PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 14, 2026International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique0 citationsOpen Access

Local Labels of International Crimes Human Dignity and Fair Labelling on Trail

View Full Paper
LQLigeia Quackelbeen

Key Points

  • This research explores how international crime labels are interpreted and applied in domestic law, particularly focusing on human dignity.
  • Comparative analysis of legislation and judicial practices in the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden
  • Examination of legislative semiotic alignment and judicial interpretative alignment
  • Focus on the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity
  • Domestic legislatures translate international prohibitions of outrages upon personal dignity in varied ways
  • Domestic courts extend protected-person status to deceased persons, despite uncertainties in customary international law
  • Severity is applied inconsistently, serving as a primary limiting criterion in judicial practice

Abstract

This article examines how international crime labels are translated into domestic criminal law and interpreted by national courts, focusing on the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity. Through a comparative analysis of legislation and judicial practice in the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden, it explores varying degrees of legislative semiotic alignment and judicial interpretative alignment with international humanitarian and international criminal law. Drawing on a semiotic reading of the principle of fair labeling, this article analyses how domestic courts engage with partially aligned national provisions by selectively relying on international sources. Three core findings emerge. First, domestic legislatures translate in divergent ways the international prohibitions of outrages upon personal dignity, combining international references with local particularities. Second, despite these legislative differences, domestic courts converge in extending protected-person status to deceased persons, even where customary international law provides an uncertain basis for such inclusion. Third, severity increasingly functions as the primary limiting criterion yet is applied inconsistently in practice. This article argues that while local interpretative divergence may be justified, the expressive force of the label may be diluted when outrages upon personal dignity are stretched beyond the level of severity they were intended to convey.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ligeia Quackelbeen (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b4ada918185d8a398014abhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-026-10445-6
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Fair Labelling and the Unveiling of Personhood: Considering Non-Contact Offences and Law’s Theoretical Foundations2026
  2. 2Public responses to atrocities depend on partisanship and context, not legal labels2026
  3. 3Naming Gendered Harm: Criminal Law and the Semiotics of Legal Categories2026
  4. 4The law and nothing but the law? How the law can fail victims of human trafficking during the criminal justice process in the Netherlands2024 · 1 citations
  5. 5Effectiveness of Measures of Legal Response to Criminal Offenses against the Freedom, Honor and Dignity of a Person2024