Keywords
archaeological sites
online market for cultural property of archaeological significance
criminal sanctions
How to Cite
Number of views: 24
Number of downloads: 13
Abstract
The paper addresses the criminal law issue of the exclusion of unlawfulness or culpability of behaviour in cases of illegal border crossing, as regulated in Polish law under Article 264 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 49a of the Petty Offenses Code, through the application of the state of necessity. The analysis is conducted in the context of the ongoing immigration crisis on the Polish-Belarusian border since 2021. The initial section provides a general discussion on the application of the state of necessity to situations involving border crossings without formal authorization, with particular consideration given to the object of protection of the relevant regulations and the balance between sacrificed and preserved goods. The paper favourably evaluates recent literature suggesting that individuals crossing the border from Belarus into Poland may have acted under a state of necessity, thereby excluding the unlawfulness of their behaviour. Subsequent sections consider more specific issues, including the problem of perpetrators contributing to the creation of the danger and the legalization of the threat through the Polish Government’s decision to strengthen the border protection infrastructure along the Polish-Belarusian border, aimed at preventing its crossing at unauthorized points. The analysis concludes that these issues do not necessarily preclude the application of the state of necessity to various forms of illegal border crossing. However, it identifies a need to examine the differentiation – or lack thereof – between the internal and external borders of the European Union concerning their protection through criminal law measures.
Funding
ID-UB AMU Mobility – 047
References
Bass, G. F. (2012). The development of maritime archaeology. W: B. Ford, D. L. Hamilton i A. Catsambis (red.), The Oxford handbook of maritime archeology (s. 3–22). Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199336005.013.0000
Brodie, N. (2015). The Internet market in antiquities. W: F. Desmarais (red.), Countering illicit traffic in cultural goods: The global challenge of protecting the world’s heritage (s. 11–20). ICOM. Pobrane 31 stycznia 2024, z: https://traffickingculture.org/publications/brodie-n-
-2015-the-internet-market-in-antiquities/
Bubalo, L., i Pajic, D. (2019). In dubio pro reo principle in modern criminal procedure. South East European Law Journal, 6, 84–96.
Castillo, A. (2014). Best practices in world heritage: Archaeology. W: A. Castillo (red.), Archaeological dimension of world heritage from prevention to social implications (s. 105–112). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0283-5_8
Chappell, D., i Polk, K. (2011). Unraveling the “Cordata”: Just how organized is the international traffic in cultural objects? W: S. Manacorda i D. Chappell (red.), Crime in the art and antiquities world: Illegal trafficking in cultural property (s. 99–116). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7946-9_6
Davidson, K., Graham, S., i Huffer, D. (2021). Exploring taste formation and performance in the illicit trade of human remains on Instagram. W: N. Oosterman i D. Yates (red.), Crime and art: Sociological and criminological perspectives of crimes in the art world (s. 29–44). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84856-9_3
Dundler, L. (2021). The construction and use of “dealer persona” in the Internet market for antiquities. W: N. Oosterman i D. Yates (red.), Crime and art: Sociological and criminological perspectives of crimes in the art world (s. 63–78). Springer.
Fabiani, M. D., i Marrone, J. V. (2021). Transiting through the antiquities market a social network analysis of auctions. W: N. Oosterman i D. Yates (red.), Crime and art sociological and criminological perspectives of crimes in the art world (s. 11–28). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84856-9_2
Giovannetti, T. (2015). Art. 175. W: G. Famiglietti i N. Pignatelli (red.), Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio (s. 1115–1118). NelDiritto.
Hoyos Sancho, M., i Palomares, S. G. (2021). Directive 2016/343 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings. W: C. A. Fanego, M. Hoyos DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61177-4_4
Sancho i A. H. López (red.), Procedural safeguards for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings: Good practices throughout the European Union (s. 57–72). Springer.
Lidington, H. (2002). The role of the Internet in removing the “shackles of the saleroom”: Anytime, anyplace, anything, anywhere. Archaeology, 2(2), 67–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/146551802793157051
Lubina, K., i Schneider, H. (2010). Pringsheim, provenance and principles: a case study on the restitution of Nazi looted art and compensatory payments. W: K. Odendahl i P. J. Weber (red.), Kulturgüterschutz – Kunstrecht – Kulturrecht, Festschrift für Kurt Siehr zum 75. Geburtstag, Schriften zum Kunst- und Kulturrecht (s. 161–177). Dike Verlag Zürich.
Mackenzie, S. (2020). The structure of global market in illicit antiquities. W: N. Brodie, D. Yates i C. Tsirogiannis (red.), Trafficking culture: New directions in researching the global market in illicit antiquities (s. 1–19). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315532219-1
Manacorda, S. (2009). Criminal law protection of cultural heritage: An international perspective. W: S. Manacorda i D. Chappel (red.), Organized crime in art and antiquities: Illegal trafficking in cultural property (s. 17–48). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7946-9_2
Marugán, F. R. (2021). A new method of forensic archaeology identification of the origin of archaeological materials seized in police proceedings. W: N. Oosterman i D. Yates (red.), Crime and art: Sociological and criminological perspectives of crimes in the art world (s. 79–102). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84856-9_6
Nistri, G. (2009). The experience of the Italian Cultural Heritage Protection. W: S. Manacorda i D. Chappel (red.), Organized crime in art and antiquities: Illegal trafficking in cultural property (s. 183–192). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7946-9_11
Przyborowska-Klimczak, A. (2011). Rozwój ochrony dziedzictwa kulturalnego w prawie międzynarodowym na przełomie XX i XXI wieku. Wydawnictwo UMCS.
Ramacci, L. (2009). Diritto penale dell’ambiente. La Tribuna.
Seidl-Hohenvveldern, I. (1993). La protection internationale du patrimoine culturel national. Revue Gènèrale de Droit International Public, 2, 396–409.
Soska, K., i Christin, N. (2015). Measuring the longitudinal evolution of the online anonymous marketplace ecosystem (s. 33–48). Carnegie Mellon University. Pobrane 31 stycznia 2024, z: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity15/sec15-paper-soska.pdf
Trzciński, M. (2010). Przestępczość przeciwko zabytkom archeologicznym. Problematyka prawno-kryminalistyczna (s. 262–267). Wolters Kluwer.
Zeidler, K. (2005). Prawa człowieka a normatywne podstawy ochrony dziedzictwa kultury. Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze, 13, 29–43.
Zeidler, K., i Trzciński, M. (2009). Wykład prawa dla archeologów (s. 99–100). Wolters Kluwer.
License
Copyright (c) 2024 WPiA UAM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.