The Punishment Marketplace: Competing for Capitalized Power in Locally Controlled Immigration Enforcement (original) (raw)
Related papers
Constraints on the growth of private policing: A comparative international analysis
Theoretical Criminology, 2017
While much has been written on private security expansion in a few English-speaking industrialized democracies, less is known about why the industry does not develop uniformly around the world. We propose some hypotheses about constraints on private security growth in other settings, based on three comparative case studies in authoritarian states (Russia and Georgia), developing countries (Guyana and Trinidad), and non-" Anglosphere " industrialized democracies (continental Europe). In authoritarian states, private policing is more politically sensitive than in democratic states, sometimes resulting in more draconian restrictions on it. In developing societies, despite widespread fear of crime, potential consumers sometimes favor in-house measures over private security firms and electronic devices. In developed democracies, variation in private security growth reflects regulatory, institutional, and ideological differences between the Anglosphere and continental Europe. We conclude that constraints on the private security industry's growth potential are more significant than many scholars have acknowledged.
Güvenlik Çalışmaları Dergisi, 2015
ÖZ : Yasaların uygulayıcısı olan kolluk birimleri, kanunların verdiği görev ve getirdiği sınırlamalar dâhilinde zor kullanma yetkisine sahiptir. Fakat zor kullanma konusuyla ilgili iki temel sorun bulunmaktadır. Birincisi zor kullanmaya ilişkin tek bir yasal metnin olmaması, diğeri bu yetkinin nasıl kullanılabileceğiyle ilgili uygulamaya yönelik herhangi bir düzenlemenin bulunmamasıdır. Kolluk personelinin yasayla kendisine verilen hak ve sorumlulukları tereddüt etmeden uygulayabilmesi için sınırları iyi çizilmiş, yeterli açıklıkta ve her aşamada ne yapılması gerektiğini gösteren bir "Kolluk Zor Kullanma Modeli"ne ihtiyaç vardır. Bu çalışma yasal metinlerden uygulamaya kolluğun zor kullanma yetkilerinin incelenmesini amaçlamıştır. Bu amaca ulaşmak üzere öncelikle zor kullanma kavramı, Türk Hukuk Sisteminde kolluğa zor kullanma yetkisi veren yasal metinler ve zor kullanma konusundaki uluslararası düzenlemeler incelenmiş, sonrasında kolluğun uygulayabileceği bir zor kullanma modeli geliştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. ABSTRACT : Law enforcement officials have the authority of the use of coercion with the assignment and under the restrictions of laws. However, there are two essential problems about the use of coercion. First, there is not any particular law about the use of coercion, and second there is not any practicable guideline which states how the officials employ the use of coercion in the field. In order that law enforcement officials fulfill the rights and responsibilities given to them by law without hesitation, they need “A model of use of coercion of law enforcement officials”, showing what to do in every step in a clear way. The article aims to examine the authority of law enforcement officials from theory to practice. In order to reach this aim, primarily the term of use of coercion, the judicial texts regarding the use of coercion in the Turkish Judicial System and international rules about the use of coercion have been analyzed, after then the model of use of coercion of law enforcement officials has been tried to develop.
Devletin Suç İhdas Etme ve Cezalandırma Yetkisinin Sınırı
The Limits to State Power in Criminalisation and Punishment, 2013
The criminalisation and punishment power of the state is the result of the state sovereignty. The monopoly of punishment power and coercion has existed from the establishment of the state and still continues even today. However, the use of punishment power has been affected by the change in perception of sovereignty. Today, state sovereignty is not fully unlimited. Therefore, there is no unlimited power to punish as well. The limits to state power in criminalisation and punishment (ius puniendi) are natural outcomes of the limited government idea. The concept of absolute sovereignty that has been dominant by the constitutionalism arised at the Age of Enlightenment, has not allowed the idea of the limited punishment. Constitutions providing separation of powers, rule of law, and protection of human rights have led to the limitation of state authority, especially in ius puniendi. On the other hand, increasing international relations, international laws obligating states, state associations, and international civic organizations redefine the perception of “sovereignty” and set boundaries to state sovereignty. These limitations in sovereignty exhibit themselves at use of power in criminalisation and punishment. The limits of ius puniendi were initially based on domestic law. The rule of law limits the state authority, and constitutional principles frame the power of legislation for proscribing and punishment. The judicial review brings an auto control mechanism on legislation’s power to practice the constitutional principles. The legality principle commonly accepted in modern world also brings technical limits to the legislative power, and social and political attributions are other factors that affect the power to punish. States are becoming parts of an increasingly expanding international network at recent times. These partnerships inhibit them from exercising the arbitrary use of punishing power. Today, the protection of human rights is not only a case at national level but also a concern of international community. Through international conventions, nation states are obligated to a duty to criminalize some kind of offences and prohibit some kind of penalties. International and supranational organizations such as European Union control their members’ use of the punishment power and get them required to adjust to the standards of such organization’s criminal law. International courts’ decisions are also guidances for the nation states on policy making. The nation states have to work together on preventation of transnational crimes occurred with globalization. Therefore, nation states are not the unique policy makers on their own. In conclusion, the state’s power to punish is very limited by the obligations resulting from domestic and international law. The area of state’s power of punishment is being narrowed and the use of punishing power has also become monotypic in the world. Keywords: ius puniendi, criminalization, power to punish, limits of power to punish, limits of criminalization, criminalization policy.
Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 2020
The initial purpose of carrier obligations to fight against irregular migration has transformed to fight against terrorism as part of the US counter-terrorism policy after September 11th, 2001. Although EU was not as enthusiastic as the US to collect the data about passengers, some terrorist incidents have facilitated the US intervention with EU, and foreign terrorist fighters have also led to some international decisions regarding immigration control and restrictions on travel. So far, there have been three EU Directives for carrier obligations, and EU has concluded three agreements to share the PNR data with the US authorities. Stemming from the EU legislation and bilateral agreements, controversies on the protection of human rights and the data obtained from airline carriers remain to be tackled.