„Feindstrafrecht“ (English shop)

Naturzustand vs.Rechtsbeziehung?

Preview

Table of Contents, Datei (29 KB)
Preface, Datei (4.6 KB)
Extract, Datei (26 KB)

In a free society, the right to security can never be brought into view in a purely instrumental manner. Where the “subject” of “enemy criminal law” is termed the “individual without rights,” it cannot, by definition, be said that “enemy criminal law” is genuinely legally binding in combating the “enemies.” If it now seeks to bind with regard to “nature,” the inviolability of human dignity slips away, and moreover: the reliance on the concept of the “legal non-person” has nothing to do with “hazard prevention,” not even in abstracto. “Depersonalization” in “enemy criminal law” thus occurs not only in the name of “security,” but on closer inspection also proves to be an end in itself. Here as there, the person concerned is mixed in among the objects of property law, which means that an excluding “society” leads precisely to no legal order, and not least the presumption of innocence is a principle indispensable exclusively under the rule of law. In other words: in the end, “enemy criminal law” scarcely resists the “principled opponents” of a free society, but rather proves to be downright counterproductive: it throws the constitutional state qua constitutional state out of joint, and irretrievably so. The “depersonalizing” world of the (quasi-)social is thus by no means a hopeful vision of the world. No less essential, however, is the fact that in a constitutional state any further version of “enemy criminal law” would be ex aequo unworkable.