ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURE THROUGH SERBIA’S LEGAL REGULATIONS AND JUDICIAL PRACTICE
Within the codifcation of Crminal law of Republic of Serbia, which was conducted in 2005, legal protection of agriculture was introduced into ecological delicti which were then emphasised by having them unifed in the sole Head of the Criminal code as well as by partially aggravating penal policy. Certain criminal offences, which prior to the codification were a part of a different feld of legal protection, are now listed in the ecological delicti catalogue, and that positions them, according to the number of listed deliciti, on a very high place in comparisson to the other groups of criminal offences. Within the ecological delicti, there is a total of 18 (eighteen) offences,which are divided into 4 (four) groups depending on the object of legal protection. In this paper, besides the introductory conceptual defning the object of research, we described the normative arrangement of all the ecological delicti, within the agricultural protection, by researching their essential elements which include the capital and the qualifed form of execution, perpetrators features, type of responsability and penalty. Empirical research covers the four year period, more precisely the years 2009 -2012, according to the parameters related to the number of adult persons accused for criminal offenses against the environment which are endangering agriculture, or the number of accused and convicted persons, shown globally and individually according to the structure criminal offenses. Furthermore the research includes the penal policy which reffers to the allready stated penalties, that is- jail sentences and their duration, and that also is depicted individually and globaly according to the criminal offences structure.
2. Bošković, M. (1996): Kriminalistička metodika, Policijska akademija, Beograd, Srbija.
3. Eggersz, B., Mackenzie, R. (2001): The Cartagena Protocol on biosafety, Institute of International Economic Law, New Jersey Avenue, Oxford Journals Law & Social Sciences, Washington DC, United States, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 525-543.
4. Fögen, M. T. (1994): “Legislation in Byzantium: A Political and a Bureaucratic Technique”, Law and Society in Byzantium. Dumbarton Oaks. ISBN 0-88402-222- 6.
5. Guadalupe, T. L. (1996): Agricultural Underdogs and International Agremeents: The Legal Context of Agricultural Workers within the Rural Economy, Law Review No. 9, New Mexico, Mexico.
6. Hedemann, R. M. (2000): Defending the Consumer’s Right to a Clean Environment in the Face of Globalisation: The Case of Extraterritorial Environmental Protection Under European Community Law, Journal of Consumer Policy, Volume 23, no. 1, pp- 25-61.7. Ignjatović, Đ. (2007): Kriminologija, Dosije, Beograd, Srbija.
8. Kraus, B., Srzentić, N, Lazarević, Lj., Djordjević, M., Stajić, A. (1991): Komentar krivičnog zakonika Republike Srbije, Savremena administracija, Beograd, Srbija.
9. Lazarević, Lj. (2006): Komentar krivičnog zakonika Republike Srbije, Savremena administracija, Beograd, Srbija.
10.Lazarus, R. J. (2000): Restoring What’s Environmental About Environmental Law in the Supreme Court, Georgetown University Law Center, UCLA Law Review, Georgetown, United States, Vol. 47, No. 3.
11.Lilić, S., Drenovak, M. (2010): Ekološko pravo, Pravni fakultet u Beogradu, Beograd, Srbija.
12. Ming, C. J. (1995): Get Green or Get Out: Decoupling Environmental from Economic Objectives in Agricultural Regulation, Oklahoma Law Review, Michigan State University - College of Law, United States, vol. 48. p. 333.
13. Bilten broj 578,588, Republički zavod za statistiku Republike Srbije, Beograd, Srbija. ISSN 0354-3641.
14. Royal, C. G. (1997): Taking the Principle of Just Compensation Abroad: Private Property Rights, National Sovereignty, and the Cost of Environmental Protection, University of Cincinnati Law Review, Stetson University College of Law, United States, vol. 65, p. 539.
15. Ruhl, B. J.(2009): Thinking of Environmental Law as a Complex Adaptive System: How to Clean Up the Environment by Making a Mess of Environmental Law, Houston Law Review, Law Vanderbilt University - Law School, United States, vol. 34, no. 4.
16. Schoenbaum, T. (1992): Free International Trade and Protection of the Environment: Irreconcilable Conﬂict?, The American Journal of International Law, United States, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 700-727.
17. Tribe, H. L. (1974): Ways Not to Think about Plastic Trees: New Foundations for Environmental Law, The Yale Law Journal, United States, vol. 83, no. 7, pp. 1315- 1348.
18. Torres, G., Kan, L. (1985): Wetlands and Agriculture: Environmental Regulation and the Limits of Private Property, Law. Review, United States, no. 34, p. 539.
19.Čavoški, A. (2011): Analiza prikupljene statistike o postupanju tužilaštva u oblasti životne sredine. Priručnik za zaštitu životne sredine, Udruženje javnih tužilaca I zamenika javnih tužilaca, Beograd, Srbija.
20. Winter, G.(2008): Nature Protection and the Introduction into the Environment of Genetically Modifed Organisms: Risk Analysis in EC Multilevel Governance, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 205-220.
21.Vujaklija, M. (1980): Leksikon stranih reči i izraza, Prosveta, Beograd, Srbija.
Legislation and websites:
1. Krivični zakonik Republike Srbije, “Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije“, br. 85/2005 and 111/2009.
2. Uredba o proglašenju i zaštiti strogo zaštićenih i zaštićenih divljih vrsta biljaka, životinja i gljiva, “Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije“, No. 5/2010.