แบบบ้าน แปลนบ้าน พิมพ์เขียวก่อสร้าง บ้านป่าตาล

With regard to the place where these international crimes are prosecuted, with the exception of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, there are no international criminal courts or tribunals with their own jurisdiction over terrorist crimes. Some of the most heinous and sensational cases can be heard by an international criminal court or tribunal such as the International Criminal Court, whose jurisdiction derives from the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute). Alternatively, an ad hoc criminal tribunal may be established, such as those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which are contained in special laws provided for in Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII. Sometimes a hybrid court may be established, such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone or the Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts of Cambodia, which are acquired under international and national law. Prior to the national counter-terrorism legislation triggered by Security Council resolution 1373 (2001), when terrorism was considered a significant threat to national security, in many national legal systems it was still portrayed as an ordinary crime without special mens-rea requirements (as a political element). Therefore, it was generally used in connection with the criminal acts involved (in particular murder, bodily harm, property damage and arson) or in the context of conventional violations of national security or public order (e.g. treason, rebellion, sedition and treason, or by resorting to crimes under emergency laws in exceptional cases). Much of the literature on the relationship between globalization, crime and anti-crime measures is functionalist and describes the emergence of new tools to harmonize criminalization policies as a natural response to changes in the organization of illegal markets (for a critical analysis of this explanatory approach, see Andreas Reference Andreas, Mitsilegas, Alldridge and Cheliotis2015). The processes of globalization have greatly expanded and intensified the movement of people, goods, capital, information and technology across national borders (Held and McGrew Reference Held and McGrew2003). These processes create conditions that facilitate the production, financing and trade of illegal goods and services, including the smuggling of prohibited goods (such as drugs, arms and counterfeit goods), the “laundering” of illegal profits, and the smuggling of borders and the exploitation of migrants (Williams and Vlassis, 2001; Castells Reference Castells2010, 171-214). From this functionalist perspective, the criminogenic effects of globalization stimulate policy initiatives to harmonize countries` criminal laws in order to facilitate intergovernmental cooperation and coordination in combating these crimes (Boister Reference Boister, 2003, 957). Diagnostic struggles over whether certain behaviours should be defined as criminal do not only concern the legislative and judicial constructions of criminal laws induced by transnational corporations. These struggles also shape how police, prosecutors, and other law enforcement agencies enforce these laws and determine their concrete meaning.

Recent work in the sociology of criminalization has highlighted the importance of examining how law enforcement actors exercise interpretative power to decide which actions and perpetrators should be treated as criminals (Lacey Reference Lacey and Loveland, 1995, 2009), reflecting the growing socio-legal focus on constructing legal meaning in everyday environments (Silbey Reference Silbey2005). The extent to which national law enforcement officials internalize the diagnostic framework underlying a transnational prohibition standard plays a key role in shaping the extent to which national laws and local methods of enforcement coincide with the fixed meanings of that standard at the international level. Harold Koh`s work on transnational legal processes predicts that the participation of national law enforcement actors in transnational professional networks will facilitate the processes of internalization of standards (Koh Reference Koh1996). As part of this approach, the increasing involvement of national law enforcement officers in supranational police organizations such as Interpol, Europol and the Financial Action Task Force facilitates the dissemination of security governance frameworks in all jurisdictions (Bigo Reference Bigo2006; Bowling and Sheptycki Reference Bowling and Sheptycki2012, 53–71). Policy-making processes that implement transnational prohibition norms include what Robert Reiner (Reference Reiner2016, 2) describes as the inherently controversial nature of the concept of crime. As Reiner notes, disagreements about the nature of the concept of crime permeate discussions about the criminalization of certain behaviors, so “it`s common for people to argue about whether or not something should be a crime, whether it`s really criminal, how it should be treated, and so on” (Reiner Reference Reiner2016, 3; see also Henry and Lanier 2001). The inherently controversial nature of the concept of crime allows actors to promote conflicting interpretations of how states should implement international criminalization obligations (Cotterrell 2015). National actors, acting as intermediaries between global standards and national legal practice, use Norman adequacy and Norman contestation strategies to shape the processes by which national legislators choose between alternative interpretations and implementation schemes (Shaffer Reference Shaffer2012, 254-55). The ability of these actors to influence the policy-making process depends on a number of factors, including the extent to which they are able to make credible claims for expertise, their ability to translate transnational scripts into policy frameworks that are considered legitimate and attractive to national audiences, and the extent to which they appear attentive to the needs and experiences of the national electorate in the event of conflict with the political objectives and values of transnational legislators (Carruthers and Halliday Reference Carruthers and Halliday2006, 529-31).

This article adopts a procedural sociological framework (Liu Reference Liu2013; Reference Abbott Abbott2016; Block-Lieb and Halliday Reference Block-Lieb and Halliday2017; Happy New Year 2020). Unlike many investigations that present criminalization as a fixed outcome (the formal inclusion of a prohibition on punishment in a legally binding text), we conceive of criminalization as an ongoing process (Lacey 2009) and seek to clarify how acts of transnational criminal law cause a series of recursive legal changes over time.