La necessità come esimente: Profili di diritto penale comparato e internazionale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il presente lavoro si concentra sul trovare la migliore interpretazione possibile dello stato di necessità nel panorama del diritto penale internazionale. A questo fine, è stato utile approfondire come l’esimente viene trattata nei principali Paesi di tradizione di Civil Law (Germania, Austria, Spagna, Francia, Italia) e di Common Law (Regno Unito, Australia, Canada, U.S.A.), soprattutto concentrandosi sulla loro attitudine rispetto alla differenziazione tra cause di giustificazione e scusanti e all’applicazione dell’esimente alle condotte omicidiarie. Le criticità intrinseche che contraddistinguono lo stato di necessità, in particolare la lesione di un terzo innocente, hanno da sempre fatto sì che ogni ordinamento le affrontasse in modo diverso, usando come base di partenza o l’oggettivo bilanciamento tra gli interessi in conflitto o la soggettiva compassione dell’ordinamento verso l’umana fragilità, e talvolta escludendola in assoluto per i reati più gravi. Grazie all’analisi delle opinioni più accreditate delle dottrine dei diversi Stati e ad un approfondimento dello sviluppo del diritto penale internazionale dalla fine della seconda guerra mondiale, è stato possibile analizzare a fondo l’art. 31 (1)(d) ICC St e darne la migliore interpretazione. In particolare, analizzando anche casi concreti come il celebre caso Erdemović e il recente caso Ongwen, si ritiene che un’interpretazione scusante dell’esimente risulti essere più confacente all’essenza del diritto penale internazionale, anche se permangono difetti dovuti alla mancata presa di posizione in merito alla distinzione tra antigiuridicità e colpevolezza. This research focuses on finding the best possible interpretation of duress within the framework of international criminal law. To this end, it was useful to examine how the defence is treated in the main countries with Civil Law traditions (Germany, Austria, Spain, France, Italy) and Common Law traditions (United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, U.S.A.), focusing in particular on their attitudes regarding the differentiation between justifications and excuses and the application of the defence to murder. The intrinsic criticalities that characterize duress, for example the damage to an innocent third party, have always led every legal system to address them differently, using as a starting point either the objective balance between conflicting interests or the subjective compassion towards human fragilty, and sometimes excluding it altogether for the most serious crimes. Thanks to the analysis of the most accredited opinions of the doctrines of different States and to an in-depth study of the development of international criminal law since the end of the Second World War, it has been possible to thoroughly analyze art. 31 (1)(d) ICC St and provide the best interpretation. In particular, analyzing concrete cases such as the famous Erdemović case and the recent Ongwen case, it is believed that an exculpatory interpretation of the defence is more in line with the essence of international criminal law, even if there are still problems due to the fact that it has been choosen to not take a position on the distinction between unlawfulness and culpability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".