Kriminaalipolitiikan paradoksi : Tutkimuksia huumausainerikollisuudesta ja sen kontrollista Suomessa

This doctoral thesis explores the development of drug markets and drug related crime in Finland since the mid 1990s, as well as public control measures aimed at solving problems related to drug crime. The research further examines the criminal career of persons having committed drug crime, as well as their socio-economic background. The period since the mid 1990s is, on the one hand, characterized by increasing use of drugs and increasingly severe drug problems. On the other hand, this period is also characterized by intensified drug control. Also criminality associated with drugs has increased and become more severe. During this period the prevention of drug problems became a focal issue for authorities, and resources were increased for activities geared towards fighting drugs. Along with this development, Finnish drug policy has been balancing between therapeutic activities and control. A focal point in this thesis is the question how society addresses drug problems, as well as how this differs from efforts to solve other problems. Why are criminal means so readily used when dealing with drug problems; why have the police received an extended mandate to use coercive force; and why has the field for imposing administrative sanctions been extended? How has the extension of drug control affected general thinking in criminal policy? The subject matter in this thesis is approached in a criminological and criminal policy perspective. The thesis is made up of four research articles and a Summary Article. In the Summary Article the studies were placed into the Finnish research context of drug criminality and drug control as well as criminal policy. Furthermore, the author has assessed his own research location as a drug control researcher. Applying the notion of risk, an analysis was made of threats posed by drugs to society. Theoretical perspectives were also brought to the fore on how society may regulate drug problems and threats associated with them. Based on research literature and administrative documents, an analysis was made of the relation between drug related social and health policy and criminal justice control. An account was also made of the development of drug control in Finland since the mid 1990s. There has been a strong increase in control by the criminal justice system since the mid 1990s. Penalties have been made more stringent, more efficient means have been developed to trace the financial gain from the offence, opportunities for money laundering have been prevented and the police has obtained ample new powers of inquiry. New administrative measures have been directed towards drug users, such as introducing drug tests in working life, checking the applicants criminal record for certain jobs, as well as the threat of losing one s driving licence in cases where a physician has established drug addiction. In the 1990s the prevention of drug crimes and their disclosure were made part of the police s control activities nationwide. This could clearly be seen in increased criminal statistics. There are humiliating elements associated with the police s drug control that should be eliminated for the benefit of everybody. Furthermore, the criminal control is directed towards persons in a weak socio-economic position. A drug verdict may set off a marginalization process that may be very difficult to halt. Drug control is selective and generates repressive practises. The special status accorded drug problems is also revealed in the way in which the treatment of drug addicts has developed.

An Axiom of Military Law : Applicability of National Criminal Law to Military Personnel and Associated Civilians Abroad

States regularly deploy elements of their armed forces abroad. When that happens, the military personnel concerned largely remain governed by the penal law of the State that they serve. This extraterritorial extension of national criminal law, which has been treated as axiomatic in domestic law and ignored by international law scholarship, is the subject of this dissertation. The first part of the study considers the ambit of national criminal law without any special regard to the armed forces. It explores the historical development of the currently prevailing system of territorial law and looks at the ambit that national legal systems claim today. Turning then to international law, the study debunks the oddly persistent belief that States enjoy a freedom to extend their laws to extraterritorial conduct as they please, and that they are in this respect constrained only by some specific prohibitions in international law. Six arguments historical, empirical, ideological, functional, doctrinal and systemic are advanced to support a contrary view: that States are prohibited from extending the reach of their legal systems abroad, unless they can rely on a permissive principle of international law for doing so. The second part of the study deals specifically with State jurisdiction in a military context, that is to say, as applied to military personnel in the strict sense (service members) and various civilians serving with or accompanying the forces (associated civilians). While the status of armed forces on foreign soil has transformed from one encapsulated in the customary concept of extraterritoriality to a modern regulation of immunities granted by treaties, elements of armed forces located abroad usually do enjoy some degree of insulation from the legal system of the host State. As a corollary, they should generally remain covered by the law of their own State. The extent of this extraterritorial extension of national law is revealed in a comparative review of national legislation, paying particular attention to recent legal reforms in the United States and the United Kingdom two states that have sought to extend the scope of their national law to cover the conduct of military contractor personnel. The principal argument of the dissertation is that applying national criminal law to service members and associated civilians abroad is distinct from other extraterritorial claims of jurisdiction (in particular, the nationality principle or the protective principle of jurisdiction). The service jurisdiction over the armed forces has a distinct aim: ensuring the coherence and indivisibility of the forces and maintaining discipline. Furthermore, the exercise of service jurisdiction seeks to reduce the chances of the State itself becoming internationally liable for the conduct of its service members and associated civilians. Critically, the legal system of the troop-deploying State, by extending its reach abroad, seeks to avoid accountability gaps that might result from immunities from host State law.