What the study found
The study finds that domestic legislatures in the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden translate the international crime label of outrages upon personal dignity in divergent ways, combining international references with local differences. It also finds that domestic courts converge in extending protected-person status to deceased persons, and that severity increasingly serves as the main limiting criterion but is applied inconsistently.
Why the authors say this matters
The authors suggest that local interpretative divergence may be justified, but they conclude that the expressive force of the label may be diluted when outrages upon personal dignity are stretched beyond the level of severity they were intended to convey.
What the researchers tested
The article uses a comparative analysis of legislation and judicial practice in the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. It also uses a semiotic reading of the principle of fair labeling, examining how domestic courts engage with partially aligned national provisions by selectively relying on international sources.
What worked and what didn't
Legislative translation worked differently across the three countries: domestic provisions showed varying degrees of semiotic alignment with international humanitarian law and international criminal law. Judicial interpretation showed one clear convergence, with courts extending protected-person status to deceased persons, but the severity criterion did not operate consistently.
What to keep in mind
The abstract describes the study's scope as three countries and one war crime label, so the findings are limited to that comparison. It also notes that customary international law provides an uncertain basis for including deceased persons, and it does not describe additional limitations beyond the scope of the analysis.
Key points
- The study compares how the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity is translated into domestic law in the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden.
- Domestic legislatures use different combinations of international references and local legal features.
- Domestic courts converge in treating deceased persons as protected persons, even though the basis in customary international law is described as uncertain.
- Severity is described as the main limiting criterion, but the abstract says it is applied inconsistently.
- The authors say the label's expressive force may be diluted if the offense is stretched beyond its intended severity.
Disclosure
- Research title:
- Domestic courts vary in translating international crime labels
- Publication date:
- 2026-03-11
- OpenAlex record:
- View
Get the weekly research newsletter
Stay current with peer-reviewed research without reading academic papers — one filtered digest, every Friday.