In this contribution the author reviews De aanklager by F. de Vlaming..

The Netherlands pursues an active policy of excluding and prosecuting potential perpetrators of international crimes. In recent years hundreds of people have been excluded from taking part in the asylum procedure. Bringing cases to court, however, has proven to be very difficult in practice. Most excluded persons reside illegally in the Netherlands or elsewhere in Europe. A good overview of the grounds upon which persons have been excluded and with what types of crimes they are associated is currently lacking. The Netherlands – actually the international community as a whole – still struggles with a number of legal and ethical issues. International law, for example, does not provide an adequate solution for some convicted excluded asylum seekers after their release.

During the Second World War, a large number of prisoners were put to work in concentration camps in order to contribute to the development of Germany. As this labour became more important in economic terms during the years 1939 to 1945, the death toll in the camps also rose during the same period. This contribution aims at providing insight into the apparent contradiction (paradox) between the practices of extermination on the one hand and the German economic interests on the other hand. Not only has historiography paid relatively little attention to this phenomenon (it is not a main topic), criminology has also remained remarkably silent during this debate. Looking at the ‘plantation’ in Dachau concentration camp (1937-1945) we develop an exploratory analysis of the subject. Using Vaughan’s organizational criminology, we discuss the paradox and address the question of the extent to which criminology can offer explanations for phenomena of this kind.

This article develops a victimological perspective on international criminal justice, based on a review of the main victimological characteristics of international crimes. These include the complicity or active involvement of government agencies, the large numbers of victims and the peculiar position of international crime victims who, at the time the crimes are committed, are usually not viewed as victims by the perpetrators, but placed outside the moral sphere or even depicted as perpetrators rather than victims.Key elements of this perspective concern the external coherence of the criminal justice reaction - the interlinking of criminal justice with other reparative efforts - as well as its internal coherence - the extent to which the procedures of international criminal justice are aligned with what it realistically can and should achieve. With internal coherence in mind, the article examines the victimological findings relating to the main rights of victims in the criminal procedure (recognition/acknowledgement, information/participation and compensation/reparation) and subsequently analyzes how the specifics of international crimes moderate them.

In this contribution the author reviews Public support for vigilantism by N.E. Haas.

What do we know about the criminological aspects of international crimes? What do they entail and what are facilitating factors which can help us understand their causes and how should we respond to these crimes? Are international crimes merely a more extreme form of ordinary crimes or are they a different kind of criminality? In the past few years a growing number of scholars both at a national and at an international level have devoted their scholarly attention to this important and urgent research theme. In this special issue we aim to present a number of articles in which different perspectives on this topic are presented. By doing so we hope to enhance our knowledge of this phenomenon and to provide an impulse to further criminological research within this area in both the Netherlands and Belgium. This introductory article gives an overview of the state of the art of international crime criminology in the Netherlands and Belgium, and the rest of the world.

During the 1990s the Serbian government entered into a symbiotic relationship with criminals and paramilitary units which led to a normalization of crime and violence. While society usually inhibits people from criminal behavior, in Serbia this process was reversed. Propaganda contained the neutralization techniques that allowed people to condone and even approve of violent and criminal behavior. The reversal of the moral order became part of Serbia’s popular culture in which criminals who had committed many atrocities during the war, like Arkan, were honored. In this way, Arkan served not only a military and strategic purpose but also a political one, by generating support for the war.

In the current literature on child soldiers, many assumptions are made about the use of child soldiers worldwide. The duration of conflicts and thus increasing number of battle related deaths would influence the use of child soldiers. Another assumption is that child soldiers are mainly used in civil wars. In this article, these assumptions are tested empirically and the characteristics of conflicts in which child soldiers are used and conflicts in which they are not used are compared. However, conducting quantitative research on child soldiers is not easy. Many data are obtained through interviews and are based on unconfirmed reports and observations, which raises questions about how the data should be assessed. This study is an explorative study into the possibilities of testing some of the current assumptions.

From its beginning in 2002, the Dutch Journal of Safety Studies (JSS) has wanted to be a platform for Dutch and Belgian academic articles about all facets of safety and security. Furthermore the journal wants to be a platform for multidisciplinary articles in which safety and security issues are studied from different and complementary perspectives or academic fields.This article provides a content analysis of all 129 JSS-articles. The analysis shows that the focus of JSS is on matters of social safety (and less on the more ‘technical’ safety issues) and on the organization of safety (functioning of organizations or networks and/or the effectiveness of measures) and less on safety as such. Over the years, a few changes have taken place. (1) In the field of social safety the focus has shifted somewhat from ‘the organization of safety’ towards safety as such. (2) Although the proportion of articles from Belgium is small (5,4%), it has increased over the years. (3) Authors from Dutch universities of applied sciences have published no more than 4 articles (3,1%), the first one of which appeared in Volume 6. After some years, these authors discovered the JSS as a platform for their work.JSS covers a wide range of subjects in the field of safety and how it can be organized. Although most articles stem from criminology and/or public management, JSS contains articles from different academic fields such as criminology, communication, law, psychology, engineering, public management, medical science, etc. However, in one and the same article one does not often find a combination of really different academic perspectives, such as engineering and psychology or informatics and criminology. If the JSS aims to be a truly multidisciplinary journal, it should contain more articles of this kind over the next ten years.

Internal and external security are traditionally considered to be distinct concepts that allow police organizations and tasks to be differentiated from those of the military. Internal security is then viewed as oriented towards the maintenance of the order within a state and to be exercised against fellow citizens with a limited use of violence. External security deals with the protection of the territory and is exercised against foreign enemies, may include the use of excessive violence. In practice, however, the boundaries between these concepts and between police and military aims and tasks have become blurred. The extension of the security concept, a change in the nature of interventions on foreign territory and a shifting image of the enemy create an overlap between internal and external security issues and actors. This evolution seriously challenges the existing legal and normative frameworks that rely heavily on assumptions based on the distinction between internal and external security.

This contribution focuses on ‘fear of crime’ research. Departing from the classic distinction between crime and victimization as objective threats, on the one hand, and fear of crime as a subjective and emotional interpretation of that threat, on the other hand, the research tradition is confronted with the so-called fear victimization paradox. This paradox emerges from the observation that fear of crime is greater among women and elderly people, while these groups actually are less at risk of becoming a crime victim. It has immersed the research tradition in a dominant debate on the rationality of the fear of crime, with two opposing paradigms: rationalist and symbolic.Whilst both the paradox and the different paradigms in the debate offer a view at the core of fear of crime research, and illustrate how similar empirical observations can lead to differing explanations, and policy implications for that matter, we argue that the fear victimization paradox and the rationality debate surrounding this paradox, has occupied the bulk of research on fear of crime with what is essentially a nonsensical and redundant debate.

This paper deals with the question of how a partly privatized security sector could be regulated. A central aim of this regulation should be the control of security as a public good. Three models of regulation are analyzed. The current practice of this regulation in the Netherlands shows a serious lack of effectiveness. One of our main conclusions is that neither the state nor the private sector is able to enforce this regulation on their own. However, it is assumed that the state should have a central and integrated regulatory role in this field, with more attention paid to the practical implementation of it, with the power and will to sanction private agencies if necessary. In addition managers of private security companies should adopt a role as public managers with a public moral duty. Regulation of security is faced with a double problematic, not only the horizontal fragmentation of the field, but also the vertical fragmentation, often resulting in a serious gap between managers and those in the field, both in the public and the private sector. This implies that the regulation should not only rest on the state and on self-regulation by the sector at management level, but also on the promotion of a practical ethic for security workers to steer and regulate their daily work.

The author provides a discussion of the articles in this issue of the Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid (Journal on Security) on the occasion of its tenth anniversary. He notes that there is an increasing hybridising, subjectification and fragmentation in the security area. The increasing interweaving of security politics seems to apply least to a common approach in ‘social security and physical safety issues’ (crime control and disaster and crisis management), while exactly this was aimed for in so-called integral security politics. According to the author that is the case because of ‘the moral pin’, which plays a dominant role in crime, but not in safety issues. The entanglement of forms of security identified by the author has a normative basis – it comes from the social order of an increasingly complex society. For the future an ever greater responsibilisation can be expected, in which the perception of security becomes even more important than it is now already. Not a big orchestrated security policy, but jazzy structures will then determine the prospects.

Since 2007, an organisation called ‘Slachtoffer in Beeld’ offers victims and juvenile delinquents the opportunity to engage in victim-offender dialogue. Since 2010, it is also possible for adult offenders to engage in victim-offender dialogue. Van Montfoort Advisory evaluated the implementation of victim-offender dialogue in 2010. The article sums up the most relevant conclusions of the evaluation, with a focus on conclusions related to victims. Results related to the internal implementation at ‘Slachtoffer in Beeld’ and the external implemention at organisations who refer to victim-offender dialogue are presented. Numbers of referrals are shown. It is striking to see that most referrals are coming from organisations working with offenders, even though victim-offender dialogue is, given the parlementary history, primarily an offer for victims. In the article reasons are given to explain the difference between the number of referrals from victim oriented organisations and offender oriented organisations. At the end possible effects of victims-offender dialogue on victims are presented.

In the past decades the social intuitionist approach to moral psychology has eclipsed rationalist models. The social intutionist approach considers emotions to be a driving force in moral judgement, while reasoning most often functions as a post hoc rationalisation of the initial emotion. This article argues that the social intutionist approach is also applicable to the choice and preferences victims make and have while navigating the criminal justice system. This is illustrated through two recent evaluations of victims experiences in the Netherlands: an evaluation of the Dutch victim-offender encounters and the oral and written Victim Impact Statements (VIS). It is shown that participation in the former programme is a function of low emotional impact, while participants in the VIS-schemes present with high levels of anxiety and anger, and exhibit signs of possible posttraumatic disorder. The implications of these findings are discussed and framed in terms of the social intuitionist model of moral psychology.