Collective punishment

Collective liability is the legal responsibility of a group for the actions of one or more of its members. In the case of families is called clan liability. It is contrary to the enlightened attitude of European cultural tradition, according to which each carries a unique responsibility for his actions.

Since ancient times known cases of collective imprisonment of hostages highly placed persons are as a pawn in order to guarantee compliance with contracts between nations.

The term " collective responsibility " in jurisprudence plays no significant role and is because of its blurring of limited use. In civil and criminal law is " collective liability " no common legal concept. By no means it can deliver the title for a legal basis for a claim.

Usually the term is used colloquially in the sense of an impermissible punishment or disadvantage a group of persons because of generalizing blame ( collective guilt ) for the misconduct of individuals.

The term is (sometimes polemical ) is also used in some areas of policy discussion.

Collective responsibility for ethical - philosophical point of view

The ethical question behind the collective liability is basically the whether any one person can take responsibility for the actions of another person, because such approach comes with the principle of self- responsibility for all human action and the idea of free will in conflict. The question of whether collective liability vorliege, a philosophical- ethical standard is applied to an object of the right.

Starting point of the review is that a person as a human subject through their willful actions is a causal chain new in transition, for which it is directly responsible. An ethical problematisierbarer case of collective responsibility is always present when a person is jointly liable for a loss which another person has causally through their actions, which artificially a collective liability is established.

Collective liability from a legal perspective

Since the collective liability as a result the liability of a person - whether civil law in terms of a recourse obligation, be it criminal in the sense that the punishment of the collective members in place of the actual, possibly escaped offender - for foreign debt and without their own accountability is achieved it is not compatible with the rule of law.

From Rechtsstaatswidrigkeit a collective liability follows that a legal definition of collective responsibility does not exist, this is rather legally not normalized. Therefore, the concept of collective responsibility in the legal context is mostly use as a reproach, a specific statutory provision imagine the result and illegal collective liability dar.

The inadmissibility of collective liability, however, describes only the incompatibility of a corresponding liability standard with the rule of law, when in fact it is a lack of accountability of the person concerned for the definition of liability. Responsibility here means a legal attribution possibility of success to the responsible entity.

Already conceptually does not detect the problem of collective liability so that such cases where people mergers are themselves legal entities.

A liability of a legal entity, such as a registered association or joint stock company therefore does not arise as long as a problem of collective liability illustrates how the legal person is liable with its ( social ) assets, because it is about the individual liability of the legal person here. The question of whether a collective liability exists, could be discussed at the earliest, when the creditors a penetration on the private property of members of the legal person should be possible, which usually is not the case for this very reason.

In criminal law, however, the Association punishment more of a problem, since the punishment, at least according to the traditional view, is related particularly dependent on the subjective guilt of the " perpetrator ". A corporation, however, can not take a header nor makes a " fault " in the sense that you could be accused of not behave quite true. Nevertheless, the criminal liability of legal persons is widespread not only in the Anglo-American world, but for example also been introduced in Switzerland recently.

The fact that, in deciding whether an illegal collective responsibility is given, as a result, is whether an attribution of liability is made ​​to a person without their own responsibility, clarified at the same time that not every obligation of the Einstehens for foreign action a case of collective liability reasons. By way of example, this can be demonstrated in the following situations:

Examples

In international law, the term justification in the context of a State liability for damage that occurred internationally wrongful act, especially for acts of war, reparations may require derived. This example also is controversial. Even here the term is apparently fails because adheres initially an individual subject of international law, the State concerned, for to him by rules of international law also individually attributable behavior.

A problem is considered a collective allocation of liability for damages against states, because they ultimately harm individuals economically in the citizens, their membership could become a state or nation not choose, but which it was attributed by descent and birth. Only the liability is considered to be legitimized because of the voluntary commitment in a community of shared responsibility.

The disguised as liability for damages access of foreign powers on value added, which did not even exist at the time the claim is based misconduct, but have to be worked out by uninvolved future generations at all, however, can not hope for approval.