Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Birth of the Crime of Historical Denialism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Memory and Punishment

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 19))

  • 698 Accesses

Abstract

This first chapter defines historical denialism by characterising it as a degeneration of the related notion of revisionism. Having introduced its evolution as a criminal offence, historical denialism is distinguished from remembrance laws. Its progressive criminalisation is further analysed from a European comparative angle. On the one hand, this process is characterised by the expansion of the object of the criminal prohibition, which was originally limited only to the negation of the Holocaust but now includes other international crimes. On the other hand, the criminalisation of historical denialism is illustrative of the blossoming of speech crimes. From this viewpoint, the protection of historical memory, guaranteed by the offence of historical denialism, aligns with a general trend that expands limitations of free speech in the name of the protection of other fundamental values of democratic societies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Vidal-Naquet 1981, p. 108.

  2. 2.

    The well-known phrase is by Leopold Von Ranke (1795–1886), principal proponent of historiographical positivism. ‘Man hat der Historie das Amt, die Vergangenheit zu richten, die Mitwelt zum Nutzen zukünftiger Jahre zu belehren, beigemessen: so hoher Ämter unterwindet sich gegenwärtiger Versuch nicht: er will bloß zeigen, wie es eigentlich gewesen’, Ranke, Leopold Von, Sämtliche Werke Bd. 33/34, Leipzig 1885, p. 7.

  3. 3.

    Pisanty 2000, p. 44. On the phenomenon of denialism , see also Behrens et al. 2017, pp. 7-54; Vercelli 2013; Di Cesare 2012; Atkins 2009; Flores 2007; Pisanty 2005, p. 425 et seq.; Bastian 1997; Lipstadt 1994; Benz 1992. On negation , trivialization and sacralization as abuses of memory, see Pisanty 2012.

  4. 4.

    See Rousso 1987.

  5. 5.

    On the denial of the Rwandan genocide, see Behrens et al. 2017, pp. 94–144; Moerland 2016; Gasanabo et al. 2015; Longman 2011; Bizimana 2001. On Rwandan laws on genocide denial and on a recent case in which these provisions were used, see Jansen 2014. For more examples of historical denialism outside Europe, see Lechtholz Zey 2012; Kahn 1997, p. 17 et seq.; Hill 1989, p. 165 et seq.

  6. 6.

    This new dimension of denialism will not be analysed in this study; see Fourie and Meyer 2013, p. 35 et seq.; Higwedere and Essex 2010.

  7. 7.

    See the website of the Institute for Historical Review at http://www.ihr.org.

  8. 8.

    For further references on the history of historical denial, see Terry 2017, especially pp. 35–40.

  9. 9.

    See Zimmerman 2000.

  10. 10.

    Arendt 1966.

  11. 11.

    The locution has been coined by the historian Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, as cited and utilised by Pierre Vidal-Naquet 1981.

  12. 12.

    ‘Le révisionnisme de l’histoire étant une démarche classique chez les scientifiques, on préférera ici le barbarisme, moins élégant mais plus approprié, de «négationnisme », car il s’agit bien d’un système de pensée, d’une idéologie et non d’une démarche scientifique ou même simplement critique’, Rousso 1987.

  13. 13.

    See Finkielkraut 1982, p. 100.

  14. 14.

    See Terry 2017, p. 35 et seq.

  15. 15.

    Details about the declarations of the former President of Iran: see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24442723. On state historical denialism, see Flores, La mappa dei negazionismi di Stato. Dallo sterminio degli armeni alla Shoah: dal colonialismo alla questione irlandese. Chi vuole falsificare il passato oggi può contare su nuove, potenti strategie comunicative, in Corriere della Sera, 26 February 2012.

  16. 16.

    See Terry 2017, p. 50 et seq. Doward 2017; Gillespie 2015, pp. 488-507; Mensching 2014.

  17. 17.

    By now there are numerous legal works on the criminalisation of historical denialism. Among the monographic works and the books: Behrens et al. 2017; Belavusau and Gliszczynska-Grabias 2017; Heinze 2017; Leotta 2015; Teruel Lozano 2015; Caruso 2013; Bifulco 2012; Garibian 2012, pp. 53-62; Hochmann 2012; Matuschek 2012; Resta and Zeno-Zencovich 2012; Hare and Weinstein 2011; Hennebel and Hochmann 2011; Pech 2011; Visconti 2008; Kahn 2004; Imbleau 2003; Laitenberger 2003; Wandres 2000. Among the studies in the field of criminal law, see Cavaliere 2016; Brunelli 2016; Fronza 2016a; Lobba 2014, 2015; Pulitanò 2015; Caputo 2014; Droin 2014; Insolera 2014; Gamberini 2013; Salomon 2012; Zabel 2010; Borgwardt 2009; Visconti 2009; Bilbao Ubillos 2008; Merli 2008; Dubuisson 2007; Gavagnin 2006; Peter 2006; Roxin 2006; Hörnle 2005; Laitenberger 2003; Wandres 2000; Beisel 1995; Dietz 1995; Werle 1992. Among the studies in the field of constitutional law, see Cortese 2012, 2016; Caruso 2013; Garibian 2014; Gliszczyńska‐Grabias 2013; Parisi 2013; Bifulco 2012; Pollicino 2011; Pugiotto 2009; Bargiacchi 2008; Luther 2008; Merli 2008; Spigno 2008; Bloch 2006; Di Giovine 2006; Brugger 2005; Manetti 2005a, b. Among the studies from an international law perspective, see Della Morte 2011, 2016a, b; Shahnazarova 2015; Hervieu 2014; Matuschek 2013.

  18. 18.

    On the definition of war crimes and crimes against humanity within the Statute of the Military Tribunal of Nuremberg, especially on the so-called war-nexus link, see Acquaviva 2011, pp. 881-903; Heller 2011; Merkel 2008, pp. 555–576; Schwarzenberger 2008, pp. 167–189; Mettraux 2008; Lippmann 1997; Clark 1990; Appleman 1954; Robinson 1946; Schwelb 1946, pp. 178–226. On the prosecution of crimes committed during the National Socialist Period, see Vormbaum and Bohlander 2014, p. 213 et seq.

  19. 19.

    On the definition of international crimes in general, see Triffterer and Ambos 2016; Amati et al. 2016; Gil Gil and Maculan 2016, p. 345 et seq.; O’Keefe 2015; Ambos 2014, especially pp. 1–245; Cryer et al. 2014; Fouchard 2014; Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 289 et seq.; Kolb and Scalia 2012. On the definition of war crimes in relation to international humanitarian law, see Sivakumaran 2012; Boed 2002, pp. 293–322; Kress 2001, pp. 103–177; Meron 1995, pp. 554–577; with a specific reference to the ICC Statute, see Prosperi and Terrosi 2017, pp. 509–525; Cullen 2008, pp. 419–445. On a more deep analysis of crimes against humanity within the ICC Statute, see Cupido 2011, pp. 275–309; Geras 2011; Sluiter 2011, pp. 102–141; Cryer 2009, pp. 283–296; Kress 2009, pp. 1–10; Ambos and Wirth 2002, pp. 1–90; Greppi 2001. On crimes against humanity and on humanity as victim, see Delmas-Marty 2005, pp. 75 seq. In relation to the crime of genocide, especially its special intent and the question of motives, see Behrens 2012, pp. 501–523; Jones 2003, p. 467; Nersessian 2002, pp. 231–276; Triffterer 2001, pp. 399–408.

  20. 20.

    See Part. II, Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2.3

  21. 21.

    Israel was the first country to introduce the offence of denialism with the Denial of Holocaust (Prohibition) Law, 5746-1986, 8 July 1986. In Europe, historical denialism is considered a criminal offence by: France (Article 24 bis of the Freedom of the Press Act); Austria (Article 3, para h of the National Socialism Prohibition Act of 1947, amended by law no. 148 of 19 March 1992); Germany (Article 130(3) Criminal Code amended by law of 28 October 1994); Belgium (Article 1 of the Law tending to repress negation, minimisation , justification or approbation of the genocide committed by the German National-Socialist regime during the Second World War of 23 March 1995); Spain (Article 510, para I, lett. c) Criminal Code, introduced by the Organic Law no. 1 of 30 March 2015 amending the measure originally provided by Article 607 Criminal Code by the Organic Law no. 10 of 23 November 1995); Portugal (Article 240, para II, lett. B) Criminal Code introduced by Law no. 65 of 2 September 1998); Poland (Article 55 of the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation of 18 December 1998); Romania (Article 6 of Law no. 217 of 27 July 2015 amending the Emergency Ordinance of 13 March 2002); Slovakia (Article 422d Criminal Code introduced by the law of 20 May 2005); the Czech Republic (Article 405 Criminal Code introduced by the law of 9 February 2009); Malta (Article 82B Criminal Code introduced by the law of 3 November 2009); Latvia (Article 74-1 Criminal Code introduced by the law of 21 May 21 2009 with the punishment provision amended in 2012); Lithuania (Article 170, para II Criminal Code introduced by law no. 75-3792 2010); Luxembourg (Article 457-3 of the Criminal Code introduced by the law of 13 February 2011); Bulgaria (Article 419a Criminal Code introduced by the law of 13 April 2011); Cyprus (Article 3 of law no. 134 (1) of 21 October 2011); Croatia (Article 325 Criminal Code introduced by the law of 26 October 2011); Slovenia (Article 297 Criminal Code introduced by the law of 2 November 2011); Hungary (Article 333 Criminal Code introduced by law no. XLVIII of 2013); Greece (Article 2 of law no. 4285 of 104 September 2014); and finally, more recently, Italy (Article 3 para 3 bis of law no. 654 of 13 October 1975, introduced by law no. 115 of 16 June 2016 and amended by Article 5 of law no. 167 of 20 November 2017. See the annexed Table.

  22. 22.

    Other than Israel , outside the European continent New Zealand, Australia, Rwanda and Cambodia provide for this offence. For a comparative analysis, see Marcheri 2015; Helz 2012; Matuschek 2012, p. 46 et seq.; Hare and Weinstein 2011; Hennebel and Hochmann 2011; Wandres 2008. On the distinction between denialism and hate speech, among others see Belavusau 2017; Belavusau 2013, pp. 166–200. For a complete comparative overview—including Russia—from an historical perspective, see Koposov 2017.

  23. 23.

    As so defined by Delmas-Marty 2006.

  24. 24.

    Ibid.

  25. 25.

    Article 24 bis of the French Freedom of the Press Act, amended by Article 173 of Law no. 2017-86 of 27 January 2017.

  26. 26.

    For more on the criminal system as a system of interactions, see Delmas-Marty 2006, 2016.

  27. 27.

    For examples, refer to the following judgments: Constitutional Tribunal of Spain, Judgment, 7 November 2007, no. 235/2007, in Official State Gazette (Boletín Oficial del Estado), 10 December 2007, no. 295, p. 50, where several cases of the European Court of Human Rights are cited, for example, ECtHR , Lehideux and Isorni v. France (Grand Chamber), no. 24662/94, 23 September 1998, Application no. 24662/94 and Chauvy et al. v. France, Judgment, 29 September 2004, Application no. 64915/01.

  28. 28.

    See Fronza 2015, p. 633 et seq.

  29. 29.

    Article 1 of the Law punishing negation, minimisation, justification or approbation of the genocide committed by the German National-Socialist regime during the Second World War of 23 March 1995.

  30. 30.

    Article 2 of Law no. 4285 of 10 September 2014.

  31. 31.

    Among the European Union Member States, the United Kingdom , Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark , Estonia, Sweden and Finland do not provide a specific criminal offence.

  32. 32.

    Croatia (Article 325 Criminal Code), Hungary (Article 333 Criminal Code), Malta (Article 82b Criminal Code) and Slovenia (Article 297 Criminal Code) also place the offence of denialism within the section on crimes against public order. A different solution is foreseen in the Czech Republic (Article 405 Criminal Code), Latvia (Article 74-1 Criminal Code), Portugal (Article 240 Criminal Code) and Slovakia (Article 422d Criminal Code), which include the offence in the section dedicated to international crimes. Luxembourg, on the other hand, places the offence within the chapter devoted to racism, revisionism and other forms of discrimination (Article 457-3 Criminal Code).

  33. 33.

    Other examples include Cyprus (Law No. 134 (I) on combating certain forms of racism and xenophobia ) and Romania (Law no. 217 of 27 July 2015).

  34. 34.

    For example, measures relating to the punishment of neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic activities in Austria (Article 3h National Socialism Prohibition Act) and the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination in Italy (Article 3 para 3 bis of law no. 654 of 13 October 1975).

  35. 35.

    Article 170(2) Criminal Code of Lithuania.

  36. 36.

    To express a doubt is not sufficient: an event must be questioned and the claim must be made that it has not taken place. Consider those who define the Holocaust as an invention or a lie.

  37. 37.

    To justify means trying to prove the legitimacy of an event or at least the impossibility of avoiding it. Example: ‘The Shoah was an unfortunate fact, but inevitable.’

  38. 38.

    Austria (Article 3h National Socialism Prohibition Act), Germany (Article 130(3) Criminal Code), Portugal (Article 240 Criminal Code), Poland (Article 55 Act on the Institute of National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation), Romania (Article 6 Law no. 217 of 27 July 2015), Hungary (Article 333 Criminal Code), Luxembourg (Article 457-3 Criminal Code) and Greece (Article 2 Law no. 4285 of 10 September 2014).

  39. 39.

    Such conduct also includes expressing doubt: see Kindhäuser et al. 2013, p. 685; Fischer 2017.

  40. 40.

    Belgium (Law tending to repress negation, minimisation, justification or approbation of the genocide committed by the German National-Socialist regime during the Second World War of 23 March 1995), Lithuania (Article 170(2) Criminal Code), Croatia (Article 325 Criminal Code), Bulgaria (Article 419 Criminal Code), Malta (Article 82b Criminal Code).

  41. 41.

    Austria (Article 3h National Socialism Prohibition Act) and Cyprus (Law of 134(I) of 21 October 2011).

  42. 42.

    Austria (Article 3h National Socialism Prohibition Act), Belgium (Law tending to repress negation, minimisation, justification or approbation of the genocide committed by the German National-Socialist regime during the Second World War of 23 March 1995) and Czech Republic (Article 405 Criminal Code).

  43. 43.

    France (Article 24 bis Freedom of the Press Act), Luxembourg (Article 457-3 Criminal Code) and Romania (Article 6 of Law no. 217 of 27 July 2015).

  44. 44.

    Article 74 Criminal Code.

  45. 45.

    Article 405 Criminal Code.

  46. 46.

    Article 297 Criminal Code.

  47. 47.

    On this aspect, see Koposov 2017, especially p. 120 et seq.

  48. 48.

    Greece (Article 2 Law no. 4285 of 10 September 2014), Liechtenstein (Article 283 Criminal Code), Portugal (Article 240 Criminal Code) and Slovenia (Article 297 Criminal Code).

  49. 49.

    Cyprus (Law no. 134(I) on combating certain forms of racism and xenophobia of 21 October 2011) and Slovakia (Article 422d Criminal Code).

  50. 50.

    Bulgaria (Article 419a Criminal Code); Croatia (Article 325 Criminal Code); Latvia (Article 74-1 Criminal Code); Portugal (Article 240 Criminal Code); Slovakia (Article 422d Criminal Code); Slovenia (Article 297 Criminal Code). Lithuania limits denialism only to violence perpetrated by the Nazis and the Soviet regime (Article 170(2) Criminal Code). Poland punishes denialism of crimes against peace committed from 1 September 1939 to 31 December 1989 (Article 55 Act on the Institute of National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation).

  51. 51.

    Czech Republic (Article 405 Criminal Code), Hungary (Article 333 Criminal Code), Lithuania (Article 170(2) Criminal Code) and Poland (Article 55 Act on the Institute of National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation).

  52. 52.

    The majority of countries which criminalise denialism requires that the punishable conduct be carried out in a public place: Austria, Belgium , Croatia , Cyprus , Czech Republic , France, Germany, Greece , Hungary , Latvia , Lithuania , Luxembourg , Malta , Poland , Portugal , Romania , Slovakia , Slovenia and Spain. Bulgary is an exception, but its legislation requires the risk that the conduct causes violence or discriminatory hatred. (Article 419a Criminal Code). In this regard, it is interesting to mention the Italian law which restricts limitations on freedom of expression by providing clauses related to the final judgment and the requirement that the offence be carried out through advertising. However, such clauses were not included in the approved final version. Italian legislation requires that the conduct of the basic offence (propaganda, instigation and incitement) be carried out ‘so that there is a real danger of diffusion.’ The adverb ‘publicly’ is rather outdated because it is incapable of expressing the distortion of public-private boundaries due to social networks and the Internet (see Stenographic Report No. 617 of 28 April 2016, D’Ascola). The introduction of the requirement of a ‘real danger of diffusion’ would also eliminate the presumption of statements made in public and would permit extending the punishment to more cases than were previously punishable only through the use of ‘advertising,’ such as ‘encouraging violence through electronic media (see the example of international terrorism) (see Resolutions of the House of Deputies on 23 May 2016, Sarro).

  53. 53.

    The English expression ‘liberal criminal law’ is intended in this book as conceived, for example, in the works of Andrew Ashworth and Darryl Robinson. See Simester et al. 2014; Ashworth and Zedner 2008, pp. 21–51; Robinson 2008, pp. 925–963.

  54. 54.

    Germany (Article 130(3) Criminal Code).

  55. 55.

    Croatia (Article 325 Criminal Code); Greece (Article 2 Law no. 4285 of 10 September 2014); Lithuania (Article 170(2) Criminal Code); Malta (Article 82b Criminal Code); Spain (Article 510 Criminal Code).

  56. 56.

    Malta (Article 82b Criminal Code).

  57. 57.

    Slovakia (Article 422d Criminal Code).

  58. 58.

    Portugal (Article 240 Criminal Code) and Slovakia (Article 422d Criminal Code). Outside the EU countries, see Switzerland (Article 262a Criminal Code).

  59. 59.

    Italy (Article 3 para 3 bis of law no. 654 of 13 October 1975, introduced by Law no. 115 of 16 June 2016), Portugal (Article 240 Criminal Code) and Spain (Article 510 Criminal Code).

  60. 60.

    On 28 August 2012, a legislative proposal was presented by Ollanta Humala to the Peruvian Parliament under the title ‘Negacionismo de los delitos de terrorismo’. It introduced a new criminal offence, Article 316 a of the Criminal Code. on the one side, it shows how this criminal offence can travel long distances and be introduced in legal systems that have radically different historical backgrounds in comparison to the European countries; on the other, it shifts the focus of protection, as it moves away from international crimes in a strict sense, up to include terrorist acts. The text of the legislative proposal is available at http://www2.congreso.gob.pe/Sicr/TraDocEstProc/CLProLey2011.nsf.

  61. 61.

    Ley para la prevencion y condena de la negacion del genocidio y crimenes contra la humanidad, see http://www.parlamentario.com/noticia-98654.html.

  62. 62.

    On ‘memory wars’, see Koposov 2017; Stone 2013; Cajani 2008–2009, pp. 39–55. This dynamic is also defined as querelle des mémoires or mémoires abusives; see Veyrat-Masson and Blanchard 2008; Stora 2007; Rousso, Mémoires abusives, Le Monde, 24 December 2005; Todorov 1995.

  63. 63.

    On remembrance laws which do not include criminal law, see Hochmann 2012, p. 133 et seq.; Wartanian 2008; Stofleth 2012. On the concept of memory laws, see Heinze 2017; Belavusau and Gliszczynska-Grabias 2017; on the concept and on the history of memory laws, see Koposov 2017.

  64. 64.

    For instance, consider the adoption of the laws which recognises the Armenian genocide as the French Law no. 2001-70 on the recognition of the Armenian genocide, 29 January 2001. On the international level, see European Parliament P8_TA(2015)0094, Resolution on the centenary of the Armenian Genocide, 15 April 2015; European Parliament A5-0297/2000, Resolution on the 1999 Regular Report from the Commission on Turkey’s progress toward accession, 15 November 2000, para 10; European Parliament A2-33/87, Resolution on a political solution to the Armenian question, 18 June 1987.

  65. 65.

    Regarding the history of memory imperatives, see Lollini 2003, pp. 449–470.

  66. 66.

    For more on ‘judicial derivations of history’ and the proliferation of memorial laws in France, particularly since 1990, see Nora 2016, p. 60 et seq.

  67. 67.

    Within the literature on the rights of the victims of mass atrocities see, also for further references, Gil Gil and Maculan 2017a; see also Ochoa 2013. On the risks of this dynamic for liberal criminal law, see Fornasari 2013.

  68. 68.

    ‘One of the key figure of the mondialisation of memory is the victim’, Rousso 2016, 287.

  69. 69.

    Rousso 1987. The same author uses also the expression ‘memory industry’ (cited in Rieff 2016, 108).

  70. 70.

    Traverso 2006. The author refers to the ‘obsession for commemoration’ to indicate the general trend, whereby national and international jurisdictions increasingly resort to the law—not only to the criminal law—to address the fear that the historical memory of particularly atrocious criminal acts be progressively questioned.

  71. 71.

    On the four phases of memory and law overlapping in French history see Rousso 1987, p. 19 et seq. In the French historian’s opinion the issue of memory becomes an ‘obsession’ in the fourth phase. Also, Todorov uses the expression ‘Obsession for the cult of memory ’ (cited in Rieff 2016, p. 119), while Rieff chooses the concept of ‘hyperthymesia’, which is the condition of possessing an extremely detailed autobiographical memory (Rieff 2016, 120); for the opinion of this author and the idea of memory as kitsch, ibid., 800. For a list and analysis of similar expressions, see Caroli 2017, p. 290. This is the starting point of a broader debate about uses and abuses of memory and on the trade-off between memory and oblivion on a collective level (see ibid., pp. 272 and ff.). For the concept of ‘abuses of memory’ see Todorov 1995, 2001.

  72. 72.

    Bauman 2000.

  73. 73.

    Criticism on criminalising historical denialism and the line between legal and illegal thoughts is even more crucial in today’s environment of post-truth politics.

  74. 74.

    In this book, I will prefer the conceptual binomial of law and memory to that of law and history because the concept of memory, generalised in recent years, but now widely recognised as a reference term, embraces the social process of reworking the past in its entirety. The concept of memory, although there are various declinations in doctrine, is generally considered broader, more inclusive and more dynamic than historical and historiographic investigations. The phenomena of mnemonic crystallization, as a set of dynamics distinct and distinguishable from history, have progressively involved an increasing number of scholars. Here reference is made mainly to the pioneering work of Halbwachs 1925, 1950 and to the detailed studies of Todorov 1995; Ricoeur 2000; Yerushalmi 1988; Assmann 2012. For a more critical perspective, see Traverso 2006. On the uses and abuses of historical memory and on the question about whether collective remembrance has truly—or indeed ever could—inoculate the present against repeating the crimes of the past, see the book of Rieff 2016.

  75. 75.

    We will see how many issues and contradictions arise when historical memory is considered a protected interest and how difficult it is, if not impossible, to establish an adequate definition within criminal law which seeks to protect it.

  76. 76.

    See Osiel 1999.

  77. 77.

    Here emerges a central aspect of the different epistemological status of ‘judicial truth’ and ‘historical truth’, both of which are specific and distinct from the well-known concept of the truth as perceived by the common sense, see Ferrajoli 2009. Behind the major debate around the kind of truth that results from the criminal trial (a debate that cannot be resumed here), there is also a methodological issue. On the one hand, both the criminal judge and the historian are asked to investigate the past and to find out the truth, on the other, the method and the tasks of the criminal judge appears to be very different from the method and the tasks of the historian. See on this issue Chapter 3.

  78. 78.

    Traverso 2006.

  79. 79.

    Gramsci 1994.

  80. 80.

    See Delage and Goodrich 2012; Resta and Zeno-Zencovich 2012, p. 11 et seq.; Lalieu 2001, p. 83 et seq.; Melloni 2008, p. 3; Cartier 2006, pp. 527–533; Garapon 2002. On some of the problems arising from the ‘juridification’ of history, see the analysis of a concrete case taken from the Italian postwar experience by Resta and Zeno-Zencovich 2013, p. 849 et seq.

  81. 81.

    On the role and the ability of international prosecutions and trials to define the historical records of the crimes and to write an historical narrative, see Delage and Goodrich 2012; Findlay and Henham 2012; Wilson 2011, pp. 1–23; Osiel 1999, 2008; Damaska 2006; Damaska 2007; Drumbl 2007; Fronza and Tricot 2003, p. 292 et seq.; Minow 1998; Koskeniemmi 1989. On the importance of civil trials, see Garapon 2008.

  82. 82.

    See Maculan 2012, pp. 53–82; Méndez 2009; Pastor 2009, pp. 102–109; Méndez and Bariffi 2007; Guembe 2005; Abregú 1996, pp. 11–41.

  83. 83.

    See Swart and van Marle 2017; Lollini 2011; Du Bois-Pedain 2007; Werle 2006, pp. 39–99; Sarkin 2004; Villa-Vicencio and Doxtader 2003. For a general overview on the Truth Commissions as a mechanism to deal with grave violations of human rights, see within a vast literature Fornasari 2015, pp. 547–570; Ibáñez Majar 2014; Bisset 2012; Freeman 2006; Hayner 1994, pp. 597–665. A criminal trial is a mechanism that embodies conflict and declares a victor; in this way it perpetuates the conflict in the courtroom and in the public sphere, see Lollini 2011, 12 et seq.; Garapon 1995; Damaska 1991.

  84. 84.

    See Lollini 2011, 132.

  85. 85.

    Lollini 2011, 168. In the author’s view, ‘even if historians or meticulous analysts of the TRC’s activity have often stressed that the ‘truth’ of the amnesty process is partial and that confessors often manipulated facts in their self-accusation in order to have their punishment eliminated, the primary effect of the confession was nevertheless produced. More than the truth about the past, what really was at play here was the capitulation of all those who practiced political violence—the true enemy of democracy—before the new constitutional order. By formally rejecting political violence, the individual implicitly asked for citizenship in the new democratic constitutional order’, Lollini 2011, 168.

  86. 86.

    There are many examples in this regard: from the establishment and proliferation of ad hoc international criminal tribunals to all the trials conducted many years, if not decades, after the events. Think, for example, of what happened in Italy with the reopening of war crimes trials after the discovery of the so-called Armoir of Shame in 1994, the elaboration of the so-called Aylwin Doctrine in Chile or the prosecution of forced disappearances in Argentina and, in particular, the annulment by the Supreme Court of the Obediencia Debida and the Punto Final. Ruti Teitel uses the expression ‘transitional justice postponed’ (Teitel 2014, p. 188).

    Within this dynamic toward a retributive response to international crimes has played a pivotal role in the Inter-American Human Rights Court. On the most relevant case law and for some critical remarks about the risks that arise from such a configuration, see the volume by Gil Gil and Maculan 2017b, especially pp. 23–46; pp. 187–242; for an overview in relation to South America , Palermo 2014; Lessa and Payne 2012; Ambos et al. 2009; Malarino 2009; Parenti 2009; Fronza and Fornasari 2009. On the phenomenon of the annulment of amnesty laws, see Della Morte 2011, p. 261. Concerning certain parallel approaches (‘approdi paralleli’) of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human rights related to the duty to criminalise in order to protect human rights, see Viganò 2011, pp. 2645–2704; critical to this case law Malarino 2009. Criticism are expressed also in Pastor 2006; Fletcher 1998. See also the work by Silva Sánchez 2007, p. 339. On the influence of the ‘struggle against impunity’ related to clemency measures, see Della Morte et al. 2007.

  87. 87.

    See Koskeniemmi 1989. Koskeniemmi’s view has been developed with specific relation the international criminal justice by Makau Mutua, see Mutua 2001. According to Osiel, lawyers and judges should thus heed the ‘‘poetics’’ of ‘‘legal storytelling.’’ The judge should use ‘the law to recast the courtroom drama in terms of a “theater of ideas”, which engages large questions of collective memory and even national identity.’ ‘To maximize their pedagogic impact, such trials should be unabashedly designed as monumental spectacles.’ See for this concept of trial as ‘pedagogic theatre’, Osiel 1999, p. 3.

  88. 88.

    For the introduction of sanctions against Fascism in Italy, see Domenico 1991, p. 74 et seq. For a brief overview of the transitional process, see Caroli 2015. On the Italian political transition from a legal point of view, see Caroli 2017; Fronza 2016b; Seminara 2014; Fornasari 2013, p. 15 et seq.; Donini 2009; Vassalli and Sabatini 1947; Woller 1996. From a historical point of view, see Domenico 1991. See also the relationship between the majority and minority within the Parliamentary Investigative Commission at: http://www.camera.it/leg17/522?tema=negazionismo Accessed 30 September 2017.

  89. 89.

    Baldissara 2016, pp. 6–20; Focardi and Klinkhammer 2004, p. 330; Resta and Zeno-Zencovich 2012; Focardi 2014; Caroli 2017, pp. 245 and ff.; Rovatti 2009. It has to be noted that the political and social debate which led to the recent introduction of the criminal offence of denialism in Italy began just in recent years, after the death of Erich Priebke in 2013. Priebke is one of the few Nazi officers who was tried and sentenced in Italy; in the ‘1990s, his trial was an important turning point in the Italian transition. See Resta and Zeno-Zencovich 2013; Portelli 2003.

  90. 90.

    On denialism, from an historical perspective, see Vercelli 2013; Ginzburg 2002, pp. 50–60; Vidal-Naquet 1981; Vidal-Naquet 1995; Tiedemann 1996; Bastian 1997; Igounet 2000; Ternon 1999; Lipstadt 1994.

  91. 91.

    Here the French expression ‘lois mémorielles’ is used without including the provisions which introduce the offence of denialism. On this concept (and on the broad and narrow meanings), which includes different legal measures, see Koposov 2017; Assemblée Nationale: Rapport d’information no. 1262, Rassembler la Nation autour d’une mémoire partagée, 2008, p. 11 et seq.

  92. 92.

    See Pugiotto 2009, p. 25 et seq.; for a critical approach to this Law, see also Lowenthal 2014; Gordon 2013. Also in Italy Law no. 56 of 4 May 2007 established 9 May, the day Aldo Moro was assassinated by the Red Brigades, as the official day of memory honouring victims of terrorism. Outside of Europe, for instance in Argentina , 24 May is a national day of remembrance for truth and justice in memory of the 1976 coup détat (Día Nacional de la Memoria por la Verdad y la Justicia).

  93. 93.

    See Law no. 644 of 10 July 2000, accessible at http://www.senat.fr/leg/ppl99-244.html, which invites French people to remember the victims of racist and anti-Semitic crimes on 16 July.

  94. 94.

    See Tamarit Sumalla 2014, pp. 43–65; Gil Gil 2009.

  95. 95.

    UN General Assembly, A/RES/60/7, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the Holocaust Remembrance, 1 November 2005.

  96. 96.

    See Ost 1999.

  97. 97.

    Loraux 1997; Loraux 1988, pp. 23–47. On the history of Athen’s amnesty see Elster 2004; Lollini 2003, pp. 358–359; Quaritsch 1992, pp. 389–418.

  98. 98.

    On the necessity of forgetting, see Ricoeur 2000; recently on forgetting as ‘safe response’, see Rieff 2016, p. 39 et seq.

  99. 99.

    These new rights against states are recognised in UN law and international human rights law and constitute a pillar of the ‘struggle against impunity’, because they affirm an obligation to investigate and punish international crimes. See Garibian 2014, pp. 515–538; Maculan and Pastor 2013; Campisi 2014; Ledoux 2012, pp. 175–185; Maculan 2012; Rioux 2008, pp. 186–192; Naqvi 2006, p. 245 et seq.; Pastor 2009; Seibert-Fohr 2009, especially p. 51 et seq.; Méndez 2009, p. 255 et seq.; UN Doc. A/HRC/5/7, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights ‘Right to the Truth’, 7 June 2007, para 16.

  100. 100.

    The same conduct can be qualified as a crime in one state and be imposed by law in another. For instance, Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code punishes public denigration of the Turkish nation, state, government and judiciary institutions. This law has been used to punish confirmation of the Armenian genocide. This approach, on the one hand, is equivalent to norms establishing the crime of historical denialism because it creates a separate offence for expressing opinions about a historical event other than the official memory. On the other, it is contrary to historical denialism since it punishes the affirmation and not the denial of a genocide. Despite this formal difference, this kind of prohibition is essentially the same: doubting a historical truth asserted by the state is forbidden by criminal law.

  101. 101.

    See Chaps. 3 and 4.

  102. 102.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, in Official Journal of the European Union, L 328/55, 6 December 2008.

  103. 103.

    Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems (the so-called ‘Budapest Convention’) of 28 January 2003, in European Treaty Series, 189.

  104. 104.

    See Traverso 2006. On the fundamental role played by the victims in the process of globalisation of memory, see Rousso 2016, p. 287.

  105. 105.

    On the proliferation of ‘modern speech crimes’, see also Pulitanò 2006, p. 84.

  106. 106.

    The aforementioned Organic Law 1/2015 also reintroduces life imprisonment (defined as ‘prison permanente revisable’).

  107. 107.

    Law no. 2014-1353 of 13 November 2014 to Reinforce Provisions Regarding the Fight Against Terrorism (renforçant les dispositions relatives à la lutte contre le terrorisme) is available at Journal Officiel de la République Française (JORF), no. 0263, 14 November 2014, 19162 et seq.

  108. 108.

    Poncela 2016, p. 9; Alix 2015, p. 11 et seq.; Alix 2014, p. 849 et seq.; Alix 2010.

  109. 109.

    Here it is worth noting the second Paragraph of Article 421-2-5 of the French Criminal Code (Consultation à titre habituel de sites internet terroristes), introduced by Law no. 2016-731 of 3 June 2016 (renforçant la lutte contre le crime organisé, le terrorisme et leur financement, et améliorant l’efficacité). This criminal offence has been declared unconstitutional, see Constitutional Council, Décision, no. 2016-611 QPC, 10 February 2017. Concerning this Law as as a law strongly ‘intrusive’ and ‘preemptive’, see Décima 2016; Ribeyre 2016.

  110. 110.

    This expression (along with the so-called freedom ‘à deux vitesses’, the double standard in the freedom of speech) has been largely referred to in the debate, which sparked after the vast wave of solidarity and calls for freedom of expression that followed the attacks to the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, while the French comedian Dieudonnée had been charged with condoning terrorism for having posted on January 11th ‘Je me sens Charlie Coulibaly’ on his Facebook page (thereby associating the solidarity slogan ‘Je suis Charlie’ to the name of Amédy Coulibaly, who had killed four Jewish people and a police man in a Casher supermarket).

  111. 111.

    From a comparative perspective, one last example—which is not possible to analyse here extensively—is the British Counter-Terrorism and Security Act of 12 February 2015, which entered into force on July 2015 and is available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/6/contents/enacted.

  112. 112.

    The Supreme Court of Cassation wrote in Judgment no. 1072/2007 (Court of Cassation, Section no. 1, Judgment, 17 January 2007, no. 1072) on subversive terrorist association ex art. 270 bis Criminal Code: ‘While it is true that the incriminating provision punishes the very fact of the formation of the association, regardless of the commitment of criminal acts falling within the program and instrumental to the particular purpose pursued, it is equally true that the organizational structure must have a certain degree of effectiveness so as to at least make possible the enactment of criminal activity and therefore justify the legal assessment of the danger. Otherwise […] preemptive repression would end up striking, through the framework of the associative offence, only the fact of adhering to an abstract ideology.’ On the subject of terrorist association, see the recent Court of Cassation, Section no. 5, Judgment, 14 July 2016, no. 48001, at www.dirittopenalecontemporaneo.it. See also, on the subject of Training for Activities with International Terrorism Purposes as per Article 270 quinquies Criminal Code, Court of Cassation, Section no. 1, Judgment, 12 July, no. 38220, also published on www.dirittopenalecontemporaneo.it.

  113. 113.

    On the comparison between the European and the US approaches, see Grande 2015, pp. 47–61; Barak-Erez and Scharia 2011, pp. 1–30. For an analysis of hate speech and hate speech laws in the US, see Khan 2006, pp. 165–181; Bakircioglu 2008, pp. 13–27; Tourkochoriti 2014, pp. 574–580. For a comparison between the ECtHR and the US Supreme Court jurisprudence on hate speech , see Kiska 2012. On the implications for free speech after 9/11, see the study of Gelber 2016.

  114. 114.

    This dynamic is strictly related to what has been defined as the ‘criminal law of enemy’: for example, think about the growing pervasiveness of criminal offences, the author-based criminal legislations or the tendency to disregard the difference between the author of a crime and his/her accomplices. See Jakobs 2014, p. 415. See Chap. 5.

  115. 115.

    In line with the principle of communicating vessels, whereby the ever-growing restrictions in certain fields of the law lead to greater restriction in others. On limits as a central element within the notion of human rights, see Delmas-Marty 2017.

  116. 116.

    See Paliero 1992, p. 895.

  117. 117.

    On speech crimes, see Pelissero 2015, pp. 37–46; Gamberini 1973; Fiore 1972. Concerning the criminalization of dissent, see the articles published in the special issue on Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 2/2016. Concerning the reform of 2006 of speech crimes, see Pelissero 2015, p. 37 et seq.; Spena 2007, p. 689; Gamberini and Insolera 2006, pp. 135–143.

  118. 118.

    See Paliero 1992, p. 894 et seq.

  119. 119.

    On this principle as a constitutional limit of substantive criminal law, and limiting the scope to general English language literature, see Hörnle 2015, 169 ss.; Dubber and Hörnle 2014, p. 113 et seq.; Dubber 2004, p. 1 et seq.; Finkelstein 2000, p. 335 et seq.; Harcourt 1999, p. 109 et seq.; Baker 2008, p. 3 et seq.

  120. 120.

    Donini 2008, p. 1588 affirms that ‘the collective memory cannot be protected through the criminal law: it could arguably be protected by the law, but not by the criminal law (nor could the threat to such historical heritage be sanctioned in itself), as the criminal regulation would transform a scientifically established truth into a real ‘taboo’, a form of truth divorced from scientific research, the content of which could not—by definition—be protected by the State’. On this issue, see also Cavaliere 2016; cf. Caputo 2014; Bifulco 2012; Romano 2007; Manes 2007, p. 782 et seq.; Roxin 2006, p. 730 et seq.; Hörnle 2005, p. 315 et seq.

  121. 121.

    Only Italy opted for this peculiar solution. The reform entered into force on 13 July 2016. The aggravating circumstance was then amended by Article 5 of law no. 167 of 20 November 2017. See no. 149 Gazzetta Ufficiale 28 June 2016. See Fronza 2017; Puglisi 2016, p. 24 et seq.; Della Morte 2016b; Galazzo 2016. Among commentaries published before the reform, see Pelissero 2015, p. 37 et seq.; Pulitanò 2015, p. 1 et seq.; Montanari 2013, p. 1 et seq.; Fronza and Gamberini 2013, p. 1 et seq.; Di Martino, Negazionismo, reato di opinione, in Il Manifesto, 20 November 2013; Cassano 2013, p. 276 et seq.

  122. 122.

    See Sotis 2007.

  123. 123.

    See Chap. 5.

  124. 124.

    Think about the possibility of punishing the mere possession of material—not necessarily propaganda—in order to prevent a potential terrorist attack.

References

  • Abregú M (1996) La tutela judicial del derecho a la verdad en la Argentina. Revista Instituto Interamericano de derechos humanos 24:11–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Acquaviva G (2011) At the Origins of Crimes Against Humanity: Clues to a Proper Understanding of the Nullum Crimen Principle in the Nuremberg Judgment. Journal of International Criminal Justice 9: 881–903

    Google Scholar 

  • Alix J (2010) Terrorisme et droit penal. Etude critique des incriminations terroristes. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Alix J (2014) Réprimer la participation au terrorisme. Revue des Sciences Criminelles et de Droit Comparé 4:849–866

    Google Scholar 

  • Alix J (2015) La répression de l’incitation au terrorisme. Gazette du Palais 55:11–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Amati E, Costi M, Fronza E, Lobba P, Maculan E, Vallini A (2016) Introduzione al diritto penale internazionale. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2014) Treatise on International Criminal Law. Volume II: The Crimes and Sentencing. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K, Malarino E, Elsner G (eds) (2009) Justicia de Transición. Informes de América Latina, Alemania, Italia y España. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K, Wirth S (2002) The Current Law of Crimes Against Humanity. An Analysis of UNTAET Regulation 15/2000. Criminal Law Forum 13:1–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleman JA (1954) Military Tribunals and International Crimes. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt H (1966) The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth A, Zedner L (2008) Defending the Criminal Law: Reflections on the Changing Character of Crime, Procedure, and Sanctions. Criminal Law and Philosophy 2:21–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Assmann A (2012) Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions, Media. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkins SE (2009) Holocaust Denial as an International Movement. Praeger, Westport, Connecticut

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker DJ (2008) Constitutionalizing the Harm Principle. Criminal Justice Ethics 3–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakircioglu O (2008) Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech. Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law 16:1–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldissara L (2016) Politiche della memoria e spazio del ricordo in Europa. Il Mulino, Bologna 1:6–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Barak-Erez D, Scharia D (2011) Freedom of Speech, Support for Terrorism, and the Challenge of Global Constitutional Law. National Security Journal 2:1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargiacchi P (2008) Cenni sulle tendenze della prassi internazionale ed europea in tema di negazionismo. Rivista della cooperazione giuridica internazionale 10:70–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian T (1997) Auschwitz und Auschwitzlüge. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman Z (2000) Liquid Modernity. Polity Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrens P (2012) Genocide and the Question of Motives. Journal of International Criminal Justice 10:501–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrens P, Jensen O, Terry N (eds) (2017) Holocaust and Genocide Denial: A Contextual Perspective. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames

    Google Scholar 

  • Beisel D (1995) Die Strafbarkeit der Auschwitzlüge. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 997–1000

    Google Scholar 

  • Belavusau U (2013) Freedom of Speech. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Belavusau U (2017) Hate Speech. In: Grote R, Wolfrum R, Lachenmann F (eds) The Max Plank Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Belavusau U, Gliszczyńska-Grabias A (eds) (2017) Law and Memory: Towards Legal Governance of History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Belavusau U, Gliszczynska-Grabias A (2017) Memory Laws: Mapping a New Subject in Comparative Law and Transitional Justice. In: Belavusau U, Gliszczyńska-Grabias A (eds) Law and Memory: Towards Legal Governance of History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz W (1992) Legenden Lügen Vorurteile. Ein Wörterbuch für Zeitgeschichte. Deutscher Taschenbuch, Monaco

    Google Scholar 

  • Bifulco D (2012) Negare l’evidenza, Diritto e storia di fronte alla ‘menzogna’ di Auschwitz. Franco Angeli, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilbao Ubillos JM (2008) La negación del holocausto en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos humanos: la endeble justificación de tipos penales contrarios a la libertad de expression. Revista de Derecho Político (UNED) 71–72:19–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisset A (2012) Truth Commissions and Criminal Courts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bizimana JD (2001) L’Eglise et le génocide au Ruanda: les Péres blancs et le négationnisme. L’Harmattan, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch P (2006) Response to Professor Fronza’s The Punishment of Negationism. Vermont Law Review 30:627–643

    Google Scholar 

  • Boed R (2002) Individual Criminal Responsibility for Violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Convention of 1949 and of Additional Protocol II Thereto in the Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Criminal Law Forum 13:293–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgwardt H (2009) Die Strafbarkeit der “Auschwitzlüge”. In: Ostendorf H (ed) Rechtsextremismus. Eine Herausforderung für Strafrecht und Strafjustiz. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 233–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Brugger W (2005) Ban on or Protection of Hate Speech? Some Observations Based on German and American Law. Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 17:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunelli D (2016) Attorno alla punizione di negazionismo. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 2:978–998

    Google Scholar 

  • Cajani L (2008–2009) Historians between Memory Wars and Criminal Law: the Case of European Union. Annales International Society for Historic Didactis XXIX–XXX:39–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Campisi MC (2014) From a Duty to Remember to an Obligation to Memory? Memory as Reparation in the Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Conflict and Violence 8:62–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Caputo M (2014) La “menzogna di Auschwitz”, le “verità” del diritto penale. La criminalizzazione del c.d. negazionismo tra ordine pubblico, dignità e senso di umanità. Diritto penale contemporaneo. Online: https://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/upload/1389084288CAPUTO%202014a.pdf. Accessed 1 October 2017

  • Caroli P (2015) The role of the judiciary within the construction of collective memory. The Italian Transition. Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration and Economics 5 1:162–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Caroli P (2017) La giustizia di transizione in Italia. L’esperienza dopo la seconda guerra mondiale. http://eprints-phd.biblio.unitn.it/1981/1/Paolo_Caroli_-_Tesi_dottorato_.pdf. Accessed 13 August 2017

  • Cartier E (2006) Histoire et droit: rivalité ou complémentarité? Revue francaise de droit constitutionnel 67:509–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruso C (2013) La libertà di espressione in azione. Contributo a una teoria costituzionale del discorso pubblico. Bononia University Press, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassano M (2013) Negazionismo e opportunità di una risposta penale. Criminalia 276–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavaliere A (2016) La discussione intorno alla punibilità del negazionismo, i principi di offensività e libera manifestazione del pensiero e la funzione della pena. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 2:999–1015

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark RS (1990) Crimes Against Humanity at Nuremberg. In: Ginsburgs G, Kudriavtsev VN (eds) The Nuremberg Trial and International Law. Nijhoff, Boston, pp 177–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortese F (2012) Memoria e diritto. Contributo per un approccio non necessariamente centripeto (tra storia, giustizia e letteratura). Rassegna Di Diritto Pubblico Europeo, 2:19–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortese F (2016) What can the Perincek case teach? DPCE online http://www.dpceonline.it/index.php/dpceonline/article/view/93. Accessed 16 July 2017

  • Cryer R (2009) The Definitions of International Crimes in the Al Bashir Arrest Warrant Decision. Journal of International Criminal Justice 7:283–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2014) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen A (2008) Definition of Non-International Armed Conflict in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: An Analysis of the Threshold of Application Contained in Article 8(2)(f). Journal of Conflict and Security Law 12:419–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Cupido M (2011) The Policy Underlying Crimes Against Humanity: Practical Reflections on a Theoretical Debate. Criminal Law Forum 22:275–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaska M (1991) The face of Justice and State Authority. A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaska M (2006) The Uncertain Self-Identity of International Criminal Courts. Criminalia: 9–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaska M (2007) What is the Point of International Criminal Justice? Chicago Kent Law Review, 83:329–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Décima (2016) Terreur et métamorphose. À propos de la loi n° 2016- 731 du 3 juin 2016 sur la lutte contre le terrorisme. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Delage C, Goodrich P (eds) (2012) The Scene of the Mass Crime: History, Film, and International Tribunals. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Della Morte G (2011) Le amnistie nel diritto internazionale. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Della Morte G (2016a) When is a criminal prohibition of genocide denial justified? The Perinçek Case and the risk of a double standard. Questions of International Law, online: http://www.qil-qdi.org/criminal-prohibition-genocide-denial-justified-perincek-case-risk-double-standard/. Accessed 15 September 2017

  • Della Morte G (2016b) Sulla legge che introduce la punizione delle condotte negazionistiche nell’ordinamento italiano: tre argomenti per una critica severa. SIDI Blog, online: http://www.sidiblog.org/2016/06/22/sulla-legge-che-introduce-la-punizione-delle-condotte-negazionistiche-nellordinamento-italiano-tre-argomenti-per-una-critica-severa/. Accessed 20 September 2017

  • Della Morte G, Abdelgawad EL, Martin-Chenut K (2007) La clémence saisie par le droit: Amnistie, prescription et grâce en droit international et comparé. Collection de l’UMR de droit comparé de Paris 14, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M (2005) Le relative et l’universel. Les forces imaginantes du droit. I. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M (2006) Les forces imaginantes du droit. II. Le pluralisme ordonné. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M (2016) Aux quatre vents du monde. Petit guide de navigation sur l’océan de la mondialisation. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M (2017) The Limits of Human Rights in a Moving World. Elements of a dynamic approach. In: Fassbender B, Traisbach K (eds) The Limits of Human Rights. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Cesare SD (2012) Se Auschwitz è nulla: contro il negazionismo. Nuovo Melangolo, Genoa

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giovine A (2006) Il passato che non passa. «Eichmann di carta» e repressione penale. Diritto pubblico comparato e europeo 1:XIII–XXVIII

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz S (1995) Die Lüge von der “Auschwitzlüge” - Wie weit reicht das Recht auf Meinungsäußerung? Kritische Justiz 28:210–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Domenico RP (1991) Italian fascists on trial 1943–1948. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Donini M (2008) «Danno» e «offesa» nella cd. tutela penale dei sentimenti. Note su morale e sicurezza come beni giuridici, a margine della categoría dell’ «offense» di Joel Feinberg. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 4:1546–1558

    Google Scholar 

  • Donini M (2009) La gestione penale del passaggio dal fascismo alla Repubblica in Italia. Materiali per una storia della cultura giuridica XXXIX 1:183–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Doward J (2017) New online generation takes up Holocaust denial https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/22/online-conspiracy-theories-feed-holocaust-denial. Accessed 13 August 2017

  • Droin N (2014) État des lieux de la répression du négationnisme en France et en droit comparé. Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l’Homme 98:363–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Drumbl MA (2007) Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Bois-Pedain A (2007) Transitional Amnesty in South Africa. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubber MD (2004) Toward a Constitutional Law of Crime and Punishment. Hastings Law Journal 55:1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubber M, Hörnle T (2014) Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubuisson F (2007) L’incrimination générique du négationnisme est-elle conciliable avec le droit à la liberté d’expression. Revue de Droit Université Libre de Bruxelles 35:135–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster J (2004) Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrajoli L (2009) Diritto e ragione. Teoria del garantismo penale. Laterza, Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Findlay M, Henham R (eds) (2012) Transforming International Criminal Justice. Retributive and restorative justice in the trial process. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein C (2000) Positivism and the Notion of an Offense. California Law Review 335–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkielkraut A (1982) L’avenir d’une négation. Réflexion sur la question du genocide. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiore C (1972) I reati di opinione. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer T (2017) Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher GP (1998) Basic Concepts of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores M (2007) Revisionismo storiografico. In: Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani, VII Appendice

    Google Scholar 

  • Focardi F (2014) Il cattivo tedesco e il buon italiano. Laterza, Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Focardi F, Klinkhammer L (2004) The question of Fascist Italy’s war crimes: the construction of a self-acquitting myth (1943–1948). Journal of Modern Italian Studies 3:330–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornasari G (2013) Giustizia di transizione e diritto penale. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornasari G (2015) Giustizia di transizione. Enciclopedia del Diritto. Annali VIII:547–570

    Google Scholar 

  • Fouchard I (2014) Crimes internationaux. Entre internationalisation du droit pénal et pénalisation du droit international. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourie P, Meyer M (2013) The Politics of AIDS Denialism: South Africa’s Failure to Respond. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman M (2006) Truth Commission and Procedural fairness. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fronza E (2015) Negazionismo. Enciclopedia del Diritto Annali VIII:633–658

    Google Scholar 

  • Fronza E (2016a) Criminalizzazione del dissenso o tutela del consenso. Profili critici del negazionismo come reato. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 2:1016–1033

    Google Scholar 

  • Fronza E (2016b) La poursuite des crimes nazis et fascistes en Italie, in Vv. AA. Mélanges en l’honneur de Geneviéve Giudicelli-Delage. Dalloz, Paris, pp 344–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Fronza E (2017) L’introduzione dell’aggravante di negazionismo. Diritto penale e processo 2:155–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Fronza E, Fornasari G (eds) (2009) Il superamento del passato e il superamento del presente. La punizione delle violazioni sistematiche dei diritti umani nell’esperienza argentina e colombiana. Università degli Studi di Trento, Trento

    Google Scholar 

  • Fronza E, Tricot J (2003) Fonction symbolique et droit pénal international. Une analyse du discours des Tribunaux pénaux internationaux. In: Fronza E, Manacorda S (eds) La justice pénale internationale dans les décisions des tribunaux ad hoc. Dalloz-Giuffré, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Galazzo G (2016) Reato di negazionismo e libertà di manifestazione del pensiero: una riflessione. Giurisprudenza penale 9:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamberini A (1973) I “pensieri leciti” della Corte Costituzionale. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamberini A (2013) Tutela della memoria e diritto penale: una riflessione sistematica e comparativa a partire dal reato di negazionismo. Diritto penale contemporaneo. Online: https://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/d/2716-tutela-della-memoria-e-diritto-penale-una-riflessione-sistematica-e-comparativa-a-partire-dal-reato. Accessed 2 October 2017

  • Gamberini A, Insolera G (2006) Legislazione penale compulsiva, buone ragioni e altro. A proposito della riforma dei reati di opinione. In: Insolera G (ed) La legislazione penale compulsiva. Cedam, Padua, pp 135–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Garapon A (1995) Bien juger: essai sur le rituel judiciaire. Odile Jacob, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Garapon A (2002) Des crimes qu’on ne peut ni punir ni pardonner: pour une justice internationale. Odile Jacob, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Garapon A (2008) Peut-on réparer l’histoire? Colonisation, esclavage, Shoah. Odile Jacob, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Garibian S (2012) Droit, histoire, mémoire. Le négationnisme: exercice d'une liberté ou violation d'un droit? Revue arménienne des questions contemporaines 15: 53-62

    Google Scholar 

  • Garibian S (2014) Ghosts Also Die: Resisting Disappearance through the ‘Right to the Truth’ and the Juicios por la Verdad in Argentina. Journal of International Criminal Justice 12:515–538

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasanabo JD, Simon DJ, Ensign MM (eds) (2015) Confronting Genocide in Rwanda: Dehumanization, Denial, and Strategies for Prevention. Apidama, Bogota

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavagnin G (2006) Il negazionismo nella legislazione penale francese, austriaca e tedesca. In: Riondato S (ed) Discriminazione razziale, xenophobia, odio religioso. Diritti fondamentali e tutela penale. Cedam, Padua, pp 199–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelber K (2016) Free Speech After 9/11. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Geras N (2011) Crimes Against Humanity: Birth of a Concept. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil Gil A (2009) La Justicia de Transición en España: de la Amnistía a la Memoria Histórica. Atelier, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil Gil A, Maculan E (eds) (2016) Derecho penal internacional. Librería Dykinson, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil Gil A, Maculan E (eds) (2017a) Colombia como nuevo modelo para la justicia de transición. Instituto Universitario General Gutiérrez Mellado, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil Gil A, Maculan E (2017b) La influencia de las victimas en el tratamiento juridico de la violencia colectiva. Librería Dykinson, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie A (2015) Hate and Harm: The Law on Hate Speech. In: Savin A, Trzaskowski J (eds) Research Handbook on EU Internet Law, pp 488–507

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg C (2002) Beweis, Gedächtnis, Vergessen. Memory 30:50–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliszczyńska-Grabias A (2013) Penalizing Holocaust Denial: A View from Europe. In: Small CA (ed) Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity. Brill-Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon RSC (2013) Scolpitelo nei cuori. L’Olocausto nella cultura italiana. Bollati Boringhieri, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Gramsci A (1994) Letters from Prison. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grande E (2015) I mobili confini della libertà di espressione negli Stati Uniti e il metro della paura. Questione Giustizia 4:47–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Greppi E (2001) I crimini di guerra e contro l’umanità nel diritto internazionale. Utet, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Guembe MJ (2005) Reopening of trials for crimes committed by the Argentine military dictatorship. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1806-64452005000200008&script=sci_arttext&tlng=es. Accessed 13 August 2017

  • Halbwachs M (1925) Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Halbwachs M (1950) La mémoire collective. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt BE (1999) The Collapse of the Harm Principle. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 109–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare I, Weinstein J (eds) (2011) Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayner P (1994) Fifteen Truth Commissions - 1974 to 1994: A Comparative Study. Human Rights Quarterly 16:597–665

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze E (2017) Beyond ‘Memory Laws’: Towards a General Theory of Law and Historical Discourse. In: Belavusau U, Gliszczyńska-Grabias A (eds) Law and Memory: Addressing Historical Injustice by Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller KJ (2011) The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Helz M (2012) The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennebel L, Hochmann T (eds) (2011) Genocide Denials and the Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hervieu N (2014) Le négationnisme, prisme révélateur du dilemme européen face à lutte contre l’extrémisme. Revue des droits de l’homme online https://revdh.revues.org/503. Accessed 16 July 2017

  • Higwedere P, Essex M (2010) AIDS Denialism and Public Health Practice. AIDS and Behavior 14:237–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill LE (1989) The Trial of Ernst Zundel. Revisionism and the Law in Canada. http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395157. Accessed 13 August 2017

  • Hochmann T (2012) Le négationnisme face aux limites de la liberté d’expression. Étude de droit comparé. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörnle T (2005) Grob anstössiges Verhalten: strafrechtlicher Schutz von Moral, Gefühlen und Tabus. Verlag, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörnle T (2015) Theories of Criminalization. In: Dubber MD, Hörnle T (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez Majar JE (2014) Justicia transicional y las Comisiones de la Verdad. Aufklarung, Bogota

    Google Scholar 

  • Igounet V (2000) Histoire du négationnisme en France. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Imbleau M (2003) La négation du génocide nazi, liberté d’expression ou crime raciste? L’Harmattan, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Insolera G (2014) Negazionismo e controllo penale. Criminal law studies and materials 1:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobs G (2014) On the Theory of Enemy Criminal Law. In: Dubber MD (ed) Foundational Texts in Modern Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 415–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen YO (2014) Denying Genocide or Denying Free Speech? A Case Study of the Application of Rwanda’s Genocide Denial Laws. Northwestern Journal International Human Rights 12:191–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Jean JP (2009) Le procès et l’écriture de l’histoire. Revue de sciences humaines 9:61–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones JRWD (2003) Whose Intent is it Anyway? – Genocide and the Intent to Destroy a Group. In: Vohrah LC et al. (eds) Man’s Inhumanity to Man. Brill-Nijhoff, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn RA (1997) Who Takes the Blame? Scapegoating, Legal Responsibility and the Prosecution of Holocaust Revisionists in the Federal Republic of Germany and Canada. Glendale Law Review 16:17–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn RA (2004) Holocaust Denial and the Law. A Comparative Study. Palgrave, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn RA (2006) Cross-Burning, Holocaust Denial, and the Development of Hate Speech Law in the United States and Germany. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 83:163–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindhäuser U, Neumann U, Paeffgen HU (ed) (2013) Strafgesetzbuch: Band 2. Nomos, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiska R (2012) Hate Speech: a Comparison between the European Court of Human Rights and the United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence. Regent University Law Review 25:107–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R, Scalia D (2012) Droit international pénal. Précis. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Koposov N (2017) Memory Laws, Memory Wars. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskeniemmi M (1989) From Apology to Utopia. The Structure of International Legal Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress C (2001) War Crimes Committed in Non-International Armed Conflict and the Emerging System of International Criminal Justice. Israeli Yearbook on Human Rights 30:103–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress C (2009) The Crime of Genocide and Contextual Elements. A Comment on the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber’s Decision in the Al Bashir Case. Journal of International Criminal Justice 7:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Laitenberger A (2003) Die Strafbarkeit der Verbreitung rassistischer, rechtsextremistischer und neonazistischer Inhalte: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Verbreitung über Netzwerke. Ein Rechtsvergleich. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalieu O (2001) L’invention du ‘devoir de mémoire’. Vingtième Siècle Revue histoire 69:83–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechtholz Zey J (2012) The Laws Banning Holocaust Denial. Genocide Prevention Now 9: 1-18

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledoux S (2012) Ecrire une histoire du “devoir de mémoire”. Le Débat 170:175–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Leotta CD (2015) Profili penali del negazionismo. Riflessioni alla luce della sentenza della Corte EDU sul genocidio armeno. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessa F, Payne LA (eds) (2012) Amnesty in the Age of Human Rights Accountability. Comparative and International Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann M (1997) Crimes Against Humanity. Boston College Third World Law Journal 17:171–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipstadt DE (1994) Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. Plume, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobba P (2014) Il negazionismo come abuso della libertà di espressione: la giurisprudenza della Corte di Strasburgo. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 57:1815–1853

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobba P (2015) Holocaust Denial Before the European Court of Human Rights: Evolution of an Exceptional Regime. European Journal of International Law 26:237–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Lollini A (2003) Le rôle (pre)costituant de la Commission Verité et Reconciliation. Le renouvellement du constitutionnalisme en Afrique du Sud. Thesis

    Google Scholar 

  • Lollini A (2011) Constitutionalism and Transitional Justice in South Africa. Berghahn Books, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Longman T (2011) Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Loraux N (1988) De l’amnistie et de son contraire. In: Yerushalmi YH, Loraux N, Mommsen H, Milner JR, Vattimo G (eds) Les usages de l’oubli. Seuil, Paris, pp 23–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Loraux N (1997) La cité divisée. Payot, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenthal E (2014) Contro il giorno della memoria. Online: http://www.lastampa.it/2014/01/16/cultura/contro-il-giorno-della-memoria-GKkosn3Gh3Ddz5qNYBOQMJ/pagina.html. Accessed 28 September 2017

  • Luther J (2008) L’antinegazionismo nell’esperienza giuridica tedesca e comparata. Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 1192–1212

    Google Scholar 

  • Maculan E (2012) Prosecuting international crimes at national level: lessons from the Argentine “truth-finding trials”. Human Rights Review 1:53–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Maculan E, Pastor D (2013) El derecho a la verdad y su esercicio por medio del proceso penal. Hammurabi, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  • Malarino E (2009) Il volto repressivo della recente giurisprudenza argentina sulle gravi violazioni dei diritti umani. Un’analisi della sentenza della Corte Suprema di Giustizia della Nazione del 14 giugno 2005 nel caso Simón. In: Fronza E, Fornasari G (eds) Il superamento del passato e il superamento del presente. La punizione delle violazioni sistematiche dei diritti umani nell’esperienza argentina e colombiana. Università degli Studi di Trento, Trento, pp 31–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Manes V (2007) Attualità e prospettive del giudizio di ragionevolezza in materia penale. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 2–3:739–789

    Google Scholar 

  • Manetti M (2005a) Libertà di pensiero e negazionismo. In: Ainis M (ed) Informazione, potere, libertà. Giappichelli, Turin, pp. 41–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Manetti M (2005b) L’incitamento all’odio razziale tra realizzazione dell’eguaglianza e difesa dello Stato. In: Di Giovine A (ed) Democrazie protette e protezione della democrazia. Giappichelli, Turin, pp. 1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcheri PL (2015) Legislação europeia de combate ao nazismo, doutrinas de ódio e discriminação racial. Cia Do Ebook, Timburi

    Google Scholar 

  • Matuschek M (2012) Erinnerungsstrafrecht. Eine Neubegründung des Verbots der Holocaustleugnung auf rechtsvergleichender und sozialphilosophischer Grundlage. Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Matuschek M (2013) Thomas Hochmann, Le négationnisme face aux limites de la liberté d’expression, étude de droit comparé. Droit et cultures 66:231–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Melloni A (2008) Per una storia della tribunalizzazione della storia. In: Marquard O, Melloni A (eds) La storia che giudica, la storia che assolve. Laterza, Rome/Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Méndez J (2009) An Emerging ‘Right to Truth’: Latin American Contributions. In: Karstedt S (ed) Legal Institutions and Collective Memories. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Méndez J, Bariffi F (2007) Right to Truth. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Plank Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mensching C (2014) Hassrede im Internet. Grundrechtsvergleich und regulatorische Konsequenzen. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkel R (2008) The Law of the Nuremberg Trial: Valid, Dubious, Outdated. In: Mettraux G (ed) Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 555–576

    Google Scholar 

  • Merli A (2008) Democrazia e diritto penale. Note a margine del dibattito sul cosiddetto negazionismo. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Naples

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (1995) International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities. American Journal of International Law 89:554–577

    Google Scholar 

  • Mettraux G (ed) (2008) Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Minow M (1998) Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History After Genocide and Mass Violence. Beacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Moerland R (2016) The Killing of Death: Denying the Genocide Against the Tutsi. Intersentia, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Montanari M (2013) Il disegno di legge in materia di negazionismo passa all’esame dell’aula del Senato. Diritto penale contemporaneo. Online: https://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/d/2597-il-disegno-di-legge-in-materia-di-negazionismo-passa-all-esame-dell-aula-del-senato. Accessed 28 September 2017

  • Mutua M (2001) Savages-Victims-Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights. Harvard International Law Journal 42

    Google Scholar 

  • Naqvi Y (2006) The right to truth in international law: fact or fiction? International Review of the Red Cross 88:245–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian DL (2002) The Contours of Genocide Intent. Troubling Jurisprudence from the International Criminal Tribunals. Texas International Law Journal 37:231–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Nora P (2016) Come si manipola la memoria. Lo storico il potere, il passato. La Scuola, Brescia

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe R (2015) International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochoa JC (2013) The Rights of Victims in Criminal Justice Proceedings for Serious Human Rights Violations. Brill-Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Osiel M (1999) Mass Atrocity, Collective Memory, and the Law. Transaction, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Osiel M (2008) In Defence of Liberal Show Trials – Nuremberg and Beyond. In: Mettraux G (ed) Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 704–726

    Google Scholar 

  • Ost F (1999) Le temps du droit. Odile Jacob, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Palermo PG (2014) Mecanismos políticos y jurídicos aplicados durante la transición uruguaya para la superación del pasado. In: Sabadell AL, Simon JM, Dimoulis D (eds) Justiça de Transiçäo. Das Anistias às Comissões de Verdade. Revista dos Tribunais, Sao Paulo, pp 101–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Paliero CE (1992) Consenso sociale e diritto penale. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 3:849–922

    Google Scholar 

  • Parenti P (2009) La persecuzione penale di gravi violazioni dei diritti umani in Argentina. A 25 anni dal ritorno della democrazia. In: Fronza E, Fornasari G (eds) Il superamento del passato e il superamento del presente. La punizione delle violazioni sistematiche dei diritti umani nell’esperienza argentina e colombiana. Università degli Studi di Trento, Trento, pp 13–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Parisi S (2013) Il negazionismo dell’Olocausto e la sconfitta del Diritto penale. Quaderni costituzionali 4:879–904

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastor D (2006) La deriva neopunitivista de organismos y activistas como causa del desprestigio actual de los derechos humanos. Jura Gentium online: http://www.juragentium.org/topics/latina/es/pastor.htm. Accessed 30 September 2017

  • Pastor D (2009) Processi penali solo per conoscere la verità? L’esperienza argentina. In: Fronza E, Fornasari G (eds) Il superamento del passato e il superamento del presente. La punizione delle violazioni sistematiche di diritti umani nell’esperienza argentina e colombiana. Università degli Studi di Trento, Trento

    Google Scholar 

  • Pech L (2011) Ruling Denial Prohibition. In: Hennebel L, Hochmann T (eds) Genocide Denials and the Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 183–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelissero M (2015) La parola pericolosa. Il confine incerto del controllo penale del dissenso. Quest. giust. 4:37–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter R (2006) Making “Holocaust Denial” a Crime: Reflections on European AntiNegationist Laws from the perspective of US constitutional experience. Vermont Law Review 30, pp 155–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisanty V (2000) Sul negazionismo. In: Collotti E (ed) Fascismo e antifascismo. Rimozioni, revisioni, negazioni. Laterza, Rome/Bari, pp 43–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisanty V (2005) I negazionismi. In: Cattaruzza M, Flores M, Levi Sullam S, Traverso E (eds) Storia della Shoah. Volume I. Utet, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisanty V (2012) Abusi di memoria. Negare, banalizzare, sacralizzare la Shoah. Mondadori, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollicino O (2011) Il negazionismo nel diritto comparato: profili ricostruttivi. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 1:85–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Poncela P (2016) Les naufragés du droit pénal. Archives de politique criminelle 38:9–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Portelli A (2003) The Order Has Been Carried Out: History, Memory, and Meaning of a Nazi Massacre in Rome. Palgrave, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosperi L, Terrosi J (2017) Embracing the ‘Human Factor': Is There New Impetus at the ICC for Conceiving and Prioritizing Intentional Environmental Harms as Crimes Against Humanity? Journal of International Criminal Justice 15: 509–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugiotto A (2009) Quando (e perché) la memoria si fa legge. Quaderni costituzionali 1:7–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Puglisi G (2016) A margine della c.d. “aggravante di negazionismo”: tra occasioni sprecate e legislazione penale simbolica. Diritto penale contemporaneo, online: https://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/upload/1468507001PUGLISI_2016b.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2017

  • Pulitanò D (2006) Laicità e diritto penale. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 1:55–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulitanò D (2015) Di fronte al negazionismo e al discorso d’odio. Diritto penale contemporaneo. Online: https://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/upload/1426333841PULITANO_2015.pdf. Accessed 28 September 2017

  • Quaritsch H (1992) Über Bürgerkriegs- und Feind-Amnestien. Der Staat 4:389–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Resta G, Zeno-Zencovich V (2013) “Judicial “Truth” and Historical “Truth”: The Case of the Ardeatine Caves Massacre”. Law and History Review 31 4:843–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Resta G, Zeno-Zencovich V (eds) (2012) Riparare, risarcire, ricordare. Un dialogo tra storici e giuristi. Editoriale Scientifica, Naples

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribeyre C (2016) Loi n° 2016-731 du 3 juin 2016 renforçant la lutte contre le crime organisé, le terrorisme et leur financement, et améliorant l’efficacité et les garanties de la procédure pénale - Et maintenant? Droit pénal

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur P (2000) La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieff D (2016) In praise of forgetting: Historical Memory and Its Ironies. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Rioux JP (2008) Les avatars du ‘devoir de mémoire’. Le Débat 170:186–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson D (2008) The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law. Leiden Journal of International Law 21:925–963

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J (1946) The Nuremberg Judgment. Congress Weekly: A Review of Jewish Interests 13

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano M (2007) Principio di laicità dello Stato, religioni, norme penali. Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura penale 495–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousso H (1987) Le syndrome de Vichy. Seuil. Paris (tr. The Vichy Syndrome. History and Memory in France since 1944. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousso H (2016) Face au passé. Essais sur la mémoire contemporaine. Belin, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovatti T (2009) Fra politiche di violenza e aspirazioni di giustizia. La popolazione civile vittima delle stragi di Monchio e Tavolicci (1943–45). Carocci, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxin C (2006) Was darf der Staat unter Strafe stellen? Zur Legitimation von Strafdrohungen. In: Dolcini E, Paliero CE (eds) Studi in onore di Giorgio Marinucci, I. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon TR (2012) Meinungsfreiheit und die Strafbarkeit des Negationismus. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 48–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkin J (2004) Carrots and Sticks: The TRC and the South African Amnesty Process. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenberger G (2008) The Judgment of Nuremberg. In: Mettraux G (ed) Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 167–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwelb E (1946) Crimes Against Humanity. In: British Yearbook of International Law 23:178–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibert-Fohr A (2009) Prosecuting Serious Human Rights Violations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Seminara S (2014) Die Aufarbeitung der faschistischen Vergangenheit in Italien. Strafrechtliche Probleme. Jahrbuch der Juristischen Zeitgeschichte 15:3–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahnazarova I (2015) Criminalisation of genocide denial and freedom of expression. Inderscience online 1:322–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva Sánchez JM (2007) Nullum crimen sine poena? Sobre las doctrinas penales de la “lucha contra la impunidad” y del “derecho de la víctima al castigo del autor”. Derecho Penal del siglo XXI 339–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Simester AP, Du Bois-Pedain A, Neuman U (eds) (2014) Liberal Criminal Theory. Essays for Andreas Von Hirsch. Hart, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivakumaran S (2012) The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sluiter G (2011) “Chapeau Elements” of Crimes Against Humanity in the Jurisprudence of the UN ad hoc Tribunals. In: Sadat LN (ed) Forging a Convention for Crimes Against Humanity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 102–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Sotis C (2007) Il diritto senza codice. Uno studio sul diritto penale europeo vigente. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Spena A (2007) Libertà di espressione e reati di opinione. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 689–703

    Google Scholar 

  • Spigno I (2008) Un dibattito ancora attuale: l’Olocausto e la sua negazione. Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 1921–1931

    Google Scholar 

  • Stofleth DE (2012) Memory Laws as Mechanisms of “remembering to forget”: The Spanish Law of Historical Memory as an Archetype. https://www.academia.edu/11087676/Memory_Laws_as_Mechanisms_of_Remembering_to_Forget_The_Spanish_Law_of_Historical_Memory_as_an_Archetype. Accessed 13 August 2017

  • Stone D (2013) The Holocaust, Fascism and Memory: Essays in the History of Ideas. Palgrave, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Stora B (2007) La guerre des mémoires: la France face à son passé colonial (entretiens avec Thierry Leclere). Éditions de l’Aube, La Tour d’Aigues

    Google Scholar 

  • Swart M, van Marle K (eds) (2017) The Limits of Transition: The South African Truth and Reconciliation 20 years on. Brill Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamarit Sumalla JM (2014) Memoria histórica y justicia transicional en España: el tiempo como actor de la justicia penal. Anuario Iberoamericano de Derecho Internacional Penal, Bogota

    Google Scholar 

  • Teitel RG (2014) Globalizing Transitional Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ternon Y (1999) Du négationnisme: mémoire et tabou. Desclée de Brouwer, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Terry N (2017) Holocaust denial in the age of web 2.0. In: Behrens P, Jensen O, Terry N (eds) Holocaust and Genocide Denial: A Contextual Perspective. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Teruel Lozano GM (2015) La libertad de expresión a los delitos de negacionismo y de provocación al odio y a la violencia: sombras sin luces en la reforma del código penal. Revista para el análisis del derecho 4:1–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiedemann M (1996) In Auschwitz wurde niemand vergast. Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Todorov T (1995) Les abus de la mémoire. Arléa, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Todorov T (2001) The uses and abuses of memory. In: Marchitello H (ed) What Happens to History: The Renewal of Ethics in Contemporary Thought. Routledge, London, pp 11–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourkochoriti I (2014) Should Hate Speech Be Protected? Group Defamation, Party Bans, Holocaust Denaial and the Divide Between (France) Europe and the United States. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 45:552–622

    Google Scholar 

  • Traverso E (2006) Il Passato. Istruzioni per l’uso. Storia, memoria, politica. Ombre Corte, Verona

    Google Scholar 

  • Triffterer O (2001) Genocide, its Particular Intent to Destroy in Whole or in Part the Group as Such. Leiden Journal of International Law 14:399–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) (2016) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Observer’s Notes, Article by Article. C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Munich/Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Vassalli G, Sabatini G (1947) Il collaborazionismo e l’amnistia politica nella giurisprudenza della Corte di Cassazione. La Giustizia penale, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Vercelli C (2013) Il Negazionismo: Storia di una menzogna. Laterza, Rome/Bari

    Google Scholar 

  • Veyrat-Masson I, Blanchard P (eds) (2008) Les guerres de mémoires. La France et son histoire. La Decouverte, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal-Naquet P (1981) Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal-Naquet P (1995) Les Assassins de la Mémoire. «Un Eichmann de Papier» et autres essais sur le révisionnisme. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Viganò F (2011) L’arbitrio del non punire. Sugli obblighi di tutela penale dei diritti fondamentali. In: Studi in onore di Mario Romano. Vol. IV. Jovene, Naples, pp 2645–2704

    Google Scholar 

  • Visconti C (2008) Aspetti penalistici del discorso pubblico. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Visconti C (2009) Il reato di propaganda razzista tra dignità umana e libertà di espressione. Ius17@unibo.it 1:191–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Villa-Vicencio C, Doxtader E (eds) (2003) The Provocations of Amnesty. Africa World Press, Trenton-Asmara

    Google Scholar 

  • Vormbaum T, Bohlander M (eds) (2014) A Modern History of German Criminal Law. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandres T (2000) Die Strafbarkeit des Auschwitz-Leugnens. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandres T (2008) Expanding Holocaust Denial and Legislation Against It. Online: http://jcpa.org/article/expanding-holocaust-denial-and-legislation-against-it/. Accessed 27 September 2017

  • Wartanian R (2008) Memory Laws in France and their Implications: Institutionalizing Social Harmony. http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/117-memory-laws-in-france-and-their-implications-institutionalizing-social-harmony. Accessed 13 August 2017

  • Werle G (1992) Der Holocaust als Gegenstand der bundesdeutschen Strafjustiz. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2530–2548

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle G (2006) (ed) Justice in Transition - Prosecution and Amnesty in Germany and South Africa. Berliner Wissenschafts, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle G, Jessberger F (2014) Principles of International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson RA (2011) Writing History in International Criminal Trials. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Woller H (1996) Die Abrechnung mit dem Faschismus in Italien, 1943–1948. Oldenbourg, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Yerushalmi YH (1988) Réflexions sur l’oubli. In: Yerushalmi YH, Loraux N, Mommsen H, Milner JR, Vattimo G (eds) Les usages de l’oubli. Seuil, Paris, pp 7–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Zabel B (2010) Soll das Strafrecht Erinnerungen schützen? Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 122:834–853

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman JC (2000) Holocaust Denial: Demographics, Testimonies, and Ideologies. University Press of America, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Dr. Emanuela Fronza

Authors
  1. Dr. Emanuela Fronza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emanuela Fronza .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fronza, E. (2018). The Birth of the Crime of Historical Denialism. In: Memory and Punishment. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 19. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-234-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-234-7_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-233-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-234-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation