| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font
First page > Show document

Show document Help

Title:Skrajna sila v zvezi z mednarodnim pojavom terorizma
Authors:ID Lepoša, Lea (Author)
ID Šepec, Miha (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf UN_Leposa_Lea_2018.pdf (278,63 KB)
MD5: 40DA8559E021EC04DA78AE2289374BD8
PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/31f7205d-ed2c-4dc6-9549-16351efb8fa8
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Bachelor thesis/paper
Typology:2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Skrajna sila je institut, ki izključuje obstoj enega izmed elementov splošnega pojma kaznivega dejanja ter posledično obstoj kaznivega dejanja. Slovenski pravni red se je pri ureditvi instituta skrajne sile zgledoval po nemškem sistemu, ki sprejema teorijo diferenciacije. To pomeni, da temelji na razlikovanju med upravičljivo in opravičljivo skrajno silo. »Common law« sistemi pa zastopajo veliko bolj konservativno stališče in tako praviloma storilcu ne priznavajo obrambe s skrajno silo. Razlikujejo pa med skrajno silo kot objektivnim razlogom izključitve protipravnosti in prisilo, kot subjektivnim razlogom izključitve krivde. Že iz zgodovine so znani primeri sklicevanja na skrajno silo (kot denimo primer Karneadove deske), v sodobnem času pa se nanjo sklicujejo v vedno več situacijah. Posebno težaven primer predstavlja »the ticking bomb« scenarij, ki ga lahko opišemo kot primer, ko preiskovalci priprejo terorista, ki bi naj na naseljenem območju nastavil tempirano bombo. Ker bomba ogroža veliko ljudi, ga zaslišujejo, da bi jim izdal njeno lokacijo. Ker lokacije ne izda, ga mučijo. V tem primeru obstaja pravno ter moralno vprašanje, s katerim se ukvarjam v drugem delu diplome, in sicer ali se lahko preiskovalci ob takem ravnanju uspešno sklicujejo na skrajno silo? In če da, na katero vrsto, opravičljivo ali celo upravičljivo? Med pravniki in teoretiki o tem zaenkrat še ne obstaja soglasje. Iz zgodovine pa so znani primeri, ko so oblasti celo s predpisi predvidele to možnost.
Keywords:Skrajna sila, upravičljiva skrajna sila, opravičljiva skrajna sila, terorizem, mučenje, »the ticking bomb«.
Place of publishing:Maribor
Publisher:[L. Lepoša]
Year of publishing:2018
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-72276 New window
UDC:343.326(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:5673515 New window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:YK0TV2JG
Publication date in DKUM:23.11.2018
Views:1306
Downloads:189
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
LEPOŠA, Lea, 2018, Skrajna sila v zvezi z mednarodnim pojavom terorizma [online]. Bachelor’s thesis. Maribor : L. Lepoša. [Accessed 23 April 2025]. Retrieved from: https://dk.um.si/IzpisGradiva.php?lang=eng&id=72276
Copy citation
  
Average score:
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:Bookmark and Share


Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Licences

License:CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Link:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Description:The most restrictive Creative Commons license. This only allows people to download and share the work for no commercial gain and for no other purposes.
Licensing start date:17.09.2018

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:Necessity defence in relation to modern phenomenom of terrorism
Abstract:Necessity represents an institute that excludes the existence of one of the elements of the general term “criminal offence” and subsequently the existence of a criminal offence. In regulating the institute of necessity, the Slovenian legal system followed the example of the German legal system which is based on the theory of differentiation. This means that it distinguishes between justifiable necessity and excused necessity. To the contrary, the “Common law” legal systems take a much more conservative stand, and generally the accused is not entitled to the defence of necessity. However, they distinguish between necessity as an objective ground for excluding unlawfulness and coercion as a subjective ground for excluding guilt. There are known cases in history where necessity was invoked (e.g. the plank of Carneades), and in the modern times necessity has been invoked in an increasing number of different situations. A particularly difficult case is the so-called »ticking bomb« scenario, which can be described as a situation, where the investigators bring a terrorist into custody who is thought to have planted a time bomb in a populated area. Since the bomb presents a major threat to a large number of people, he is being interrogated to disclose the location of the bomb. As he doesn’t reveal the location, he is then tortured. This case raises legal and moral questions which are discussed in the second part of my diploma thesis, namely does such conduct allow for the investigators to invoke necessity. If yes, which should they invoke, the excused necessity or the justifiable necessity? The jurists and the theoreticians have not yet reached an agreement on this subject. However, there are well known cases in history, where the authorities even provided for this possibility by regulations.
Keywords:Necessity, justifiable necessity, excused necessity, terrorism, torture, “the ticking bomb”.


Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica