Explore the vast range of titles available.

Disorderly conduct laws are a combination of common law offenses aimed at protecting the public order, peace, and tranquility. Yet, contrary to common legal conceptions, the criminalization of disorderly conduct is not just about policing behavior that threatens to disrupt public order or even the public’s peace and tranquility. Policing disorderly conduct reflects and reinforces deeply rooted discriminatory understandings about what behavior—and which persons—violate community norms. By relying on a false dichotomy between “order” and “disorder,” disorderly conduct laws construct and reinforce a hierarchy of normative behaviors that are imbued with racism, sexism, and ableism. Disorderly conduct laws “otherize” certain nonconforming behaviors, delegitimize them through the label of “disorderly,” and in doing so exclude certain historically marginalized groups from normative conceptions of community. They do this in part by prohibiting a wide range of behaviors and conferring vast amounts of discretion upon law enforcement and private citizens to target individuals for behavior regulation, physical removal, and community exclusion. These laws often determine access to shared community spaces, resulting in the exclusion of historically marginalized groups from these purportedly “public” spaces. In this way, disorderly conduct laws delineate and police the normative boundaries of communities. This Article begins by offering an overview and substantive critique of disorderly conduct laws. It then demonstrates how enforcement of these laws reinforces social hierarchies on the basis of race, gender, and disability and defines and constructs community boundaries. In this way, the Article offers a site for problematizing unitary models of community in criminal law and is situated within criminal legal scholarship’s ongoing discussions on the role of “the community” in criminal justice reform. The Article concludes by identifying pathways to end the harms of the disorderly conduct enforcement regime, including decriminalizing and abolishing disorderly conduct. Instead of honing in on specific policy reforms, the Article aims to set forth certain models that rely less on consensus and more on contestatory approaches to democratic participation, which better account for the multiplicity of communities affected by criminal law enforcement.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024 9(3), 1316-1328 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction – II. Four reasons to reappraise public order and public security in EU law. – II.1. In the name of national public order: understanding Member States’ increased resistance to EU law. – II.2. Assessing the evolving conceptual framework. – II. 3. Evaluating how the EU legal framework adjusts to the contextual and conceptual developments. – II.4. Questioning the EU’s action as security provider – III. Overview of the Special Section. | (Abstract) This Special Section offers contributions which aim to revisit the meaning, the role and the legal regime of the notions of public order and public security in EU law. Recent developments illustrate substantial changes in the way in which the European Union deals with public order and security. This introduction explains the reasons why it is time to reappraise our understanding of these classic notions of EU law.

Public order as a protectable interest is an important criterion for determining a consistent and rational scope of crimes against public order. From the specific perspective of everyday life, Feinberg's theory of minimum welfare interests neglects those kinds of interests that relate to a smooth or harmonious life. Socio-legal perspectives make it clear that safety interests, which directly concern basic living (bodily existence), do not include various kinds of order interests – and thus life order interests in convenience, comfort and peace, distinguishable from safety interests that are protected by English public order laws, can be construed as the public order interest. By critically adopting Feinberg's individualistic approach to analysing public interests in three types of case, the test of being public is further clarified. Typical categories of public order are socially and normatively identified before concluding with a discussion of the effects the identification made by the paper might make to the scope and nature of public order law and offences.

The subject of the article are the issues concerning the enactment by local self-government bodies in Poland of a special category of acts of local law, i.e. public order regulations. Public order regulations belong to the sources of universally binding law in Poland. Not only government administration bodies, but also local self-government may adopt them. By means of public order regulations, such values as: life, health, property of citizens, environment, public order, peace and public security are protected. The status of public order regulations in the Polish legal order, which are bodies of local self-government units to protect the life or health of citizens and to ensure public order, peace and security, is not the subject to clear legislation or consent among scholars in the field and in relevant case-law. Therefore, the aim of the article is to determine the legal status of local law acts in the form of public order regulations in Poland and to define their role in the performance of tasks in the field of public security by local self-government. The author refers also to relevant legal solutions applicable in other member states of the Visegrad Group. The main thesis of the article is a statement that acts of local law in the form of public order regulations are a desirable manifestation of the law-making decentralisation of the state, which is necessary for the effective performance of tasks in the field of public security by local self-government bodies. Predmet članka so vprašanja uzakonitve posebne kategorije aktov lokalnega prava, tj. predpisov o javnem redu, s strani organov lokalne samouprave na Poljskem. Predpisi o javnem redu spadajo med vire splošno zavezujočega prava na Poljskem. Sprejmejo jih lahko ne le organi državne uprave, temveč tudi lokalna samouprava. Z predpisi o javnem redu so zaščitene vrednote, kot so: življenje, zdravje, lastnina državljanov, okolje, javni red, mir in javna varnost. Status predpisov o javnem redu v poljskem pravnem redu, za organe lokalnih samoupravnih enot, ki varujejo življenje ali zdravje državljanov in zagotavljajo javni red, mir in varnost, ni predmet jasne zakonodaje ali soglasja strokovnjakov s tega področja in ustrezne sodne prakse. Zato je namen članka določiti pravni status aktov lokalnega prava v obliki predpisov o javnem redu na Poljskem in opredeliti njihovo vlogo pri opravljanju nalog na področju javne varnosti s strani lokalne samouprave. Avtor se sklicuje tudi na ustrezne pravne rešitve, ki se uporabljajo v drugih državah članicah Višegrajske skupine. Glavna teza članka je izjava, da so akti lokalnega prava v obliki predpisov javnega reda zaželen izraz zakonodajne decentralizacije države, ki je potrebna za učinkovito izvajanje nalog na področju javne varnosti s strani lokalnih samoupravnih organov.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024 9(3), 1474-1485 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. – II. To be a Member State in the European Union: the reframing of Member State public order and public security. – III. A European public order and public security. – IV. Conclusion. | (Abstract) Public order and public policy have long been features of the EU law landscape as grounds of derogations for Member States. Recent developments analysed in this Special Section appear to point to two developments in this field. On the one hand, public order and public security continue to be used as grounds for derogations but in new fields, closer to “essential state functions” of the Member States and with somewhat altered legal frameworks where the Charter of Fundamental Rights and secondary legislation play important roles. On the other hand, we are witnessing the Union itself as provider of security and more recently the articulation of a “Union public order and public policy”. While requiring further study these two developments may point to a further Europeanisation of the notion of public order and public security with implications for the nature of Member States as sovereign states and the constitution of European society.

The sustainability of the security activities in Europe currently faces a number of challenges, including budgetary and personnel pressures. Policing activities are not an exception in this respect. One position when it comes to standards relating to local public order affairs may be the involvement of the wider police family, including police volunteers. The study deals with both a certain theoretical framework of the topic and the role of security, especially police volunteering in the new European Union Member States. In doing so, it is monitored to what extent the career of police volunteers is exposed to the competition of volunteer firefighters or military-oriented volunteer groups. The situation in all 13 states is monitored and compared. At the same time, it was identified that not all volunteer projects are linked to the state - but that some potentially problematic vigilante structures are also taking place in this regard. As a result, in relation to the monitored countries, there was also an effort to find out whether it is possible to typologize the situation - with regard to security or police volunteerism in a certain way. In relation to public interest, the authors perceive current challenges regarding public (state) security forces - and processes that aim to overcome these challenges. Their text is both an academic study, aiming to advance related expertise on the topic, and a prospective supporting document for the needs of public administration, especially in the Central and Eastern Europe countries.

Extending inquiries into the dynamics underpinning the ‘iterative’ development of security governance at mega-events, this article explores practices of knowledge sharing and policy transfer at major political summits. Through detailed interviews with police involved in the Toronto 2010 G20 and the Brisbane 2014 G20 summits, and through analysing supporting documentation, we examine the ways in which police interpret past events, as either ‘failures’ or ‘successes’, specifically in the context of public order policing. The article extends insights into how such perceptions are facilitated through transnational exchanges, particularly where event-related ‘failures’ might be considered as a benchmark for iterative policy developments. We explain this process as a form of ‘failure-inspired social learning’ that questions the effectiveness, norms and legitimacy of established policies, practices and institutions involved in security governance, which can influence future transformations in global ‘best practices’.

This study focuses on the issue of the best value approach (BVA) method in the public procurement and on the European experience with the implementation of the BVA method, with a focus on the use of this method in the Czech Republic. The key topic here is the effort to manage the risks of the construction project already at the stage of preparation and tender for suppliers of construction works or services, namely, for public contracts evaluated through the BVA. The findings show that public procurement tenderers often misunderstand the concept of project risk as managerial, temporal, economic, or qualitative risk. Case studies show reserves and possibilities for improvement. The goal of the study is to provide a framework for understanding and explaining the principles and methods of evaluating a qualitative criterion in the form of the risk assessment plan.

Freedom of assembly is guaranteed in most if not all democracies, but it is not without limit and regulation under their public order laws. Hong Kong and Japan are two democratic regimes in East Asia with sound rule of law despite few studies have been conducted to compare the public order offences of the two jurisdictions. By studying the law of unlawful assembly and law of disturbance in Hong Kong and Japan respectively, this article aims at discovering the similarities and differences in criminalizing assemblies in the two jurisdictions. Issues on comparation of Hong Kong and Japanese public order offences, significance of the law of unlawful assemblies, and possible justification of differences in Hong Kong and Japanese jurisdiction on unlawful assembly will be discussed. This article further raises the concern of the law enforcement on unlawful assembly and its relationship with the severity of the offence itself. A conclusion is drawn that Japan might have a wider coverage of conduct constituting unlawful assembly but the recent social and political movement in Hong Kong may have significant influence on the deterring effect imposed by the latter's jurisprudence.

The Anti-Extradition Bill Movement presents new challenges to the criminal justice system in Hong Kong. While courts in Hong Kong repeatedly stress that they do not take political considerations into account when making their rulings, it is almost inevitable that their decisions will be closely scrutinized by all sides of the political spectrum. This paper examines the development of case law relating to unlawful assembly and riot under the Public Order Ordinance in the context of the Movement. In particular, this paper will focus on the implication of the updated sentencing guideline on public order offences proposed by the Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung in 2018 and how the unique features of the Movement shall develop future case law.