1. See M.N. Morosin, “Double Jeopardy and International Law: Obstacles to Formulating a General Principle”, 64 Nordic Journal of International Law 261 (1995); Alex Bailin, “Double jeopardy”, in Marisa Leaf (ed.), Cross-Border Crime. Defence rights in a new era of international judicial co-operation, (London: Justice, 2006), at 116. But see Sure Log, “The Practical Applications of Ne Bis in Idem in International Criminal Law”, in International Crime and Punishment. Selected Issues, Volume 2, Sienho Yee (ed.) (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc., 2004), at 169–170 (describing ne bis in idem as a ‘fundamental principle of international law’ and ‘a universally recognised human right’).
2. See, e.g., Nyssa Taylor, “England and Australia Relax the Double Jeopardy Privilege for Those Convicted of Serious Crimes”, 19 Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 189 (2005). The cases that prompted the changes in legislation include the following: Dunlop, United Kingdom [2001] 2 Cr App R para. 8 (involving the ‘discharge’ of a person accused of murder who later admitted to having committed the crime); Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (1999), Cm. 4262-I, paras. 1.2–1.3 (involving the discharge of suspects in a murder case after police failed to diligently investigate); R. v. Carroll, Australia, 213 CLR 653 (in which the High Court of Australia dismissed the defendant’s perjury conviction because the Court of Criminal Appeal had previously acquitted him of murder despite ‘new’ evidence of his guilt).
3. See, e.g., Alexander Poels, “A Need for Transnational Non Bis In Idem Protection in International Human Rights Law”, 23(3) Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 329 (2005); Dax Eric Lopez, “Not Twice for the Same: How the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine is Used to Circumvent Non Bis In Idem”, 33 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1263 (2000).
4. Convention of 19 June 1990, applying the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic, on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at their Common Borders 30 ILM 84 (1991) (hereafter, Schengen Convention).
5. See José Luis De La Cuesta, "Concurrent National and International Criminal Jurisdiction and the Principle 'Ne Bis In Idem' General Report", 73 International Review of Penal Law (2002) (discussing a large number of State reports on national implementation of ne bis in idem). Many States include the rule in their constitutions. See, e.g., Art. 39 Japanese Constitution