Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Crime of Historical Denialism and International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Memory and Punishment

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 19))

  • 593 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the evolution of historical denialism as a criminal offence and, more specifically, on the migration of the offence from the domestic to the international level. This bottom-up movement culminated with the adoption of the EU Framework Decision, which established a duty to criminalise denialist statements upon member states. The Framework Decision contributes to shaping the criminal offence by, on the one hand, prescribing that it applies not only to Holocaust denial but also to the negation of other international crimes and, on the other hand, by introducing limitations in order to safeguard free speech. This panorama is further enriched by the provisions of the ECHR system and the case law of its Court.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See UN General Assembly, 21 December 1965, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination , UN Doc. A/RES/2106(XX); Articles 19 and 20 of UN General Assembly, 16 September 1966, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc. A/RES/2200(XXI). For an overview on responses at an international level, see Behrens et al. 2017, p. 227 et seq.; Della Morte 2014; Hare and Weinstein 2011, p. 380 et seq.; Cooper Williams 1999, pp. 593–613; on approaches to these statements by international adjudicators, see Oster 2015, p. 230 et seq.

  2. 2.

    UN General Assembly, 10 December 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN. Doc. A/RES/3/217 A.

  3. 3.

    Article 19: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’.

  4. 4.

    UN General Assembly, 16 September 1966, UN. Doc. A/RES/2200(XXI) (above n 1).

  5. 5.

    Article 19: ‘1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice’.

  6. 6.

    See Human Rights Committee , 2 January 1993, Robert Faurisson v. France, Communication No. 550/1993, UN. Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993(1996), which states that not only are legitimate restrictions on freedom of expression provided in order to protect the reputation of others, but that denialist phenomena constitute one of the main vectors of anti-Semitism.

  7. 7.

    UN General Assembly, 21 December 1965, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination , UN Doc. A/RES/2106(XX).

  8. 8.

    Article 4: ‘States Parties […] (a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another color or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof’. This provision is an example of the penalisation impulses originating in international law. In the case of Italy, it is interesting to note that the law implementing the Convention also contains the aggravating circumstance of historical denialism in accordance with the obligations imposed by European law, see Law no. 654 on the Ratification and Execution of the International Convention on the Elimination of Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature in New York on 7 March 1966, 13 October 1975, as last amended by Law no. 115 of 16 June 2016; see Pavich and Bonomi 2014.

  9. 9.

    Robert Faurisson is a Franco-British former academic and one of the most famous Holocaust deniers. In December 1978 and January 1979, Faurisson, at that time professor of Literature at the University of Lyon, published two letters in Le Monde claiming that the gas chambers never existed. Those led first of all to an academic controversy (the so-called ‘ Faurisson case’). The controversy involved also Noam Chomsky (in defence of Faurisson’s freedom of speech) and Pierre Vidal-Naquet (as one of the main opponents). The social pressure against his statements led to the introduction of the crime of denialism in France in 1990. Shortly after that, he was interviewed by the French monthly magazine ‘Le Choc du Mois’. In the interview, he reiterated his personal conviction that there were no homicidal gas chambers for the extermination of Jews in Nazi concentration camps. Following the publication of this interview, eleven associations of French resistance fighters and of deportees to German concentration camps filed a private criminal action against Faurisson, who was found guilty in 1991, in application of the new criminal offence. In 1992, the Court of Appeal of Paris (Eleventh Chamber) upheld the conviction. In his communication to the Human Rights Committee, Faurisson contended that the ‘ Gayssot Act ’ curtailed his right to freedom of expression and academic freedom in general, and considered that the law targeted him personally. Robert Faurisson v. France, Communication No. 550/1993, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993(1996); see Gliszczyńska-Grabias, p. 254 et seq.; Tracol 1997. For a comprehensive study, see Igounet 2012.

  10. 10.

    On the relationship between the position of the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination , see Temperman 2014, pp. 158–161. On the position of the UN Human Rights Committee, see Kučs 2014, pp. 303–308. On the position of the UN CERD as regards Holocaust denial, see Thornberry 2016, pp. 292 and 928.

  11. 11.

    UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 26 September 2013, General Recommendation n. 35 on Combating Racist Hate Speech, UN Doc. CERD/C/GC/35, para 14.

  12. 12.

    See Eden 2014, pp. 171–191; Burz 2013, pp. 205–233; Booysen 1976, p. 56.

  13. 13.

    Human Rights Committee, 12 September 2011, General Comment no. 34 concerning Article 19 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc. CCPR/C/G34, para 49.

  14. 14.

    See UN General Assembly, 1 November 2005, Resolution on the Holocaust Remembrance, UN Doc. A/RES/60/7 and UN General Assembly, 26 January 2007, Resolution on Holocaust Denial, UN Doc. A/RES/61/255. For a more in-depth account, see Della Morte 2014, p. 1181 et seq.

  15. 15.

    Council of the European Union, 15 July 1996, Joint Action of 15 July 1996 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia, 96/443/JHA , in Official Journal of the European Union, L 185/5. Dominic McGoldrick and Therese O’Donnell, ‘Hate-speech laws: consistency with national and international human rights law’ (2006) 18(4) Legal Studies 453–485, 464–465.

  16. 16.

    See Pech 2011, p. 226.

  17. 17.

    Council of the European Union, 26 March 2002, Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia, in Official Journal of the European Communities, COM(2001)/664, C 75 E/269.

  18. 18.

    Council of the European Union, 28 November 2008, Council Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, 2008/913/JHA, in Official Journal of the European Union L 328/55, 6 December 2008.

  19. 19.

    Before the adoption of the EU Framework Decision, the following countries punished denialism in its broader sense: Poland (Article 55 Act on the Institute of National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation), Portugal (Article 240 Criminal Code), Romania (Emergency Ordinance of 13 March 2002), Slovakia (Article 422-d Criminal Code), Spain (Article 607 Criminal Code; now Article 510 Criminal Code).

  20. 20.

    Harmonization of criminal law is achieved by providing room, or margin, to the member States, which in turns allows them to adopt national laws which are not identical but achieve the purposes set by the European normative acts. On the concept of national margin of appreciation , introduced by the ECtHR as a pillar of the European legal system, see Delmas-Marty 2005, pp. 64–74; Delmas-Marty 2006, pp. 96–97 and 273–274; Delmas-Marty 2004. On the margin of appreciation as “outil indispensable” for a global legal order and in order to avoid a relativisme, see Delmas-Marty 2011.

  21. 21.

    See Lobba 2017, pp. 189–210; Cajani 2017; Behrens et al. 2017, p. 227 et seq.; for further references, see Ambos 2017, p. 380, footnote 133; Gorton 2015, pp. 421–445; Lobba 2014, p. 58 et seq.; Turner 2012, pp. 555–583; Yakis 2011, pp. 63–92; Renauld 2010, pp. 119–140; Weiler 2009, p. 77; Knechtle 2008, pp. 41–65; Turner 2012, pp. 555–583; Weiler 2009. See also Ash 2007, and the critical remarks on the FD of the American Historical Association, Statement on the Framework Decision of the Council of the European Union on the Fight against Racism and Xenophobia , in ‘Perspectives’, 45 (8) (2007).

  22. 22.

    Austria (Article 3h National Socialism Prohibition Act of 1947), Belgium (Law tending to repress negation , minimisation, justification or approbation of the genocide committed by the German National-Socialist regime during the Second World War, 23 March 1995), France (Article 24a of the Freedom of the Press Act , 19 July 1881), Germany (Article 130(3) Criminal Code) and Romania (Emergency Ordinance of 13 March 2002).

  23. 23.

    Poland (Article 55 Act on the Institute of National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation, 18 December 1998), Portugal (Article 240 Criminal Code), Slovakia (Article 422-d Criminal Code) and Spain (Article 607(2) Criminal Code).

  24. 24.

    See European Commission, 27 January 2014, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, COM(2014) 27.

  25. 25.

    European enlargement should include the expansion of public knowledge of the past. Western Europeans should accept the legacy of both Nazism and Communism in Europe. For this reason a common European narrative should include both the Holocaust and the communist traumas. With reference to the attention given at the European level to the construction of a European ‘common memory’, see European Parliament, 23 September 2008, Declaration of the European Parliament on the proclamation of 23 August as European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, P6_TA (2008)0439 and European Parliament, 2 April 2009, European Parliament resolution on European conscience and totalitarianism, P6_TA (2009)0213. See also the website of the ‘Platform of European Memory and Conscience’; this is a project established in 2011, which represents a part of a bigger project of the European Union related to the reconciliation of European violent pasts. See Baldissarra 2016; Cajani 2008. Concerning the EU initiatives establishing a duty to criminalise in the name of the protection of his ethical identity, see the remarks of Paliero 2016.

  26. 26.

    Law no. 134(I) on combating against certain forms of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, 21 October 2011, which requires the prior final ruling of an international tribunal.

  27. 27.

    Law no. 4285, 4 September 2014, which requires the prior investigation of crimes by an international court.

  28. 28.

    Article 457-3 Criminal Code, which requires that the crimes be ascertained by a Luxembourg or international court.

  29. 29.

    Article 24a Freedom of the Press Act , 29 July 1881.

  30. 30.

    Cajani 2011, pp. 28–29.

  31. 31.

    Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, 20 April 2016, ‘Renewed commitment in the fight against antisemitism in Europe’, Resolution 2106 (2016); European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, 25 June 2004, ‘The fight against antisemitism’, General Policy Recommendation No. 9 (2004); Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, 31 October 2001, ‘Recommendation Rec (2001)15 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on history teaching in twenty-first-century Europe’.

  32. 32.

    COE, 28 January 2003, Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalization of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, in European Treaty Series no. 189.

  33. 33.

    See Lobba 2015, pp. 237–253.

  34. 34.

    Several ECtHR judgments frame Holocaust denial as an hate speech crime, see ECtHR, Witzsch v. Germany, Judgment, 13 December 2005, Application n. 7485/03; ECtHR, Garaudy v. France, Judgment, 24 June 2003, Application n. 65831/01; ECtHR, Lehideux and Isorni v. France (Grand Chamber), Judgment, 23 September 1998, Application n. 24662/94; ECtHR, Kuhnen v. Federal Republic of Germany, Judgment, 12 May 1988, Application n. 12194/86; ECtHR, Lowes v. United Kingdom , Judgment, 9 December 1988, Application n. 13214/87. ECtHR, Perinçek v. Switzerland (Grand Chamber), Judgment, 15 October 2015, Application n. 27510/08, (see also Chap. 3). See Caruso 2011; Caruso 2017; Gliszczyńska-Grabias 2013; Lobba 2015; Lobba 2016; Buratti 2012, p. 3; Kiska 2012; Bilbao Ubillos 2008, p. 19 et seq.

  35. 35.

    On this provision, see Schabas 2015, pp. 444–482; Grabenwarter 2014, pp. 251–296; Bartole et al. 2012.

  36. 36.

    See ECtHR, Affaire “relative à certains aspects du régime linguistique de l’enseignement en Belgique”, 23 July 1968, para 10 and ECtHR, De Wilde, Ooms e Versyp (‘Vagrancy’) v. Belgium, Judgment , 18 June 1971, Application nn. 2832/66, 2835/66 and 2899/66, para 93; ECtHR, Ireland v. UK, Judgment, 18 January 1978, Application n. 5310/71, para 207. See, for a more in-depth analysis, see Saul 2015, pp. 745–774; Barbosa Delgado 2012; Letsas 2007; Tulkens and Donnay 2006, pp. 3–24; Mathieu-Izorche 2006, p. 25; Greer 2006; Sweeney 2005, pp. 459–474; Delmas-Marty and Mathieu-Izorche 2000, pp. 753–780. Consider also Mireille Delmas-Marty’s key work on this technique within the internationalization of law as a tool which contributes to a pluralistic order (and to a diversity of legal systems) and to a common legal order, Delmas-Marty 2006.

  37. 37.

    On this provision, see Schabas 2015, pp. 611–622; Bartole et al. 2012.

  38. 38.

    Lobba 2015, pp. 240–243.

  39. 39.

    ECtHR, Lowes v. United Kingdom (above n 36). For criticism of the non-application of the clause provided by Article 17, see van Drooghenbroeck 2001, pp. 552–553.

  40. 40.

    ECtHR, Kuhnen v. Federal Republic of Germany (above n 36). See Lobba 2015, p. 240.

  41. 41.

    Which also references clearly established historical facts and the threat to public order. ECtHR, Garaudy v. France (above n 36).

  42. 42.

    In which reference is made not only to denial of the Holocaust but also to other similar and significant circumstances. ECtHR, Witzsch v. Germany, Judgment, 13 December 2005, Application no. 7485/03.

  43. 43.

    Waldron 2012; Cohen-Almagor 2009, pp. 33–42; Knechtle 2006, pp. 539–578.

  44. 44.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.3.

  45. 45.

    Ginzburg 1991, p. 108 et seq.

  46. 46.

    In the sense of securing the memory that is needed, see Rousso 1987, p. 265 et seq.

  47. 47.

    Arendt 1998.

References

  • Ambos K (2017) Derecho penal europeo. Thomson Reuters, Civitas

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt H (1998) The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Ash TG (2007) A blanket ban on Holocaust denial would be a serious mistake. The Guardian

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldissara L (2016) Politiche della memoria e spazio del ricordo in Europa. Il Mulino, Bologna 1:6–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbosa Delgado FR (2012) El margen nacional de apreciación y sus límites en la libertad de expresión: análisis comparado de los sistemas europeo e interamericano de derechos humanos. Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogota

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartole S, De Sena P, Zagrebelsky V (2012) Commentario breve alla Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo. Giuffré, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrens P, Jensen O, Terry N (eds) (2017) Holocaust and Genocide Denial: A Contextual Perspective. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilbao Ubillos JM (2008) La negación del holocausto en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos humanos: la endeble justificación de tipos penales contrarios a la libertad de expression. Revista de Derecho Político (UNED) 71–72:19–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Booysen H (1976) Convention on the Crime of Apartheid. South African Yearbook of International Law 2:56–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Buratti A (2012) L’uso della storia nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo. Rivista telematica giuridica dell’Associazione italiana dei Costituzionalisti 2:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Burz A (2013) Redefining Apartheid in International Criminal Law. Criminal Law Forum 24:205–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Cajani L (2008) Historians between Memory Wars and Criminal Laws: The Case of the European Union. In: Erdmann E et al. (eds) Jahrbuch der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Geschichtsdidaktik, 27–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Cajani L (2011) Criminal Laws on History. The Case of the European Union. Historein. How to deal with tormented pasts 3:19–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Cajani L (2017) La storia nel mirino del diritto penale. The relationship between memory and criminal law. DPCE Online 25, http://www.dpceonline.it/index.php/dpceonline/article/view/91. Accessed 14 September 2017

  • Caruso C (2011) Ai confini dell’abuso del diritto: l’hate speech nella giurisprudenza della Corte Europea dei Diritto dell’Uomo. In: Mezzetti L, Morrone A (eds) Lo strumento costituzionale dell’ordine pubblico europeo. Giappichelli, Turin, pp 339–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruso C (2017) L’hate speech a Strasburgo. Il pluralismo militante del sistema convenzionale. Quaderni costituzionali 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Almagor R (2009) Holocaust Denial is a Form of Hate Speech. Amsterdam Law Forum 2:33–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper J, Williams AM (1999) Hate Speech, Holocaust Denial and International Human Rights Law. European Human Rights Law Review 6:593–613

    Google Scholar 

  • Della Morte G (2014) L’introduzione del reato di negazionismo in Italia. Una prospettiva critica alla luce dell’ordinamento internazionale. Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 3:1181–1203

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M (2004) Le flou du droit. Du code pénal aux droits de l’homme. Puf, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M (2005) Le relative et l’universel. Les forces imaginantes du droit. I. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M (2006) Le pluralisme ordonné. Les forces imaginantes du droit. II. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M (2011) Vers une Communauté de Valeurs. Les Forces Imaginantes du Droit 4. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M, Mathieu-Izorche ML (2000) Marge nationale d’appréciation et internationalisation du droit: réflexions sur la validité formelle d’un droit commun pluraliste. Revue internationale de droit comparé 52:753–780

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden P (2014) The Role of the Rome Statute in the Criminalization of Apartheid. Journal of International Criminal Justice 12:171–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg C (1991) Il giudice e lo storico. Considerazioni a margine del processo Sofri. Einaudi, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliszczyńska-Grabias A (2013) Penalizing Holocaust Denial: A View from Europe. In: Small CA (ed) Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity. Brill-Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorton S (2015) The Uncertain Future of Genocide Denial Laws in the European Union. George Washington International Law 47:421–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabenwarter C (2014) European Convention on Human Rights: Commentary. CH Beck/Hart/Nomos, Helbing Lichtenhahn

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer S (2006) The European Convention on Human Rights. Achievements, Problems and Prospects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare I, Weinstein J (eds) (2011) Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford University Press. Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Igounet V (2012) Robert Faurisson: Portrait d’un négationniste. Denoël, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiska R (2012) Hate Speech: A Comparison between the European Court of Human Rights and the United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence. Regent University Law Review 25:107

    Google Scholar 

  • Knechtle JC (2006) When to Regulate Hate Speech. Pennsylvania State Law Review 110:539–578

    Google Scholar 

  • Knechtle JC (2008) Holocaust Denial and the Concept of Human Dignity in the European Union. Florida State University Law Review 36:41–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Kučs A (2014) Denial of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity in the Jurisprudence of Human Rights Monitoring Bodies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40:301–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Letsas G (2007) A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobba P (2014) Punishing Denialism Beyond Holocaust Denial: EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA and Other Expansive Trends. New Journal of European Criminal Law 5:58–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobba P (2015) Holocaust Denial Before the European Court of Human Rights: Evolution of an Exceptional Regime. European Journal of International Law 26:237–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobba P (2016) Testing the “Uniqueness”: Denial of the Holocaust vs. Denial of Other Crimes Before the European Court of Human Rights. Diritto penale contemporaneo, http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/upload/LOBBA_2016a.pdf. Accessed 13 August 2017

  • Lobba P (2017) From introduction to implementation: First steps of the EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA against racism and xenophobia. In: Behrens P, Terry N, Jensen O (eds) Holocaust and Genocide Denial: A Contextual Perspective. Routledge, London, pp 189–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu-Izorche ML (2006) La marge nationale d’appréciation, enjeu de savoir et de pouvoir, ou jeu de construction? Revue de Sciences Criminelles 1:25–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Oster J (2015) Media Freedom as Fundamental Rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Paliero CE (2016) La laicità penale alla sfida del “secolo delle paure”. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 59:1154–1191

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavich G, Bonomi A (2014) Reati in tema di discriminazione: il punto sull’evoluzione normativa recente, sui principi e valori in gioco, sulle prospettive legislative e sulla possibilità di interpretare in senso conforme a Costituzione la normativa vigente. Diritto penale contemporaneo. Online: https://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/upload/1412690237PAVICH-BONOMI_2014.pdf. Accessed 28 September 2017

  • Pech L (2011) Ruling Denial Prohibition. In: Hennebel L, Hochmann T (eds) Genocide Denials and the Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 183–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Renauld B (2010) La décision-cadre 2008/913/JAI du Conseil de l’Union européenne: du nouveau en matière de lutte contre le racisme? Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 21/81:119–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousso H (1987) Le syndrome de Vichy. Seuil, Paris (tr. The Vichy Syndrome. History and Memory in France since 1944. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts)

    Google Scholar 

  • Saul M (2015) The European Court of Human Rights’ Margin of Appreciation and the Process of National Parliaments. Human Rights Law Review 15:745–774

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (2015) The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney JA (2005) Margins of Appreciation: Cultural relativity and the European Court of Human Rights in the post-Cold War era. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 2:459–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Temperman J (2014) Laws against the Denial of Historical Atrocities: A Human Rights Analysis. Religion and Human Rights 9:151–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornberry P (2016) The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracol X (1997) L’affaire Faurisson devant le Comité des droits de l’homme des Nations-Unies. Légipresse 141 II:57

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulkens F, Donnay L (2006) L’usage de la marge d’appréciation par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Paravent juridique superflu ou mécanisme indispensable par nature? Revue de Sciences Criminelles et de Droit Comparé XXII:3–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner JI (2012) The Expressive Dimension of EU Criminal Law. American Journal of Comparative Law 60:555–583

    Google Scholar 

  • van Drooghenbroeck S (2001) L’article 17 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme est-il indispensable? Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 46:541–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (2012) The Harm in Hate Speech. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler JHH (2009) Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Boundaries: Common Standards and Conflicting Values in the Protection of Human Rights in the European Legal Space. In: Kastoryano R (ed) An Identity for Europe: the Relevance of Multiculturalism in EU Construction. Palgrave, London, pp 73–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Yakis YA (2011) European Union Framework Decision On the Offence of Denying a Crime. Review of Armenian Studies 23:63–92

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Dr. Emanuela Fronza

Authors
  1. Dr. Emanuela Fronza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emanuela Fronza .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fronza, E. (2018). The Crime of Historical Denialism and International Law. In: Memory and Punishment. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 19. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-234-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-234-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-233-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-234-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation