1_E000020005658

REVISTA DE

E STUDOS CRIMINAIS Nº 84 - JANEIRO/MARÇO 2022

Instituto Transdisciplinar de Estudos Criminais

nº 84 - janeiro/março 2022

Instituto Transdisciplinar de Estudos Criminais

Copyright© Tirant lo Blanch Brasil Editor Responsável: Aline Gostinski Capa, Projeto Gráfico e Diagramação: Jéssica Razia

Publicação do Instituto Transdisciplinar de Estudos Criminais e do Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciências Criminais da Escola de Direito da PUCRS publicada pela Editora Tirant lo Blanch Brasil.

Os conceitos emitidos em trabalhos assinados são de responsabilidade de seus autores. Os originais não serão devolvidos, embora não publicados. Os artigos são divulgados no idioma original ou traduzidos.

Os acórdãos selecionados para esta Revista correspondem, na íntegra, às cópias dos originais obtidas na Secretaria do Supremo Tribunal Federal e dos demais tribunais.

Proibida a reprodução parcial ou total, sem autorização dos editores.

Revista de Estudos Criminais – Ano XXI – Nº 84 ISSN 1676-8698

Periodicidade trimestral

ASSINATURAS: São Paulo: (11) 2894-7330 - (48) 9 9914-0685 comercial2@tirant.com / atendimento@tirant.com www.itecrs.org/rec www.tirant.com/br - www.editorial.tirant.com/br

Registro DOI: 10.53071/jou-2022-09-08-631a7fe54f591 Disponível em: ttps://doi.org/10.53071/jou-2022-09-08-631a7fe54f591 É proibida a reprodução total ou parcial, por qualquer meio ou processo, inclusive quanto às características gráficas e/ou editoriais.

A violação de direitos autorais constitui crime (Código Penal, art.184 e §§, Lei n° 10.695, de 01/07/2003), sujeitando-se à busca e apreensão e indenizações diversas (Lei n°9.610/98).

Todos os direitos desta edição reservados à Tirant lo Blanch.

Avenida Brigadeiro Luiz Antonio nº 2909, sala 44.

Bairro Jardim Paulista, São Paulo - SP CEP: 01401-000 Fone: 11 2894 7330 / Email: editora@tirant.com / atendimento@tirant.com www.tirant.com/br - www.editorial.tirant.com/br/ Impresso no Brasil / Printed in Brazil

nº 84 - janeiro/março 2022

Instituto Transdisciplinar de Estudos Criminais

© Revista de Estudos Criminais

®

ISSN 1676-8698

ANO XXI – 2022 – Nº 84 Editores-chefes Prof. Dr. Daniel Achutti Prof. Dr. Rodrigo Moraes de Oliveira

Editores-assistentes Mestre Alberto Ruttke Mestre Antônio Goya de Almeida Martins-Costa Mestra Daniela Dora Eilberg Doutora Maria Eduarda Azambuja Amaral

Consultores Prof. Dr. Alexandre Wunderlich Prof. Dr. Nereu Giacomolli

Conselho Editorial Nacional Profa. Dra. Ana Cláudia Bastos de Pinho (Universidade Federal do Pará) Prof. Dr. Augusto Jobim do Amaral (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul) Prof. Dr. Aury Celso Lopes Júnior (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul) Prof. Dr. Cezar Roberto Bitencourt (Faculdade Damas da Instrução Cristã/PE) Profa. Dra. Clarice Beatriz Sohngen (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul) Prof. Dr. Davi Tangerino (Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro) Prof. Dr. Fabio Roberto D’Avila (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul) Prof. Dr. Felipe Augusto Forte de Negreiros Deodato (Universidade Federal da Paraíba) Prof. Dr. Geraldo Prado (Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa) Profa. Dra. Helena Regina Lobo da Costa (Universidade de São Paulo) Profa. Dra. Heloisa Estellita (Fundação Getúlio Vargas) Prof. Dr. Jacinto Nelson de Miranda Coutinho (Universidade Federal do Paraná) Prof. Dr. Luiz Eduardo Soares (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro) Prof. Dr. Marcelo de Almeida Ruivo (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul) Prof. Dr. Paulo Vinícius Sporleder Souza (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul) Prof. Dr. Ricardo Jacobsen Gloeckner (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul) Prof. Dr. Sebastian Borges de Albuquerque Mello (Universidade Federal da Bahia) Prof. Dr. Salo de Carvalho (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro)

Endereço para correspondência: Prof. Dr. Alexandre Wunderlich – Direção da Revista de Estudos Criminais Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Criminais – PPGCCRIM Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul – PUCRS Av. Ipiranga, 6681 – Porto Alegre/RS CEP 90619-900 – E-mail: rec@itecrs.org

ANO XXI – 2022 – Nº 84 Conselho Editorial Internacional Prof. Dr. Adem Sözüer (Universidade de Istambul) Prof. Dr. Arndt Sinn (Universidade de Osnabrück) Prof. Dr. Byung-Sun Cho (Universidade Cheongju) Profa. Dra. Clelia Iasevoli (Universidade de Nápoles) Prof. Dr. David Sanchez Rúbio (Universidade de Sevilha) Prof. Dr. Fernando Machado Pelloni (Universidade de Buenos Aires) Prof. Dr. Luís Greco (Universidade Humboldt de Berlim) Prof. Dr. Manuel Monteiro Guedes Valente (Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa) Prof. Dr. Manuel Jesus Sabariego Gómez (Universidade de Sevilha) Profa. Dra. Maria João Antunes (Universidade de Coimbra) Prof. Dr. Rui Cunha Martins (Universidade de Coimbra) Prof. Dr. Stefano Ruggieri (Università deli Studi di Messina) Prof. Dr. Vittorio Manes (Universidade de Bolonha)

Professores pareceristas Adrian Silva. Adriano Teixeira. Alaor Leite. Alexis Couto de Brito. André Machado Maya. Ângelo Roberto Ilha da Silva. Antônio Martins. Antonio Tovo. Antônio Vieira. Bruno Tadeu Buonicore.

Bruno Rotta de Almeida. Caique Ribeiro Galicia. Camila Hernandes. Carolina Stein. Camile Eltz de Lima. Carlo Velho Masi. Chiavelli Facenda Falavigno. Christiane Russomano Freire. Conrado Gontijo. Daniel Brod Rodrigues de Sousa. Denis Andrade Sampaio Junior. Denise Luz. Eduardo Baldissera Carvalho Salles. Eduardo Pitrez de Aguiar Corrêa. Eduardo Saad-Diniz. Eduardo Viana.

Fabiane da Rosa Cavalcanti. Felipe De-Lorenzi. Felipe Faoro Bertoni. Felipe Mrack Giacomolli.

Frederico Horta. Gabriel Divan. Gamil Föppel. Guilherme Lucchesi. Henrique Saibro. Jacqueline Sinhoretto. Jádia Timm dos Santos. Janaina Roland Matida. João Daniel Rassi. João Paulo Orsini Martinelli. Jorge Trindade. José Carlos Porciúncula. Keity Mara Ferreira de Souza e Saboya. Laura Gigante Albuquerque. Laura Girardi Hypolito. Leonardo Schmitt de Bem. Lucas Miranda. Luiz Antônio Bogo Chies. Luiza Farias Martins. Marçal Luis Ribeiro Carvalho. Marcella Alves Mascarenhas Nardelli. Marcelo Almeida Ruivo dos Santos. Marcelo Azambuja Araújo. Marcelo Buttelli Ramos.

Marcelo Mayora Alves. Marco Scapini. Marcos Eduardo Eberhardt. Mariana Gastal. Marina Pinhão Coelho Araújo. Mariani Bortolotti Fiumari. Michelle Karen Batista dos Santos. Nestor Araruna Santiago. Patrícia Carraro Rossetto. Paulo César Busato. Raffaella Pallamolla. Ramiro Gomes Von Saltiel. Raphael Boldt. Raquel Lima Scalcon. Renata Machado Saraiva. Romulo Fonseca Morais. Rowana Camargo. Ruth Maria Chittó Gauer. Thiago Allisson Cardoso de Jesus. Thiago Bottino do Amaral. Víctor Gabriel Rodríguez. Twig Lopes. Vinicius Gomes de Vasconcellos.

ANO XXI – 2022 – Nº 84 PUCRS Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Criminais Decano da Escola de Direito Prof. Dr. Fabricio Dreyer de Avila Pozzebon

Decana Associada Profa. Dra. Regina Linden Ruaro

Coordenador do PPGCCRIM Prof. Dr. Nereu José Giacomolli

ITEC Instituto Transdisciplinar de Estudos Criminais Diretoria Presidente Rodrigo Moraes de Oliveira Vice-Presidente Camile Eltz de Lima Secretário Alberto Ruttke Tesoureira Helena Costa Franco

Conselho Permanente Alexandre Wunderlich Andrei Zenkner Schmidt Antonio Tovo Bruna Aspar Lima Camile Eltz de Lima Daniel Achutti Fabio Roberto D’ Avila Felipe de Oliveira Fernanda Osório Giovani Saavedra Helena Costa Franco Jader Marques Lilian Reolon Marcelo Caetano Guazzelli Peruchin Marcelo Almeida Ruivo Paulo Vinícius Sporleder de Souza Rafael Braude Canterji Rodrigo Moraes de Oliveira Salo de Carvalho

Revista de Estudos Criminais 84 Janeiro/Março 2022

Notas dos Editores A partir deste número 84 a nossa querida Revista de Estudos Criminais (REC) passa por uma mudança na sua editoria. Os Professores Doutores Nereu José Giacomolli e Alexandre Lima Wunderlich deixam o posto. E podem fazê-lo, sem dúvida, com a certeza dos melhores serviços prestados: consolidaram a REC em sua nova casa, a prestigiosa Editora Tirant lo Blanch, projetando ainda mais a revista como referência de periódico científico no âmbito das ciências criminais (a qual prossegue com a avaliação QUALIS/CAPES A1).

Em nome do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Criminais da Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul – PPGCCrim/PUCRS, do Instituto Transdisciplinar de Estudos Criminais – ITEC e da Editora Tirant lo Blanch registramos o nosso mais sincero agradecimento aos Professores Giacomolli e Wunderlich. Muito obrigado!

Assumimos, assim, a função de editores sob o compromisso de zelar pelo legado dos que nos antecederam nesses 21 anos de caminhada da REC. Com olhos no porvir, nos honra e nos alegra a missão, nada modesta, de manter a excelência desse magnífico projeto. Agradecemos pela confiança!

Aproveitamos para enfatizar que as diretrizes éticas e as regras para publicação encontram-se disponíveis no site do ITEC (http://www.itecrs. org/edicoes/diretrizes:regras). Solicitamos que todos os contatos com a REC sejam feitos pelo e-mail: rec@itecrs.org Vida longa à Revista de Estudos Criminais!

8

Prof. Dr. Rodrigo Moraes de Oliveira

Prof. Dr. Daniel Silva Achutti

Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Criminais da Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul – PPGCCrim/PUCRS

Instituto Transdisciplinar de Estudos Criminais – ITEC

Sumário 11

Harmonization of Criminal Law: A MultiActors Process Moving at Different Speeds in Argentine Legislation Nicolás S. Cordini

31

Superando a crise na criminologia crítica: para uma teoria material do etiquetamento

48

Liberdades individuais (ameaçadas) no direito penal esclarecido – quais liberdades?

68

Crimes e danos ambientais: a criminologia crítica como pressuposto para a criminologia verde – influências e convergências

Dario Melossi

Klaus Günther

Marília de Nardin Budó e Mariangela Matarazzo Fanfa Colognese

97

Da justa medida de segurança: fundamentos, pressupostos e limites da intervenção corporal sobre o inimputável Frederico Gomes de Almeida Horta e Regina Geni Amorim Juncal

116

Sanção penal premial: subespécie de pena ou categoria distinta de sanção penal? Uma análise à luz da teoria da sanção Sebastian Borges de Albuquerque Mello e Mariana Ribeiro de Almeida

142

Apontamentos Críticos de uma Teoria da Culpabilidade Juvenil Ana Paula Motta Costa, Pablo Rodrigo Alflen Da Silva e Henrique Severo Palma

Sumário 166

Notas sobre a consumação do novo delito de perseguição (“Stalking” - art. 147-A, CP)

184

Das senzalas aos calabouços: a invenção penitenciária no Brasil

210

Os 150 anos do Die Normen und ihre Übertretung e a contribuição de Karl Binding para o Direito Penal

Hamilton Gonçalvez Ferraz

André Giamberardino

Ângelo Roberto Ilha da Silva e Pedro Jorge Costa

HARMONIZATION OF CRIMINAL LAW: A MULTIACTORS PROCESS MOVING AT DIFFERENT SPEEDS IN ARGENTINE LEGISLATION

1

A HARMONIZAÇÃO DO DIREITO PENAL: UM PROCESSO MULTI-ATORES QUE SE MOVE A DIFERENTES VELOCIDADES NA LEGISLAÇÃO ARGENTINA N icolás S. C ordini 2 ABSTRACT: The internationalization of criminal law occurs through various mechanisms, including harmonization. In this paper, we focus on the ‘harmonization’ through the different actors that set this process in motion, as well as the mechanisms -hard law and soft law rules- employing which the process is carried out. Based on the hypothesis that the harmonization in the same area of criminal law has not a uniform feature, but set in motion to different extents and at different speeds by different actors, we will analyse three cases in Argentine law that belong to the same area of criminal law, namely crimes related to organized crime. The selection of cases is: (a) ‘illicit association’ vs. ‘conspiracy’; (b) trafficking in persons and (c) money laundering.

KEYWORDS: internationalization, harmonization, criminal, law, Argentine.

RESUMO: A internacionalização do direito penal ocorre através de vários mecanismos, incluindo a harmonização. Neste documento, concentramo-nos na ‘harmonização’ através dos diferentes atores que põem este processo em marcha, bem como os mecanismos - regras de hard law e soft law - empregados neste processo. Com base na hipótese de que a harmonização na mesma área do direito penal não tem uma característica uniforme, mas desencadeia em diferentes extensões e a diferentes velocidades por diferentes atores, analisaremos três casos no direito argentino que pertencem à mesma área do direito penal, especificamente crimes relacionados com o crime organizado. A seleção dos casos é: (a) “associação ilícita” vs. “conspiração”; (b) tráfico de pessoas e (c) branqueamento de capitais.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: internacionalização, harmonização, penal, direito, argentino.

SUMÁRIO: 1. Introduction; 2. Harmonization of Criminal Law: what 1 2

Rcebido em: 26/11/21; Aprovado em: 25/02/22 Postdoc - The Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law (Germany); UBA-CONICET. Doctor in Law (UNL), Master in Law (Université de Limoges, France), Lawyer (UNL). Academic activity: CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council) Researcher at the Ambrosio L. Gioja Institute, Law School, University of Buenos Aires (UBA). Professor of Criminal Policy, Social Sciences School, UBA. Professor of Criminal Law, Law and Social Sciences School, University of Litoral (UNL). ORCID Identifier: 0000-0002-3877-4517

11

Revista de Estudos Criminais 84 Janeiro/Março 2022

does it mean?; 2.1 The Actors of Internationalization; 2.2 Internationalization through Hard Law or Soft Law Standards?; 2.3 Does internationalization imply an ‘Americanization’ of criminal law?; 3. Discussion; 3.1 The (Lack of) Harmonization of Organized Crime; 3.2 Trafficking in Persons: The Role of US Diplomacy ; 3.3 Money laundering: The influence of International Organizations; Conclusion; References.

1 Introduction Criminal law arose independently as an expression of the territorial sovereignty of nation-states (ius puniendi), and even today, the use of legitimate force through the criminal law instrument -as an expression of state sovereignty- represents a primary interest of states in the regulation of both substantive and procedural criminal law, as well as in the organization and functioning of judicial bodies. The internationalization of criminal law, i.e., the creation of criminal regulations of both substantive and procedural law based on instruments of international law, is not a new phenomenon. The peculiarity lies in the dimension that it has assumed. It is implemented through various mechanisms, ranging from the cooperation between States, harmonization and approximation to the various criminal law systems and the final stage of which is the integration of the different criminal systems. These processes have developed at different scales and speeds and have had different effects on different areas of criminal law, accelerating or slowing down depending on political, economic and social agendas.3 Just as classical criminal law is the product of national, uniform and closed legal systems, today’s criminal law, a product of economic globalization and supranational integration, is increasingly unified, although at the same time with fewer guarantees, in which the rules attribution of liability are more flexible and in which the substantive and procedural criminal guarantees are relativized.4 In addition to the effect mentioned above, the phenomenon of internalization challenges at least two central ideas of classical criminal law. First, that the national legislatures and judges are sovereign subjects responsible for sanctioning and applying criminal rules and, second, the supposed link between criminal law and the culture of each state (Kulturgebundenheit), an idea that served as a means of containment before the importation of criminal legislation originating from other legal systems.

In this paper, we focus on the analysis of the phenomenon of internationalization of criminal law based on the ‘harmonization’ by the different actors that set this process in motion, as well as on the mechanisms -hard law and soft law rules- through which this process takes place. Based on the hypothesis that, even in the same area of ​​criminal law, the harmonization of criminal law is not uniform but is set in motion to different degrees and at different speeds by different actors, 3 4 12

PIETH, 2011, p. 461.

SILVA SÁNCHEZ, 2001, p. 111.

Harmonization Of Criminal Law: A Multi-Actors Process Moving at Different Speeds in Argentine Legislation Nicolás S. Cordini

we will analyse three offences outlined by the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo, 2000) (UNTOC) and how they were introduced in Argentine criminal law. The choice of cases is: (a) participation in an illicit association vs. conspiracy; (b) the trafficking in persons; and (c) the money laundering. The methodology selected for this report is based on tools that correspond to a qualitative methodological strategy.

2 Harmonization of Criminal Law: what does it mean?

Harmonization presupposes a mechanism for the interaction of the various criminal law systems that lies midway between the extremes of judicial cooperation between non-integrated criminal justice systems that remain independent and the unification of criminal law that implies perfect integration. In this sense, harmonization is an imperfect process, as the systems retain some of their differences.5 Currently, there is no legal definition of the term ‘harmonization of criminal law’, although it is widely used in political and academic debates.6 The term ‘harmonization’ only appears in the Treaty establishing the European Community, but not concerning criminal law. The academic literature has not compensated for this lack of definition. In reviewing the existing legal literature, a common basic meaning of the term can be identified. This can be summarized, following Tadic and Joutsen, as “the elimination of differences between the criminal law systems of different states.”.7 The core of this common meaning is the elimination of inequalities.8 The harmonization of criminal law should not aim at eliminating differences between legal systems, but rather at removing frictions to make the different systems more coherent.9 By shifting the focus from the elimination of differences to the elimination of frictions, a crucial step is taken as it returns the interpretation of the term ‘harmonization’ to its natural meaning while avoiding confusion with the terms: ‘unification’ and with ‘approximation’ of criminal law.10 At the same time, it provides guidelines for the effective use of criminal law harmonization; it should only intervene when frictions exist and need to be addressed. This idea should guide criminal justice policymakers when deciding whether or not to harmonize criminal law. Following Calderoni, the term ‘harmonization’ means 5 6 7 8 9 10

DELMAS-MARTY, 2011, pp. 527-228.

TADIC, 2002, p. 2.

Ibid., p. 8. JOUTSEN, 2002, p. 410.

CALDERONI, 2010, p. 2.

NELLES, 2002, p. 34 BOODMAN, 1991, p. 704. ‘Approximation of criminal law’ is the process, typical of the European Union (EU), of amending various criminal laws to eliminate differences that deviate from the minimum standard set out in a Framework Decision. Approximation is a vertical concept; the focus of the approximation process is on eliminating the differences between legal systems; when they are contrary to EU minimum standards.

These minimum standards are the benchmark for the approach. As Member States are obliged to transpose Framework Decisions into national law, the EU minimum standards should take precedence in national legislation. CALDERONI, op. cit., p. 6.

13

Revista de Estudos Criminais 84 Janeiro/Março 2022

the process of modifying different criminal legislations in order to improve their consistency and eliminate frictions among them.

Harmonization of criminal law is a broad and flexible concept. This means that there is no specific procedure for harmonizing legal systems, nor do specific legal instruments exist. Harmonization can thus result from very different activities and processes. (…)

Harmonization is a horizontal concept. The ultimate goal of harmonization is to remove all frictions among different systems, thus achieving a legal harmony.

However, harmonization does not give us the content of this (rather utopian) legal harmony. There is no “best solution” or “best legislation”. There is no predetermined benchmark. Harmonization involves elements that are different, but equal in value. No legal system has higher status or consideration. This makes harmonization of criminal law a horizontal concept. This is a fundamental premise when assessing the level of harmonization among different legal systems.11

The first step in the harmonization process is to identify similarities and differences between criminal laws to identify possible frictions. This process is understood without prejudice to the system of attribution of criminal liability and the effectiveness of the national criminal law. The assessment of the degree of harmonization between the different systems is independent of the possible differences in attribution in one or more States; these may (or may not) be harmonized.

The assessment of the degree of harmonization between States is independent of the quality and/or effectiveness of the legislation itself. It may be that national laws are harmonized but do not achieve their objectives (e.g., preventing and/or combating crime). In this case, a high level of harmonization corresponds to legislations of low quality in terms of effectiveness.12 It is possible to distinguish between positive and negative harmonization.

Negative harmonization is based on the establishment of common international standards (criminal law guarantees) that limit the criminal power of states. This was made possible by the recognition and development of common legal positions, i.e., consensus on international human rights standards that influence and limit criminal law.13 Thus, at the international level we find the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN, 1966) and at the regional level the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (OAS, 1948) and the American Convention on Human 11 12 13

14

Ibid., p. 3 Ibid., p. 4.

According to Vogel in the ‘negative’ harmonization, often known as ‘limited’, is about establishing minimum substantive and procedural criminal rules that are internationally enforceable in favor of citizens. States have the authority to impose a higher level of protection. The general treaties of universal or regional human rights contain the minimal standards. VOGEL, 2002, p. 518.

Harmonization Of Criminal Law: A Multi-Actors Process Moving at Different Speeds in Argentine Legislation Nicolás S. Cordini

Rights (OAS, 1969). The protection of human rights through these legal instruments has led to considerable harmonization of criminal law, for example in criminal guarantees such as the principle of legality, the prohibition of laws enacted after the fact, the presumption of innocence, protection against arbitrary arrest, and concerning the execution of sentences through the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.14 Positive harmonization, which consists of international treaties obliging the signatory states to incorporate certain offences into their respective domestic laws or to harmonize them following international standards (if such offences already existed) and to establish certain minimum structures in criminal procedure to facilitate the prosecution of these offences. This form of harmonization has experienced a considerable upsurge in recent decades, which does not mean that it chronologically follows negative harmonization, as it is possible to find precursors of this phenomenon as early as the beginning of the last century.15 What is astonishing is the speed with which this mechanism of internationalization of criminal law has gained momentum through the conventions concluded at the request of the United Nations (UN), in particular, the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Vienna, 1988), the UNTOC and the Protocols Thereto, and the United Nations Convention against Corruption (Merida, 2003) (UNCAC).

These conventions include, among other obligations, new offences commonly referred to as ‘treaty crimes’ that can be defined as a set of offences “established in domestic law as a result of an obligation undertaken to criminalize in a multilateral suppression convention.”.16 They unilaterally pursue a single purpose, taking into account a criterion of opportunity: the protection of certain interests that ensure international security.17 These rules are not systematically organized and are not based on a single theory of crime. The classification and the choice of a theory of crime on which to base them has been left to the signatory states.

14

15 16 17

SIEBER, 2011, p. 487. This trend toward harmonization of criminal is the result of four major forces; forces that lead not only to a convergence of substantive and procedural rules, but also, to a degree, to a supranational criminal law for larger territories and in some cases, even for the corresponding supranational institutions.

These four factors are: (a) the increasing development and international recognition of common legal positions; (b) the increased interest in international security, primarily due by transnational crime, as seen in the areas of economic crime, cybercrime, organized crime and terrorism; (c) the growing influence of various players from the nation-states in the field of ​​criminal policy; and (d) the expansion of the international cooperation based on new institutions with new legal tools that are far more effective than prior systems.

SIEBER, 2007, pp. 3-16.

As early as 1921, it is possible to visualize this harmonization mechanism in the International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children (League of Nations).

BOISTER, 2009, p. 342.

In other words, it is a question of achieving certain security-related objectives (combating terrorism and organized crime), combating certain undesirable offences (pornography and child prostitution) or protecting financial interests (e.g., preventing money laundering). The criminal law resulting from the process of internationalization is a law oriented towards responding to mainly practical demands. The style of argumentation used is rather pragmatic and, in the first instance, oriented towards factual arguments.

PERRON, 2016, p. 316. Dogmatic, categorical or systematic discussions have receded in the process of codification of so-called treaty crimes. AMBOS, 2016, p. 324.

15

Revista de Estudos Criminais 84 Janeiro/Março 2022

2.1 The Actors of Internationalization From the perspective of classical criminal law, states were the central actors in the spread of criminal law. The problem of international crime was solved unilaterally by the States through an exception to the principle of territoriality (based on the principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction) or, based on bilateral multilateral treaties establishing rules for cooperation. However, in the face of new forms of transnational crime, territorially limited classical criminal law becomes ineffective as criminal activities exceed the capacity of the states concerned to act. In the context of this new kind of crime, other actors are entering the scene to develop international criminal policies. In addition to states, these are mainly international organizations, civil society and the business sector. The influence of one actor or another varies in terms of the different areas of criminal law that need to be harmonized, and the different actors in turn have opposing positions on this process.

In general, States are the most reluctant to engage in this process, while the other actors are more willing to promote the harmonization of criminal law.

States are the most reluctant actors in the harmonization process. They want to retain their sovereignty in criminal matters and preserve the cultural identity of their respective legal systems. States are unwilling to limit their sovereignty through legal obligations. This reluctance is reinforced when it comes not only to the harmonization of the criminal law but at the same time to the creation of supranational institutions. They have reservations about any international institution that applies or even coordinates criminal law. However, in certain circumstances, States relinquish the power to autonomously regulate nationally and tend to harmonize criminal law when doing so facilitates the application of the law, achieves security benefits, or satisfied other national interests.18 States give away in favour of harmonization in the case of transnational criminal activities where international criminal enforcement cannot function efficiently without harmonization (combating terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime, money laundering, among others). However, specific national interests may lead a State’s criminal policy to favour harmonization in one context and autonomous regulation in another. A paradigmatic case is that of the United States (US), concerning the policies of UN, supports the harmonization of laws on bribery of foreign officials (for reasons of international jurisdiction), the international anti-money laundering regime, and the anti-drugs laws (promoted by the conventions that emerged in UN, in which the US played a leading role), but opposes the International Criminal Court (ICC).19 18 19 16

SIEBER, op. cit., 501.

The US was one of the states that contributed the most to the establishment of the ICC. Despite his effort, he did not ratify the Rome Statute, and, in fact, retracted his signature shortly after signing it.

Harmonization Of Criminal Law: A Multi-Actors Process Moving at Different Speeds in Argentine Legislation Nicolás S. Cordini

International organizations are important actors in the current harmonization process. Their influence is since many problems, typical of a global society can no longer be tackled solely by States alone (transnational organized crime, environmental crime, money laundering, etc.). As actors in the process of internationalization of criminal law, international organizations are usually in favour of harmonization of criminal law; harmonization promoted by conventions, resolutions and recommendations of the UN and other international organizations, or by the influence of monitoring procedures and peer pressure processes, as in the case of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF); or by technical assistance in the implementation of international instruments. However, as most of these organizations do not have democratic legitimacy, they cannot in principle create criminal law themselves.20 However, it does not prevent them from exerting influence, inter alia, through conventions, recommendations or resolutions, and in this way, promoting the introduction of certain criminal law provisions. The jurisprudence of international courts also works towards criminal harmonization.21 At the regional level, we cannot ignore the prominent role of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in criminal matters, both through their advisory jurisdiction and contentious jurisdiction, establishing standards on issues such as the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, conditions of detention, extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, amnesty laws, the death penalty, the principle of legality and non-retroactivity, the presumption of innocence, due process, non bis in idem and others.

The private sector itself is not homogeneous and it is necessary to distinguish between private economic actors (corporate sector) and civil actors (nongovernmental organizations, NGOs). Many NGOs act as atypical moral entrepreneurs (atypische Moralunternehmer) who play an important role in the expansive process of criminal law and, in particular, advocate for criminal law harmonization.22 These are movements that advocate for civil rights linked to the defence of various interests, such as the protection of the environment, women’s rights, or associations of victims of certain crimes. On the other hand, companies are also vulnerable to harmonization processes. In the field of economic criminal law, the private sector, in particular the business sector, actively participates in the development of possible anti-money laundering measures and becomes a gatekeeper of 20 21 22

The ICC may adopt amendments to offences subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction through the vote of the Assembly of State Parties (Article 9).

FRONZA; MALARINO, 2011, p. 85.

They lobby for the growth of criminal law based in order to safeguard their individual interests. SCHEERER, 1986, p. 133. Similarly, Lüderssen asserts that approximately the same political groups on the one hand — directly or bey referring to the corresponding tradition— do not tire of affirming the futility and harm of state coercion through punishment (or criminal law), but, on the other hand, they intend to use criminal law to achieve their emancipatory purposes.”. LÜDERSSEN, 1987, p. 167.

17

Revista de Estudos Criminais 84 Janeiro/Março 2022

risk activities. The influence of this sector can lead to the harmonization of criminal law provisions that would otherwise hinder international economic activity, free trade or competition.23

2.2 Internationalization through Hard Law or Soft Law Standards?

The harmonization of criminal law mentioned above occurs through both hard law and soft law mechanisms. The choice of one or the other depends on several factors. By signing international conventions, states can agree to harmonize certain areas of criminal law. The international conventions on the international control of drug trafficking and the financing of terrorism are paradigmatic examples of this process.24 United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, such as resolutions 1267 (1999) 1373 (2001), also contain strong legal provisions on terrorism. 25 Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter allows for the application of these resolutions through sanctions, so the Security Council has powers of application in addition to prescriptive powers. Other coercive mechanisms include those developed by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is based on the principle of complementarity. Thus, the Rome Statute can be applied at the international level if signatory states do not implement or apply at the national level.26 States are often reluctant to accept a binding legal obligation, especially if it involves the delegation of powers to a supranational organization because it involves a loss of sovereignty. While we recognize that the term sovereignty is broad and highly contested,27 we use the term ‘sovereignty costs’ as an umbrella term for three categories of costs, to illustrate the high risks States often face when accepting international agreements, namely: The potential for worse outcomes, loss of 23 24 25

26

27

18

SIEBER, 2011, pp. 512-513.

Thus, 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances the 1999 UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

UNSC Resolution 1373: 1. decides that all States shall: (a) Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts; (b) Criminalize the willful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts. UNSC Resolution 1267 decides that all States apply the following measures: (a) Deny permission for any aircraft to take off from or land in their territory if it is owned, leased or operated by or on behalf of the Taliban (…) (b) Freeze funds and other financial resources, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the Taliban, or by any undertaking owned or controlled by the Taliban…

The principle of complementarity is intended to protect the ICC’s authority over irresponsible governments that reject or are unable to prosecute persons who have perpetrated terrible international crimes. This principle strikes a balance between the ICC’s supranational power and sovereign right of the state to punish its own citizens without external intervention. EL ZEIDY, 2008, pp. 157-158.

Krasner defines sovereignty as having four meanings or categories: domestic sovereignty: the organization of authority and control within the state, interdependence sovereignty: the ability to control rights across borders, international legal sovereignty: (establishing the state of a political entity in the international system, and Westphalia sovereignty, which prevents external actors from influencing or determining domestic authority structures. These categories overlap and do not follow in any logical pattern. KRASNER, 1999, p. 3; 2001, p. 233.

Harmonization Of Criminal Law: A Multi-Actors Process Moving at Different Speeds in Argentine Legislation Nicolás S. Cordini

authority, and compromise of sovereignty makes states reluctant to accept hard legalization (especially if it involves a high degree of delegation).28 Sovereignty costs are highest when international agreements affect relations between a state and its citizens or territory, traditional features of (Westphalian) sovereignty. The highest sovereignty costs occur when states accept external authority in making important decisions.

Soft law, which encompasses a wide range of non-binding legal harmonization instruments, recommendations and, in certain situations, non-binding legislative models, is a way to reduce the costs of sovereignty by broadening the number of available institutional arrangements. The way States choose between various forms of legalization is determined by their qualities as well as the conditions of specific thematic areas.29 States will prefer different forms of legality in different domains, seeing constraints on national sovereignty as costs that vary according to difficulties. The cost of sovereignty is extremely high in sectors relating to national security, therefore criminal harmonization is at one extreme; the exchange of ideas in professional organizations, expert networks and international organizations are examples of non-binding legal harmonization methods. The International Association of Criminal Law, as well as regional organizations such as the Council of Europe and the OAS, have fostered this flow of ideas, which has aided in the convergence of opposing viewpoints. Among the soft law harmonization procedures, the relevance of monitoring and pressure procedures devised by intergovernmental organizations such as the FATF, which manages to bind its members politically, if not legally, to the standards, should be highlighted.

2.3 Does internationalization imply an ‘Americanization’ of criminal law?

The harmonization process cannot be considered neutral; rather, it is supported by criminal policy options that affect the guarantees that criminal justice systems must uphold.30 The so-called ‘treaty crimes’ are negotiated in international organizations such as the UN with the active participation of non-state actors such as international organizations and international NGOs that push for creative criminal policy agendas. The criminal law against drugs that emerged from the conventions of the UN serves as a model for this kind of crime. The US internationalized its so-called ‘war on drugs’ with legal-criminal measures through the 1988 Vienna Convention.31 From then on, relevant offences such as money laun28 29 30 31

ABBOTT; SNIDAL, 2000, pp. 436-437.

Ibid., p. 440.

MANACORDA, 2011, p. 358.

WOODIWISS, 2003, p. 19; NADELMANN, 1993, p. 446.

19

Revista de Estudos Criminais 84 Janeiro/Março 2022

dering, bribery and transnational corruption, human trafficking, etc. were the result of international conventions and, in particular, the dominant position of the US in setting criminal policy in this area.32 In shaping international criminal law rules, there is no free exchange of legal solutions between different systems, but rather an alignment of all of the systems with the American criminal law system.

The Americanization of criminal law is not reduced to the existence of similar criminal law rules between the civil law and common law systems but must be understood as a broader phenomenon that extends to criminal law.33 First, Americanization expresses a phenomenon that encompasses the entire legal system and has reached criminal law for several decades. Second, out of this process emerge penal strategies typical of American law, such as business self-regulation (through compliance standards), the expansion of negotiation processes between parties, and cooperation with the supervisory authorities.

So, what about the negotiating ability of civil law states, particularly those that follow the German tradition? The answer is simple: Germany does not play a major role in shaping international criminal law or European criminal law.34 Other countries with similar criminal law systems are rarely expected to have a say in formulating international criminal justice policy.

Through the proliferation of international conventions, the criminal provisions resulting from these conventions have influenced the domestic law of several countries, the export of both substantive and procedural criminal law provisions, such as offences originally designed for the American criminal law (e.g., the concept of ‘criminal organization’,35 the crime of drug trafficking, trafficking in persons, etc.), or procedural institutions such as the agent provocateur or plea bargaining, whose success is not guaranteed in legal systems other than the one for which they were designed. In short, as criminal law is exported, dysfunction32 33

34

35

20

VOGEL, 2012, p. 26.

The Americanization would have an impact on the hardware of the European legal culture. The primacy of the law and public administrations key means for resolving social issues (bureaucratic legalism) would be give way to so-called adversarial legalism. A system in which conflict resolution is carried out through adversarial combat inside the framework of a process, in which the judge - the state bureaucracy - also plays a less relevant and active part. KAGAN, 2005, p. 35.

If current German criminal law can be regarded as international and European, especially as a model and influential, it can rightly be called into question. The German criminal code in its current essential form dates back to the criminal reforms of the 1960s and 1970s and can no longer serve as a model to be followed. In the European and international criminal policy arenas, Germany is not a major player; the decisive decisions, are taken by other states. VOGEL, op. cit., pp. 25-26. See also SILVA SÁNCHEZ, 2012, pp. XV-XVI (“I must confess that I harbour the fear that, for dogmatics [the science of criminal law], ‘any time in the past was better’. Indeed, the great German masters have retired or are about to retire, and many of their successors - at any rate, some of the most influential and brilliant - seem more inclined to worship the golden calf in Brussels (or perhaps Washington) than to follow their predecessors. O tempora, o mores!”).

The United States’ Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, included in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), marks the starting point of the international notion of organized crime, proposing a relatively more generic vision of the phenomenon in question, highlighting the organizational and corruptive nature of it, and renouncing to build a more articulated and descriptive definition of the complexity of the phenomenon that comprises it. SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA DE PAZ, 2005, p. 110.