Twining, W.Theories of Evidence: Bentham and WigmoreLondonWeidenfeld & Nicolson 1985Google Scholar
Zuckerman, A. A. S.The Principles of Criminal EvidenceOxfordClarendon 1989 1Google Scholar
Redmayne, M.The Structure of Evidence Law 2006 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A.Redmayne, M.The Criminal ProcessOxford University Press 2010 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklansky, D. A.Anti-Inquisitorialism 2009 122 Harvard Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Bentham, J.An Examination of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen Decreed by the Constituent Assembly in FranceSelected Writings on UtilitarianismWareWordsworth 2000Google Scholar
Aune, B.Rationalism, Empiricism and Pragmatism: An IntroductionNew YorkRandom House 1970Google Scholar
Cohen, M. R.Nagel, E.An Introduction to Logic and Scientific MethodNew YorkHarcourt, Brace 1934Google Scholar
Durkheim, E.The Rules of the Sociological MethodNew YorkThe Free Press 1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, B. J.Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Probable CauseBerkeleyUniversity of California Press 1991Google Scholar
Langbein, J. H.Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien RégimeChicago University Press 1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beccaria, C.On Crimes and Punishments and Other WritingsCambridge University Press 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safferling, C. J.Towards an International Criminal ProcedureOxford University Press 2001Google Scholar
De Montesquieu, M.The Spirit of LawsLondonCollingwood and Clarke 1823Google Scholar
Roberts, P.Subjects, Objects and Values in Criminal AdjudicationThe Trial on Trial (2): Judgment and Calling to AccountOxfordHart 2006Google Scholar
Weigend, T.Is the Criminal Process about Truth: A German Perspective? 2003 26 Harvard Journal of Law & Public PolicyGoogle Scholar
Allen, R. J.The Simpson Affair, Reform of the Criminal Justice Process and Magic Bullets 1996 67 University of Colorado Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, T.LeviathanHarmondsworthPenguin 1968Google Scholar
Sweet, A. StoneMathews, J.Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism 2008 47 Columbia Journal of Transnational LawGoogle Scholar
Esmein, A.A History of Continental Criminal Procedure: With Special Reference to FranceBostonLittle, Brown 1913 383Google Scholar
Summers, S. J.Fair Trials: The European Criminal Procedural Tradition and the European Court of Human RightsOxfordHart 2007Google Scholar
Vargha, J.Die Verteidigung in StrafsachenViennaManz'sche k. u. k. Hof-Verlag und Univ Buchhandlung 1879Google Scholar
Hancock, B.Jackson, J.Standards for Prosecutors: An Analysis of the National United Kingdom Prosecuting AgenciesNijmegenWolf 2006Google Scholar
Cape, E.Hodgson, J.Prakken, T.Spronken, T.Suspects in EuropeAntwerpIntersentia 2007Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D.Theories of Truth Finding in Criminal Procedure: An Evolutionary Approach 1988 10 Cardozo Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Von Kries, J.Vorverfahren und Hauptverfahren 1889 Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 1Google Scholar
Jackson, J. D.Making Juries Accountable 2002 50 American Journal of Comparative LawCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I.The Metaphysics of MoralsCambridge University Press 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tribe, L.American Constitutional LawNew YorkFoundation Press 1988 666Google Scholar
Summers, R.Evaluating and Improving Legal Process – A Plea for “Process Values” 1974 60 Cornell Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Bayles, M. D.Principles for Legal Procedure 1986 5 Law & PhilosophyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubber, M. D.The Criminal Trial and the Legitimation of PunishmentDiscretionary Powers: A Study of Legal Decision MakingOxford University Press 1986Google Scholar
, A.Foundations of Evidence LawOxford University Press 2005 31Google Scholar
Kaplow, L.The Value of Accuracy in Adjudication: An Economic Analysis 1994 23 Journal of Legal StudiesGoogle Scholar
Thibaut, J.Walker, L.Procedural Justice: A Psychological AnalysisHillsdale, NJLawrence Erlbaum 1975Google Scholar
Casper, J. D.Tyler, T. R.Procedural Justice in Felony Cases 1988 22 Law and Society ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R.Why People Obey the LawNew HavenYale University Press 1990Google Scholar
Solum, L. B.Procedural Justice 2004 78 University of Southern California Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Duff, A.Farmer, L.Marshall, S.Tadros, V.The Trial on Trial (3): Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal TrialOxfordHart 2007Google Scholar
Ho, H. L.Book Review: Duff, Farmer, Marshall and Tadros, Trial on Trial (vol. 3): Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial 2008 6 International Commentary on EvidenceCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaman, S.Plea-Bargaining, Negotiated Confessions and Consensual Resolution of Criminal CasesGeneral Reports of the XVII Congress of the International Academy of Comparative LawUtrechtEleven International 2007Google 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
×