Book contents
- Reviews
- Transnational Legal Ordering of Criminal Justice
- Cambridge Studies in Law and Society
- Transnational Legal Ordering of Criminal Justice
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Transnational Legal Ordering and Transnational Crimes
- Part III Transnational Legal Ordering and International Crimes
- Part IV Transnational Legal Ordering and Human Rights Standards in Criminal Justice
- Chapter Nine International Prison Standards and Transnational Criminal Justice
- Chapter Ten The Transnational Legal Ordering of the Death Penalty
- Chapter Eleven Performance, Power, and Transnational Legal Ordering
- Part V Conclusion
- Index
- Cambridge Studies in Law and Society
- References
Chapter Nine - International Prison Standards and Transnational Criminal Justice
from Part IV - Transnational Legal Ordering and Human Rights Standards in Criminal Justice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2020
Book contents
- Reviews
- Transnational Legal Ordering of Criminal Justice
- Cambridge Studies in Law and Society
- Transnational Legal Ordering of Criminal Justice
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Transnational Legal Ordering and Transnational Crimes
- Part III Transnational Legal Ordering and International Crimes
- Part IV Transnational Legal Ordering and Human Rights Standards in Criminal Justice
- Chapter Nine International Prison Standards and Transnational Criminal Justice
- Chapter Ten The Transnational Legal Ordering of the Death Penalty
- Chapter Eleven Performance, Power, and Transnational Legal Ordering
- Part V Conclusion
- Index
- Cambridge Studies in Law and Society
- References
Summary
Prison standards are an important element of transnational criminal justice. This chapter shows how legal standards governing prison conditions emerged at the international and regional levels and considers how, increasingly, they have gained legitimacy. It then describes how these standards are applied in a way that contributes to a recognizable transnational legal order in respect of prison conditions, which has real impact at the national level. The chapter pays close attention to the transfer of prisoners between states, as a mechanism that operates transnationally and, in the process, enhances the importance of international prison standards. It concludes that the benefits of common prison standards are mixed. On the positive side, they have the potential to give states that are asked to extradite suspects, or transfer sentenced prisoners, leverage to demand the improvement of prison conditions in the receiving states. There is, however, a risk that states will accept and implicitly endorse sub-standard prison conditions in order to rid themselves of troublesome offenders.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Transnational Legal Ordering of Criminal Justice , pp. 261 - 292Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Abels, Denis. 2012. Prisoners of the International Community. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.Google Scholar
African Correctional Services Association. 2017. Home Page. http://acsa-ps.org/index.php.Google Scholar
Amnesty International. 2018. Punished for Being Poor: Unjustified, Excessive and Prolonged Pre-trial Detention in Madagascar. London: Amnesty International.Google Scholar
Armstrong, Sarah. 2018. “Securing Prison through Human Rights: Unanticipated Implications of Rights‐Based Penal Governance.” The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice 57(3): 401–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association for the Prevention of Torture. 2016. Putting Prevention into Practice 10 Years On: The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture. Geneva: APT.Google Scholar
Association for the Prevention of Torture. 2017. Annual Report 2017: 40 Years of Torture Prevention. Geneva: APT.Google Scholar
Association for the Prevention of Torture. 2018. OPCAT Database. https://apt.ch/en/opcat-database/.Google Scholar
Boister, Neil. 2018. An Introduction to Transnational Criminal Law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
British High Commission Abuja. 2014. UK–Nigeria Sign Compulsory Prisoner Transfer Agreement. www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-nigeria-sign-compulsory-prisoner-transfer-agreement.Google Scholar
Cassese, Antonio. 1996. Inhuman States: Imprisonment, Detention and Torture in Europe Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Cernko, Daniela. 2014. Die Umsetzung der CPT-Empfehlungen im deutschen Strafvollzug. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.Google Scholar
Clark, Roger. 1994. The United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Program. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Clifford, William. 1972. “The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.” American Society of International Law Proceedings 66: 232–236.Google Scholar
Cliquennois, Gaëtan, and de Suremain, Hugues, eds. 2017. Monitoring Penal Policy in Europe. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corporate Watch. 2018. Carceral Colonialism: Britain Plans to Build a Prison Wing in Nigeria. https://corporatewatch.org/carceral-colonialism-britains-plan-to-build-a-prison-wing-in-nigeria/.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2011. Report Presented to the Sixteenth Conference of Directors of Prison Administration: Summary of the Replies Given to the Questionnaire Regarding the Implementation of the Most Recent Council of Europe Standards Related to the Treatment of Offenders While in Custody as Well as in the Community. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Das Neves, Pedro. 2018. The “Low Cost” Prison: Minimum Design for Minimum Results. Presentation to the 18th Conference of Directors of Prison Administration, Brussels, November 27, 2018. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806f4fc2.Google Scholar
de Lange, Jan. 2008. Detentie genormeerd: Een onderzoek naar de betekenis van het CPT voor de inrichting van vrijheidsbeneming in Nederlandse penitentiaire inrichtingen. Oisterwijk: Wolf.Google Scholar
Deruiter, Rebecca. 2018. Detention Conditions in a Cosmopolitan Europe. PhD thesis, Ghent University, Belgium.Google Scholar
Dyer, Andrew. 2016. “Irreducible Life Sentences: What Difference Have the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Kingdom Human Rights Act Made?” Human Rights Law Review 16: 541–584.Google Scholar
Eeckhaut, Mark, and Temmerman, Jan. 2013. “Nizar Trabelsi uitgeleverd aan de VS.” De Standaard (Belgium), October 3, 2013.Google Scholar
European Union. 2002. Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of June 13, 2002, on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States.Google Scholar
European Union. 2008. Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, of November 27, 2008, on the Application of the Principle of Mutual Recognition to Judgments in Criminal Matters Imposing Custodial Sentences or Measures Involving Deprivation of Liberty for the Purpose of Their Enforcement in the European Union.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. A. Sheridan. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Frøysnes, Torbjørn. 2013. Head of the Council of Europe Office to the EU, Opening Speech at the Eighteenth Conference of Directors of Prison Administration, Brussels, November 27–29, 2013. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806f5088.Google Scholar
Goda, Norman. 2007. Tales from Spandau: Nazi Criminals and the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Government of Australia. Response of Australia to the Views of the Human Rights Committee in Communication No. 1968/2010 (Blessington and Elliot v. Australia) www.ag.gov.au/RightsandProtections/HumanRights/Documents/Blessington&ElliotVAustralia-AustralianGovernmentResponse.pdf.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Tsutsui, Kiyoteru. 2005. “Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises.” American Journal of Sociology 110(5): 1373–1411.Google Scholar
Howard, John. 1792. The State of the Prisons in England and Wales, with Preliminary Observations, and an Account of Some Foreign Prisons and Hospitals. London: Johnson, Dilly, and Cadell.Google Scholar
Human Rights Watch. 2016a. We Are in Tombs: Abuses in Egypt’s Scorpion Prison. Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
Human Rights Watch. 2016b. Double Punishment: Inadequate Conditions for Prisoners with Psychosocial Disabilities in France. Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
Human Rights Watch. 2018a. I Needed Help, Instead I Was Punished: Abuse and Neglect of Prisoners with Disabilities in Australia. Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
Human Rights Watch. 2018b. We Are Like The Dead: Torture and Other Human Rights Abuses in Jail Ogaden, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia. Washington, DC.: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
ICPA. Mission, Vision and Values. https://icpa.ca/about-us/mission-vision-and-values/.Google Scholar
Ignatieff, Michael. 1981. “State, Civil Society, and Total Institutions: A Critique of Recent Social Histories of Punishment.” Crime and Justice 3: 153–191.Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross. 2012. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Habitat in Prisons. Geneva: ICRC.Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross. 2016. Protecting People Deprived of Their Liberty. Geneva: ICRC.Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross. 2017. Health Care in Detention. Geneva: ICRC.Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross. 2018. Toward Humane Prisons: A Principled and Participatory Approach to Prison Planning and Design. Geneva: ICRC.Google Scholar
Prisons, Irish. 2017. Director General Michael Donnellan Awarded Head of Service Award. www.irishprisons.ie/director-general-michael-donnellan-awarded-head-service-award-icpa-conference-london-25th-october–2017/.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Andrew. 2013. The Situated Production of Legitimacy: Perspectives from the Global South. Pp. 267–292 in Legitimacy and Criminal Justice, edited by Justice Tankebe and Alison Liebling. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Andrew. 2014. “Conceptualizing Confinement: Prisons and Poverty in Sierra Leone.” Punishment and Society 14: 41–60.Google Scholar
Johnson, Boris MP. 2018. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Provision of Prison Accommodation to Nigeria: Written Statement – HCWS518. March 7. www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018–03-07/HCWS518/.Google Scholar
Kelk, Constantijn. 1978. Recht Voor Gedetineerden: Een Onderzoek Naar De Beginselen Van Het Detentierecht. Alphen aan de Rijn: Samsom.Google Scholar
Kleijssen, Jan. 2018. Opening Speech at the Twenty-Third Council of Europe Conference of Directors of Prison and Probation Services, Working Together Effectively: Management and Co-operation Models between Prison and Probation Services. June 19, 2018. Jõhvi, Estonia. https://rm.coe.int/jan-kleijssen-opening-speech-23rd-cdpps-estonia-2018-doc/16808b7dfe.Google Scholar
Lappi-Seppälä, Tapio, and Koskenniemi, Lauri. 2018. “National and Regional Instruments in Securing the Rule of Law and Human Rights in the Nordic Prisons.” Crime, Law and Social Change 70: 135–159.Google Scholar
Leonards, Chris. 2015. “Visitors to the International Penitentiary Congress: A Transnational Platform Dealing with Penitentiary Care.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften 26: 80–101.Google Scholar
Leonards, Chris, and Randeraad, Nico. 2010. “Transnational Experts in Social Reform, 1840–1880.” International Review of Social History 55: 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, Judy. 2017. “The Challenges and Limitations of OPCAT National Preventive Mechanisms: Lessons from New Zealand.” Australian Journal of Human Rights 23: 351–367.Google Scholar
Mitsilegas, Valsamis. 2015. “The Symbiotic Relationship between Mutual Trust and Fundamental Rights in Europe’s Area of Criminal Justice.” New Journal of European Criminal Law 4: 457–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulgrew, Róisín. 2011. “The International Movement of Prisoners.” Criminal Law Forum 22: 103–143.Google Scholar
Mulgrew, Róisín. 2013. Toward the Development of the International Penal System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Patricia. 1995. The Prison on the Continent Europe 1865–1965. Pp. 178–201 in The Oxford History of the Prison, edited by Morris, Norval and Rothman, David. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Owen, Tim, and MacDonald, Alison, eds. 2015. Livingstone, Owen and MacDonald on Prison Law, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Penal Reform International. 2017. Implementation of the Nelson Mandela Rules in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. Presentation at the Fourth ACSA Biennial Conference, May 16, 2017; conference program available at http://acsa-ps.org/4th%20conference%20program%20Day2.php.Google Scholar
Rodley, Nigel. 1987. The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rodley, Nigel, and Pollard, Matt. 2009. The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rope, Olivia, and Sheahan, Frances. 2018. Global Prison Trends 2018. London: Penal Reform International and Thailand Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Simon, Jonathan. 2018. “Penal Monitoring in the United States: Lessons from the American Experience and Prospects for Change.” Crime, Law and Social Change 70: 161–173.Google Scholar
Snacken, Sonia, and Kiefer, Nik. 2016. Oversight of International Imprisonment: The Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Pp. 322–344 in Research Handbook on the International Penal System, edited by Mulgrew, Róisín and Abels, Denis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Steinerte, Elina. 2014. “The Jewel in the Crown and Its Three Guardians: Independence of National Preventive Mechanisms under the Optional Protocol to the UN Torture Convention.” Human Rights Law Review 14: 1–29.Google Scholar
Swedish International Development Agency. 2014. Promoting Human-Rights Based Approach Toward Vulnerable Groups in Detention in the Middle East and North Africa Region: Impact Evaluation. London: Penal Reform International.Google Scholar
Tiefenbrun, Susan. 2012. Women’s International and Comparative Human Rights. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
van Zyl Smit, Dirk. 2003. The Impact of United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Standards on Domestic Legislation and Criminal Justice Operations. In The Application of United Nations Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, edited by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
van Zyl Smit, Dirk. 2005. “International Imprisonment.” International & Comparative Law Quarterly 54: 357–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Zyl Smit, Dirk. 2013a. Legitimacy and the Development of International Standards for Punishment. Pp. 267–292 in Legitimacy and Criminal Justice, edited by Tankebe, Justice and Liebling, Alison. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Zyl Smit, Dirk. 2013b. Punishment and Human Rights. Pp. 395–414 in The Sage Handbook of Punishment and Society, edited by Simon, Jonathan and Sparks, Richard. London: Sage.Google Scholar
van Zyl Smit, Dirk, and Snacken, Sonja. 2009. Principles of European Prison Law and Policy: Penology and Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, David. 2014. Pain and Retribution: A Short History of British Prisons, 1066 to the Present. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
Xenakis, Sappho, and Chelioliotis, Leonidas. 2017. International Pressure and Carceral Moderation: Greece and the European Convention on Human Rights. In Monitoring Penal Policy in Europe, 1st ed., edited by Cliquennois, Gaëtan and de Suremain, Hugues. London: Routledge.Google Scholar