Unrechtsstaat

The term Unrechtsstaat (pl. Unrechsstaaten) is a pejorative used to refer to a valid state that is not a Rechtsstaat; hence a constitutional state in which the exercise of major aspects of governmental power is not constrained by the law.[1] It is used not only as a jurisprudential term but also as a political one.[2]

Examples of Unrechtsstaat are:

Connotations

It is the opinion of Horst Sendler that an Unrechtsstaat is characterized by a lack of striving for rights and an overall failure to achieve them.[3] At the same time, individual violations of law and constitution do not make a state an Unrechtsstaat, because such violations also occur in a Rechtsstaat.[3] Also, a state should not necessarily be considered an "Unrechtsstaat," even if it does not correspond with the model of a classical civil Rechtsstaat and in particular the German concept of a Rechtsstaat.[4] On the other hand, the term "Unrechtsstaat" does not exclude the possibility of instances in which such a state has areas where qualities characteristic of a Rechtsstaat are dominant and where justices is realized in practice.[5] In contrast to this notion of an Unrechtsstaat, Gerd Roellecke holds that the differentiating quality of an Unrechtsstaat is that it does not expect the equality of all people. In contrast with historical "Nichtrechtstaaten" (non-Rechstaaten), Unrechtstaaten have the capacity to be Rechstaaten after a period of historical development.[6]

The German public is divided on whether to call the German Democratic Republic (GDR) as an example of Unrechtsstaat.[7] Those scholars, however, who view it as such maintain that it is an accurate designation because the state was not based on the rule of law and was unjust.[8] It is also cited that the traditional and commemorative practices and framings sanctioned by the German government depict GDR as Unrechtsstaat as well as a dictatorship.[9]

An Unrechtsstaat may be distinguished from a 'Verbrecherstaat' or 'criminal state', where all the institutions of the state have been seized by a criminal enterprise; such that, while maintaining the nomenclature and appearance of state action, governmental institutions become wholly perverted to serve criminal purposes. The German Federal Constitutional Court, in a series of judgements in the 1950s, established the principle that Nazi Germany should be considered to have been a Verbrecherstaat, such that all German governmental institutions, organisations and public servants had been wholly perverted into 'a power apparatus in the service of the Nazi Party'. A Verbrecherstaat is not a valid state at all; whereas an Unrechtsstaat is a valid state that nominally acknowledges the rule of law, but nevertheless systematically fails to maintain it.

References
  1. Sendler, Horst (1993). "Die DDR ein Unrechtsstaat — ja oder nein? Mißverständnisse um "Rechtsstaat" und "Unrechtsstaat"" [East Germany an Unrechtsstaat - yes or no? Misunderstandings around "Rechtsstaat" and "Unrechtsstaat"]. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik. 1 (1): 2. JSTOR 23422914.
  2. Wassermann, NJW 1997, 2152 f., 2153
  3. Sendler, ZRP 1993, 1 ff., 4
  4. Sendler, ZRP 1993, 1 ff., 3
  5. Sendler, NJ, 1991, 379 ff., 380
  6. Gerd Roellecke (15 June 2009). "War die DDR ein Unrechtsstaat?". FAZ.net. Retrieved 2 July 2009.
  7. Bernhard, Michael H.; Kubik, Jan (2014). Twenty Years After Communism: The Politics of Memory and Commemoration. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. p. 271. ISBN 9780199375134.
  8. Bernhard, Michael H.; Kubik, Jan (2014). Twenty Years After Communism: The Politics of Memory and Commemoration. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 206. ISBN 9780199375134.
  9. Davidson, Tonya K.; Park, Ondine; Shields, Rob (2013). Ecologies of Affect: Placing Nostalgia, Desire, and Hope. Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. p. 39. ISBN 9781554582587.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.