Ausgangspunkt der englischsprachigen Arbeit ist die Überlegung, dass die Strafverfolgungspflicht jedes Polizeibeamten im Dienst und die Betonung strafrechtlicher sowie disziplinarrechtlicher Verantwortlichkeit die Fehlerkultur der Polizei hemmen. ‚Restorative justice‘, ein Ansatz der, der weniger auf die klassische Strafverfolgung, sondern auf Wiedergutmachung und künftige Vermeidung von Verletzungen individueller Rechte setzt, könnte einen entsprechenden Ausweg bieten. Vor diesem Hintergrund untersucht der Autor, ob der österreichische Menschenrechtsbeirat (MRB) eine solche Alternative bzw. Ergänzung zum bestehenden System der polizeiinternen Ermittlungen und disziplinarrechtlichen Verfolgung bietet. Der österreichische MRB war ein am österreichischen Innenministerium angegliedertes Gremium und paritätisch mit Mitgliedern aus der Exekutive und von Menschenrechtsorganisationen besetzt. Durch Besuche der Polizei vor Ort, der Beobachtungen von Einsätzen und konzeptionelle Arbeit beriet das Gremium das Innenministerium und veröffentlicht entsprechende Empfehlungen. Dabei fokussierte der MRB nicht auf das individuelle Fehlverhalten, sondern legte seinen Schwerpunkt darauf zu untersuchen, an welcher Stelle das System versagt hat. In der vorliegenden Masterarbeit werden deshalb die Empfehlungen und Veröffentlichungen des MRB mittels einer qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse unter dem Blickwinkel von ‚restorative justice‘-Elementen analysiert, mit dem Ergebnis, dass der MRB diese Prinzipien überwiegend verwirklicht. Durch seine besondere Konstellation und Vorgehensweise bewirkte der MRB unter anderem Gesetzesänderungen, Änderungen polizeiinterner Regelungen und Abläufe, außerdem konnte der MRB die Fehlerkultur und Kritikfähigkeit der Polizei positiv beeinflussen. Darüber hinaus wurde durch die Arbeit des MRB ein Paradigmenwechsel im Selbstverständnis der Polizei weg von der klassischen Eingriffsorganisation hin zum Verständnis einer Menschenrechtsorganisation unter dem Slogan „Polizei.Macht.Menschen.Rechte“ angestoßen.
Das Fazit der Arbeit: Menschen machen Fehler und auch Polizisten machen Fehler. Ein professioneller, also konstruktiv-kritischer Umgang mit diesen Fehlern ist in einem demokratischen Rechtsstaat eine grundlegende Herausforderung für Organisationen zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und insbesondere der Polizei.
Anhänge I-III (Originalquellencodierung) nicht im Lieferumfang enthalten!
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. A theory of restorative justice
2.1 What is restorative justice?
2.2 What are restorative principles?
2.3 Research Question
2.4 State of research
2.5 Additional principles in the context of examining an organization
3. The Austrian Human Rights Advisory Board
3.1 The formation and status quo
3.2 Legal basis, Assignment, Authorities
3.3 Structure
3.4 First view on the outcome: studies by the MRB
4. Methodology and Process of the Research
4.1 Preparation
4.1.1 Method, Sample, Analyzers
4.1.2 Roles
4.1.3 Construction of categories
4.2 Examination and Processing
4.3 Quality criteria
5. Research results
5.1 Analysis of the categories
I. Process categories (category I)
II. Premise categories (category II)
III. Output categories (category III)
5.2 Analysis of the recommendations
5.3 Analysis of the observation of large-scale operations
6. Final discussion
6.1 The Austrian human rights advisory board – a restorative system?
6.1.1 Discussion of categories
6.1.2 Role of the MRB
6.1.3 Difference between classical restorative systems and the MRB
6.1.4 Conclusion: MRB as a restorative system
6.2 Practical implications and limitations
6.2.1 Discussion of the results
6.2.2 Discussion of the process
6.2.3 Discussion of the practical meaning of restorative principles
6.3 Future research
7. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this thesis is to examine whether the former Austrian Human Rights Advisory Board (Menschenrechtsbeirat, MRB) functioned as a restorative system. The research addresses the problem of dealing with misuse of police powers, where traditional criminal or disciplinary prosecution often hinders honest reflection due to the threat of severe sanctions. The study analyzes how the MRB applied restorative justice principles to oversee police authorities and foster professionalism in human rights implementation, aiming to determine if this model offers a constructive solution to systemic error management within police forces.
- Theoretical foundation of restorative justice and its application in organizational contexts.
- Assessment of the MRB’s structure, legal mandate, and practical working methods (inspections and recommendations).
- Qualitative content analysis of annual reports using theory-led categories (Process, Premise, Output).
- Evaluation of the MRB’s effectiveness in fostering human rights compliance compared to classical restorative justice models.
- Identification of practical implications and potential for transferring this model to other jurisdictions.
Excerpt from the Book
1. INTRODUCTION
Human dignity is inviolable and it is the obligation of all state authorities to respect and protect it. This first principle of the German constitution is pointing out Germany’s commitment to the origins of human rights. Therefore, it is a special obligation of the police force as a part of the executive authority. Every day police officers try to establish public and individual safety and in doing this, they interfere with some individual’s human rights. That is why the first article of the constitution needs to be the premise of all police actions.
Amnesty International emphasizes this expectation even more, as they refer to the police as the largest human rights organization. However, some doubts have emerged about a universal internalization of this understanding among all police forces. For example, Amnesty International reports several severe infringements of human rights. They question if German authorities protect human rights in the manner required by international law. The media often presents the same point of view.
Kersten emphasizes a very important aspect regarding the misuse of police powers: the need for a functional and constructive culture of dealing with errors. He identifies a key factor that may explain why the existing process of dealing with errors might not work effectively. Kersten suggests police officers do not report or even cover for their fellow police officers because of the grave disciplinary and penal consequences. As the principle of the mandatory prosecution of offenses forces the police to initiate criminal investigations in Germany, as well as in Austria, there is no process for handling reports of misuse of police powers within the authorities themselves in an informal way, when there is the slightest suspicion of a violation of a penal code. A restorative justice approach could offer a solution to this conflict area, a solution that Austria might already have.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the central challenge of managing police misconduct within the context of human rights and introduces the research potential of the Austrian Human Rights Advisory Board.
2. A theory of restorative justice: Establishes the conceptual framework, defining restorative justice beyond criminal law and outlining principles by Zehr, van Ness, and McCold/Wachtel.
3. The Austrian Human Rights Advisory Board: Details the historical origins, structure, legal basis, and the operational outcomes of the MRB as a control mechanism.
4. Methodology and Process of the Research: Describes the qualitative content analysis approach used to evaluate the MRB’s annual reports and large-scale operation observations.
5. Research results: Presents empirical findings regarding the MRB’s processes, premises, and output categories based on the developed assessment scale.
6. Final discussion: Evaluates the MRB against restorative criteria, discusses practical implications for police culture, and highlights areas for future research.
7. Conclusion: Summarizes the thesis, confirming that the MRB functioned as an effective restorative mechanism for organizational learning and human rights protection.
Keywords
Restorative Justice, Austrian Human Rights Advisory Board (MRB), Police Accountability, Human Rights, Police Misconduct, Organizational Learning, Content Analysis, Supervision of Authorities, Human Dignity, Qualitative Research, Restorative Principles, Victim Participation, Institutional Oversight, Error Management.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this thesis?
The work investigates the Austrian Human Rights Advisory Board (MRB) to determine if its institutional role and working methods align with the principles of restorative justice, specifically regarding the supervision of police authorities.
What are the primary themes addressed?
Key themes include the theory of restorative justice in an organizational setting, the structural and legal framework of the MRB, and an empirical analysis of how this board handled police misconduct and fostered human rights compliance.
What is the main research question?
The central question is whether the MRB can be considered a restorative justice system and what practical implications this model holds for improving the behavior of police authorities regarding human rights.
Which methodology is employed?
The author uses a qualitative content analysis approach, applying theory-led categories to twelve years of the MRB's annual reports and observations of large-scale police operations.
What does the main body cover?
It covers the theoretical basis of restorative justice, a detailed examination of the MRB’s formation and operations, a rigorous qualitative analysis of categories like process and output, and a critical discussion of the results.
How can the work be characterized by its keywords?
The work is characterized by terms such as Restorative Justice, Police Accountability, Human Rights, and Organizational Learning, highlighting the intersection of legal oversight and constructive organizational culture.
Why is the MRB's role described as manifold?
The MRB functions as an observer, mediator, researcher, and advisor simultaneously, depending on the specific situation or case it is handling, which complicates a singular classification but demonstrates its high flexibility.
How does the MRB differ from classical restorative justice?
Unlike classical models that focus on responding to specific, existing harm, the MRB’s scope is broader, focusing on identifying structural systemic risks and preventing future infringements before a formal victim-offender conflict even escalates.
- Quote paper
- Bernd Bürger (Author), 2013, The Austrian Human Rights Advisory Board, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/303297
