Finding the proper measure: The prohibition of negationism in comparative European legislation

The article analyses the manner of implementation of the prohibition of negationism into the legal systems of EU member states. Negationism is an important social topic which describes the phenomenon of denying, condoning or trivializing certain historical crimes, such as genocide. EU adopted a Fram...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Vučić Mihajlo A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Institute of Comparative Law, Belgrade 2022-01-01
Series:Strani pravni život
Subjects:
Online Access:https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0039-2138/2022/0039-21382202221V.pdf
_version_ 1811229362989563904
author Vučić Mihajlo A.
author_facet Vučić Mihajlo A.
author_sort Vučić Mihajlo A.
collection DOAJ
description The article analyses the manner of implementation of the prohibition of negationism into the legal systems of EU member states. Negationism is an important social topic which describes the phenomenon of denying, condoning or trivializing certain historical crimes, such as genocide. EU adopted a Framework Decision that obligated member states to introduce the crime of negationism in their legislation. The Framework Decision connects negationism with racism and xenophobia and provides for standardized elements of crime. The main hypothesis of the article is that the progressive conceptualization of negationism in the Decision enabled the further differentiation among legislative responses of the member states because of their various historical experiences of certain crimes. The aim of this research is to analyse these differences and point to their consequences. For this purpose, a comparative method of member states' legislations on negationism and ceratin characteristic examples from the jurisprudence is used. Member states are grouped by common features that define their approach to negationism. Certain member states were formally noticed for the failure to implement the Decision, while many more were not although at least 6 of them failed completely to implement it. Partial implementation can be found in those member states that prohibit only Holocaust negationism, or implement the Decision but without all the neccessary elements of crime which impact the criminal proceedings. Certain states are going against the purpose of the Decision and equally treat communist and nazi-fascist crimes. The constitutionality of the ban of negationism has been reviewed due to the limits it places on the freedom of expression. Conclusions confirm the primary hypothesis.
first_indexed 2024-04-12T10:13:45Z
format Article
id doaj.art-9a4861ebba9340079bbf652410921d95
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 0039-2138
2620-1127
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-12T10:13:45Z
publishDate 2022-01-01
publisher Institute of Comparative Law, Belgrade
record_format Article
series Strani pravni život
spelling doaj.art-9a4861ebba9340079bbf652410921d952022-12-22T03:37:15ZengInstitute of Comparative Law, BelgradeStrani pravni život0039-21382620-11272022-01-012022222124210.56461/SPZ_22203KJ0039-21382202221VFinding the proper measure: The prohibition of negationism in comparative European legislationVučić Mihajlo A.0Institut za međunarodnu politiku i privredu, Beograd, SerbiaThe article analyses the manner of implementation of the prohibition of negationism into the legal systems of EU member states. Negationism is an important social topic which describes the phenomenon of denying, condoning or trivializing certain historical crimes, such as genocide. EU adopted a Framework Decision that obligated member states to introduce the crime of negationism in their legislation. The Framework Decision connects negationism with racism and xenophobia and provides for standardized elements of crime. The main hypothesis of the article is that the progressive conceptualization of negationism in the Decision enabled the further differentiation among legislative responses of the member states because of their various historical experiences of certain crimes. The aim of this research is to analyse these differences and point to their consequences. For this purpose, a comparative method of member states' legislations on negationism and ceratin characteristic examples from the jurisprudence is used. Member states are grouped by common features that define their approach to negationism. Certain member states were formally noticed for the failure to implement the Decision, while many more were not although at least 6 of them failed completely to implement it. Partial implementation can be found in those member states that prohibit only Holocaust negationism, or implement the Decision but without all the neccessary elements of crime which impact the criminal proceedings. Certain states are going against the purpose of the Decision and equally treat communist and nazi-fascist crimes. The constitutionality of the ban of negationism has been reviewed due to the limits it places on the freedom of expression. Conclusions confirm the primary hypothesis.https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0039-2138/2022/0039-21382202221V.pdfnegationismeumember statescrimesdenial
spellingShingle Vučić Mihajlo A.
Finding the proper measure: The prohibition of negationism in comparative European legislation
Strani pravni život
negationism
eu
member states
crimes
denial
title Finding the proper measure: The prohibition of negationism in comparative European legislation
title_full Finding the proper measure: The prohibition of negationism in comparative European legislation
title_fullStr Finding the proper measure: The prohibition of negationism in comparative European legislation
title_full_unstemmed Finding the proper measure: The prohibition of negationism in comparative European legislation
title_short Finding the proper measure: The prohibition of negationism in comparative European legislation
title_sort finding the proper measure the prohibition of negationism in comparative european legislation
topic negationism
eu
member states
crimes
denial
url https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0039-2138/2022/0039-21382202221V.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT vucicmihajloa findingthepropermeasuretheprohibitionofnegationismincomparativeeuropeanlegislation