The development of international policy in relation to victims of crime
| Author | Marc Groenhuijsen |
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758013511740 |
| Published date | 01 January 2014 |
| Date | 01 January 2014 |
Article
The development of
international policy in
relation to victims of crime
Marc Groenhuijsen
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Abstract
This article addresses the development of international policy in relation to victims of crime. It
starts with an outline of the 1985 United Nations (UN) Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for
Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. It demonstrates that compliance by Member States with the
provisions of the Declaration is still unsatisfactory, despite serious efforts by the UN to promote
its standards and norms. A similar trend is described on a regional level in Europe. In 2001, the
European Union adopted a Framework Decision (a legally binding instrument) on minimum rights
for crime victims in the criminal justice system. Evaluations undertaken in 2004 and 2009 have
proved that none of the Member States fully complied with its content. In the article it is argued
that a lack of compliance is usually followed by the adoption of an even stronger legal instrument,
containing even more ambitious rights for victims of crime. It is questioned whether this is the
most productive approach. It is doubted that ‘hard law’ is always more effective than ‘soft law’. The
most recent generation of more elevated rights run the risk of leading to ‘victim fatigue’ on the part
of the officials responsible for the operation of the criminal justice system.
Keywords
International victims’ policy, United Nations Declaration, rights for victims of crime
Introduction
Those were the days. During the early 1980s some pioneers in victimology and victim advocacy
took the initiative to get the United Nations (UN) involved in crime victims’ issues. What followed
was a remarkable success story. The victim advocates conducted a well-orchestrated and executed
campaign and were able to convince national policy makers and legislators that it was time for
change. They aimed primarily at reform of the criminal justice system on behalf of victims of
Corresponding author:
Marc Groenhuijsen, Director, INTERVICT, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Email: M.S.Groenhuijsen@tilburguniversity.edu
International Review of Victimology
2014, Vol 20(1) 31–48
ªThe Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0269758013511740
irv.sagepub.com
31
crime. Within a remarkably limited number of years they had gained massive support for their
ideas to enable the General Assembly of the UN to adopt – unanimously – the UN Declaration
of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power.
1
Of course, the UN Declaration reflected the spirit of the time. It is no coincidence that during the
same year, 1985, the Council of Europe – a supranational organization primarily established to pro-
mote human rights – adopted Recommendation no. R(85)11 on the Position of the Victim in the
Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure.
2
The content of both international protocols shows
considerable overlap. This is not the appropriate place for an extensive account of the political
and social conditions that were conducive to these legal novelties. Suffice it to say that the so-
called women’s movement played an important role; some particularly invasive terrorist attacks
inspired some countries to take steps inthe direction of protecting victims; and a general trend of
more individualism in society – with citizens insistingon more personal rights – contributedto gov-
ernment officials being more receptive to the newly proposed reforms. With hindsight one could
even maintain that the phenomenon of globalization-avant-la-lettre was a perfect match for the new
vision of what the legal position of crime victims should look like (Letschert and van Dijk, 2011).
On one hand the UN Declaration was an immensely important breakthrough, while on the other
it was only one of the first examples of international rule making in our area of concern. The UN
Declaration is often referred to as the Magna Carta’ of victims’ rights. This supreme expression of
acclaim is justified in a number of ways. Firstly, the Declaration served as an example for different
regional political entities to emulate this approach. Subsequently, some domestic legislators chan-
ged their system, directly appealing to the standards set by the Declaration.
3
In a way, that was only
a start. Later on, UN initiatives were taken with an eye to particularly vulnerable categories of vic-
tims. This led to a debate whether – or in what situations – stronger legal instruments were needed,
such as a Convention. In other areas it was not specific groups of victims that were targeted, but
specific topics were addressed. State compensation is a case in point. During the same period of
time more attention was paid to instances of mass victimization, often resulting from armed con-
flicts between countries or from violent internal struggles within national boundaries. The most
prominent examples of responses to this kind of suffering were the establishment of International
ad hoc Criminal Tribunals (ICTY and ICTR)
4
and later on the International Criminal Court (ICC).
These developments led to a series of new questions, which can only be examined by academic
research in the area of victimology. Quickly it became clear that proclaiming international stan-
dards governing the position of victims in criminal law and procedure does not automatically
change the reality of the situation of the people involved. The issue of compliance was raised.
Under what conditions can international protocols be effective? Does the status of the legal instru-
ment make a real difference? Is so-called ‘hard law’ by definition more beneficial for crime victims
than ‘soft law’? Why have many nation States so readily agreed to new demands by the interna-
tional community, when it is obvious from the start that they will not be able to fully comply with
them? How is it feasible to deal with the right to participation and the right to compensation in
situations where thousands of people have been victimized? And what should the future role of
traditional criminal justice systems be in this respect? Are new (or revised ancient) practices such
as mediation and restorative justice to be preferred as a new and alternative paradigm of adminis-
tering criminal justice?
These are the questions that will be addressed in the present contribution. It goes without saying
that not every item can be dealt with in depth. That would require a new handbook in victimology.
Yet it appears that it is possible to briefly touch on these topics in a useful, systematic way. The
main purpose of the present contribution is to make clear that we – the victimological community –
32 International Review of Victimology 20(1)
32
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations