Advertisement

Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 70, Issue 1, pp 1–18 | Cite as

European and United Nations monitoring of penal and prison policies as a source of an inverted panopticon?

  • Gaëtan CliquennoisEmail author
  • Sonja Snacken
Article

Introduction

Penal and prison policies are marked both in the US and Europe by a punitive trend attested notably by an important rise of the prison population over last decades and human rights violations committed on a large scale by the States [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. These violations have been reported by several international bodies created immediatly after the second world war and charged of monitoring penal and prison policies [6]. This international monitoring system was described and seen at that time as poorly influent, not compulsory and not binding on Member States [6, 7]. For instance, the European Court of Human Rights was considered by Livinstone as very reluctant to support judicial supervision of prison policies and to undermine substantial discretion left to the prison authorities [7]. Since fiveteen years, this monitoring system has however radically changed and expanded its scope and its obligations imposed on States to such an extent that it could be described as an...

References

  1. 1.
    Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lynch, M. (2009). Sunbelt justice: Arizona and the transformation of American punishment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simon, J. (2001). Fear and loathing in late modernity: Reflections on the cultural sources of mass imprisonment in the United States. Punishment and Society, 3(1), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neo-liberal government of social insecurity. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zimring, F. (2001). Imprisonment rates and the new politics of criminal punishment. Punishment and Society, 3(1), 161–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coyle, A., & Van Zyl Smit, D. (2000). Editorial: The international regulation of punishment. Punishment and Society, 2(3), 259–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Livingstone, S. (2000). Prisoners’ rights in the context of the European convention on human rights. Punishment and Society, 2(3), 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwartz R (2010) Law not war: Legal evolution from the ancient empires to the emerging world society. Bloomington: Xlibris Corp.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bond, M. (2013). The Council of Europe: Structure, history and issues in European politics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Zyl Smit, D., & Snacken, S. (2009). Principles of European prison law and policy: Penology and human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schumacher, B. (2012). The influence of the Council of Europe on the European Union: Resource, exchange and domains restriction as venues for inter-institutional influence. In O. Costa & K. E. Jorgensen (Eds.), The influence of international institutions on the EU. When multilateralism hits Brussels (pp. 186–206). London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Simon, J. (2011). Editorial: Mass incarceration on trial. Punishment and Society, 13(3), 251–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morgan, R., & Evans, M. (1999). Protecting prisoners. The standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of torture in context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alkema, E. A. (2000). The European convention as a constitution and its court as a constitutional court. In P. Mahoney, F. Matscher, P. Petzold, & L. Wildhaber (Eds.), Protecting Human Rights: The European Perspective: Studies in Memory of Rolv Ryssdal (pp. 41–63). Karl Heymanns Verlag: Bonn.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Christoffersen, J. (2011). Individual and constitutional justice. In J. Christoffersen & M. R. Madsen (Eds.), The European court of human rights between law and politics (pp. 181–203). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Follesdal, A., Peters, B., & Ulfstein, G. (2013). Constituting Europe. The European court of human rights in a national, European and global context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greer, S. (2003). Constitutionalizing adjudication under the European convention on human rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 23(3), 405–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harmsen, R. (2007). The European court of human rights as a ‘constitutional court. In J. Morison, K. McEvoy, & G. Anthony (Eds.), Judges, transition and human rights (pp. 33–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lester, A. (2011). The European court of human rights after 50 years. In J. Christoffersen & M. R. Madsen (Eds.), The European court of human rights between law and politics (pp. 98–115). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Boyle, M. (2010). The future. In E. Myjer et al. (Eds.), The Conscience of Europe: 50 Years of the European court of human rights (pp. 197–210). London: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sadurski, W. (2009). Partnering with Strasbourg: Constitutionalisation of the European court of human rights, the accession of central and east European states to the Council of Europe, and the idea of pilot judgments. Human Rights Law Review, 9(3), 397–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Christoffersen, J., & Madsen, M. R. (2011). The European court of human rights between law and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Boyle, M. (2008). On reforming the operation of the European court of human rights. European Human Rights Law Review, 1, 3–4.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lambert, E. (2011). Preventing and sanctioning hindrances to the right of individual petition before the European court of human rights. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cameron, I. (2013). The court and the member states : Procedural aspects. In F. Andreas, P. Birgit, & G. Ulfstein (Eds.), Constituting Europe. The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context (pp. 25–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keller, H., & Stone Sweet, A. (2008). A Europe of rights: The impact of the ECHR on national legal systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Zyl Smit D and Dünkel F (2001) Imprisonment today and tomorrow. International Perspectives on Prisoners’ Rights and Prison Conditions. Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Evans, M., & Morgan, R. (2001). Combating torture in Europe: The work and standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of torture. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morgan, R. (2000). Developing prison standards compared. Punishment and Society, 2(3), 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rodley, N., & Pollart, M. (2011). The treatment of prisoners under international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Feeley, M., & Rubin, E. (1998). Judicial policy making and the modern state. How the courts reformed America’s prisons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rubin, E., & Feeley, M. (2003). Judicial policy making and litigation against the government. Journal of Constitutional Law, 5(3), 617–664.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Simon J (2014) Mass incarceration on trial. A Remarkable Court Decision and the Future of Prisons in America. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schlanger, M. (1999). The courts: Beyond the hero judge: Institutional reform litigation as litigation. Michigan Law Review, 97, 1994–2036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Taggart, W. (1989). Predefining the power of the Federal Judiciary: The impact of court-ordered prison reform on state expenditures for corrections. Law and Society Review, 23(2), 241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Snacken S, Dumortier E (2012) Resisting punitiveness in Europe: Welfare, human rights, and democracy. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Herzog-Evans M (1997) Judicial Oversight on Prison Sentences. In: Penal Reform International. Paris: Penal Reform International.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Boyland, R., & Mocan, N. (2014). Intended and unintended consequences of prison reform. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 30, 558–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Guetzkow, J., & Schoon, E. (2015). If you build it, they will fill it: The consequences of prison overcrowding litigation. Law and Society Review, 49(2), 401–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schoenfeld, H. (2010). Mass incarceration and the paradox of prison conditions litigation. Law & Society Review, 44(3), 731–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Abels D (2012) Prisoners of the International Community. The Legal Position of Persons Detained at International Criminal Tribunals. The Hague: Springer Asser-press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    van Zyl Smit, D. (2010). Regulation of prison conditions. Crime and Justice, 39(1), 503–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schlanger, M. (2006). Civil rights injunctions over time: A case study of jail and prison court orders. New York University Law Review, 81, 550–628.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Belbot, B. (1997). Prisoner classification litigation. In M. James & S. Jonathan (Eds.), Correctional contexts, contemporary and classical readings (pp. 272–280). Roxbury: Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chauvenet, A. (2006). Violence et despotisme ordinaire en prison. Déviance et Société, 30(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Crouch, B., & Marquart, J. (1997). Resolving the Paradox of Reform : Litigation, Prisoner Violence, and Perceptions of Risk. In J. Marquart & J. Sorensen (Eds.), Correctional Contexts. Contemporary and Classical Readings (pp. 258–271). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jacobs, J. (1997). The prisoners’ rights movement and its impact. In J. Marquart & J. Sorensen (Eds.), Correctional Contexts. Contemporary and Classical Readings (pp. 231–247). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Harris, K., & Spiller, D. (1977). After decision: Implementation of judicial decrees in correctional settings. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Feeley, M., & Swearingen, V. (2004). The prison conditions cases and the bureaucratization of American corrections: Influences, impacts and implications. Pace Law Review, 24(2), 433–475.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    DiIulio, J. (1990). Courts, corrections, and the constitution: The impact of judicial intervention on prison and jails. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in turmoil. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jacobs, J. (1977). Stateville. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gottschalk, M. (2006). The prison and the gallows. The politics of mass incarceration in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Snacken S (2011) Prisons en Europe. Pour une pénologie critique et humaniste. Bruxelles: Larcier.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cliquennois, G., & Décarpes, P. (2016). The European monitoring of penal policies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cliquennois, G., & Champetier, B. (2013). Towards a new risk management for prisoners in France. The emergence of a death avoidance approach. Theoretical Criminology, 17(3), 297–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cliquennois, G., & Champetier, B. (2016). The economic and political influence exerted by private foundations on cases taken by NGOs to the European court of human rights. European Law Journal, 22(1), 92–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Foucault, M. (2009). Discipline and punish : The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cliquennois, G. (2010). Preventing suicide in French prisons. British Journal of Criminology, 50(6), 1023–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BrusselBelgium

Personalised recommendations