Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The New Faces of Victimhood pp 191–213Cite as

International (Cyber)Stalking: Impediments to Investigation and Prosecution

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in Global Justice ((JUST,volume 8))

Abstract

The investigation and prosecution of international (cyber)stalking suffers from impediments that are absent when national and/or offline stalking is concerned. This contribution aims to enumerate some of the most pressing issues and to look for possible solutions. To this end, stalking legislation in the United States will be compared to that of the European Member States; issues of jurisdiction, extradition and international legal assistance will be touched upon; and the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime will be analyzed to see if it can serve a purpose in the combat against international (cyber)stalking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Groenen, A. (2006). Stalking. Risicofactoren voor fysiek geweld, Antwerpen, Maklu, p. 16.

  2. 2.

    This example is derived from a victim questionnaire that was carried out by the author within the scope of her PhD thesis, Van der Aa, S. (2010). Stalking in the Netherlands, Nature and Prevalence of the Problem and the Effectiveness of Anti-Stalking Measures, Maklu, Antwerp/Belgium.

  3. 3.

    Bocij, P. (2003). ‘Victims of Cyberstalking: An Exploratory Study of Harassment Perpetrated via the Internet’, First Monday, 8, 10. Available at: http://www.firstmonday.org. In 2004, Bocij proposed the following, more specific definition: “A group of behaviors in which an individual, group of individuals, or organization uses information and communications technology to harass another individual, groups of individuals, or organization. Such behaviors may include, but are not limited to, the transmission of threats and false accusations, identify theft, data theft, damage to data or equipment, computer monitoring, solicitation of minors for sexual purposes, and any form of aggression. Harassment is defined as a course of action that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would think causes another reasonable person to suffer emotional distress”. A cyberstalking case is furthermore: “[…] one in which the stalker begins to harass the victim via ICT and/or in which most of the harassment is based on the use of ICT.” See Bocij, P. (2004). Cyberstalking: Harassment in the Internet Age and How to Protect Your Family, Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, p. 15.

  4. 4.

    This example can be found at http://www.wiredsafety.org.

  5. 5.

    Tjaden, P. (2007). ‘Stalking in America: Laws, Research, and Recommendations’, in: Davis, R.C., Lurigio, A.J., & Herman, S. (eds.), Victims of Crime, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA, p. 85.

  6. 6.

    For an overview of the thirteen studies and an estimate of the Dutch prevalence of stalking see: Aa, van der S. & Kunst, M. (2009). ‘Prevalence of stalking in the Netherlands’, International Review of Victimology, 16, 4, 35–50.

  7. 7.

    See Spitzberg, B.H. & Cupach, W.R. (2007). ‘The State of the Art of Stalking: Taking Stock of the Emerging Literature’, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 64–86.

  8. 8.

    For example: Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, M.E. (2002). ‘The Prevalence and Nature of Stalking in the Australian Community’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 1, 114–120; Morris, S., Anderson, S., & Murray, L. (2002). Stalking and Harassment in Scotland, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive Social Research. Budd, T. & Mattinson, J. (2000). The Extent and Nature of Stalking: Findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey, London, Home Office.

  9. 9.

    For example: Blaauw, E., Sheridan, L., & Winkel, F.W., (2002). ‘Designing Anti-stalking Legislation on the Basis of Victims’ Experiences and Psychopathology’, Psychiatry Psychology and Law, 2, 136–145.

  10. 10.

    Tjaden & Thoennes (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, Washington, DC, National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., According to that study 11% of the female stalking victims had relocated because of the harassment.

  12. 12.

    McFarlane, J.M., Campbell, J.C., Wilt, S. Sachs, C.J., Ulrich, Y., & Xu, X. (1999). ‘Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide’, Homicide Studies, 3, 4, 300–316.

  13. 13.

    Bocij, P. (2004). Cyberstalking: Harassment in the Internet Age and How to Protect Your Family, Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, p. 12.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., p. 47.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    See World Internet Usage and Population Statistics, Januari 2009: http://www.internetworldstats.com.

  17. 17.

    US Department of Justice (2001). Stalking and Domestic Violence: Report to Congress Under the Violence Against Women Act, Washington, DC, National Institute of Justice, p. 7.

  18. 18.

    Bocij, P. (2003). ‘Victims of Cyberstalking: An Exploratory Study of Harassment Perpetrated via the Internet’, First Monday, 8, 10. Available at: http://www.firstmonday.org.

  19. 19.

    Bocij, P. (2004). Cyberstalking: Harassment in the Internet Age and How to Protect Your Family, Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, p. XII of the Introduction: The US Attorney General also reports that the lack of physical contact may create the misconception that cyberstalking is less serious than offline stalking (US Department of Justice 1999, Cyberstalking. A new challenge for law enforcement and industry, Washington, DC.

  20. 20.

    Bocij sent a questionnaire to 169 respondents who were selected by snowball sampling via e-mail. Of this sample only one-third had suffered from actual cyberstalking experiences. The design of the study will have a bearing on the possibility of generalization of the findings, a fact that the author himself generously admits. See Bocij, P. (2003). ‘Victims of Cyberstalking: An Exploratory Study of Harassment Perpetrated via the Internet’, First Monday, 8, 10. Available at: http://www.firstmonday.org.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    Roberts, A.R. & Green, D. (2007). ‘Crisis Intervention with Victims of Violent Crimes’, in: Davis, R.C. Lurigio, A.J., & Herman, S. (eds.), Victims of Crime, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA, p. 256.

  23. 23.

    Bocij, P. (2004). Cyberstalking: Harassment in the Internet Age and How to Protect Your Family, Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, p. XII of the Introduction: The US Attorney General also reports that the lack of physical contact may create the misconception that cyberstalking is less serious than offline stalking (US Department of Justice 1999, Cyberstalking. A new challenge for law enforcement and industry, Washington, DC p. 172).

  24. 24.

    National Criminal Justice Association (1993). Project to Develop a Model Anti-Stalking Code for States, Washington, DC, US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

  25. 25.

    US Department of Justice (2002). Strengthening Antistalking Statutes, OVC Legal Series Bulletin, 1.

  26. 26.

    US Department of Justice (2001). Stalking and Domestic Violence: Report to Congress Under the Violence Against Women Act, Washington, DC, National Institute of Justice, p. 12.

  27. 27.

    18 U.S.C. § 2261A.

  28. 28.

    http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factsh1/factsh1.html.

  29. 29.

    National Center for Victims of Crime (2007). The Model Stalking Code Revisited: Responding to the New Realities of Stalking, Washington, DC, National Center for Victims of Crime, p. 11. (18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2) (B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2) (A)).

  30. 30.

    US Department of Justice (2002). Strengthening Antistalking Statutes, OVC Legal Series Bulletin, 1. This is in conformity with Section 8.2 of the Model Anti-Stalking Code.

  31. 31.

    For more information on the division between ‘specific intent crimes’ and ‘general intent crimes’ see: National Center for Victims of Crime (2007). The Model Stalking Code Revisited: Responding to the New Realities of Stalking, Washington, DC, National Center for Victims of Crime, pp. 32–33. For that matter, the new Model Stalking Code as drafted by the National Center for Victims of Crime prefers ‘general intent’ over ‘specific intent’ just as the 1993 Model Anti-Stalking Code.

  32. 32.

    US Department of Justice (2002). Strengthening Antistalking Statutes, OVC Legal Series Bulletin, 1.

  33. 33.

    Modena Group on Stalking (2007). Protecting Women from the New Crime of Stalking: A Comparison of Legislative Approaches Within the European Union. Final report, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia for the European Commission, p. 79.

  34. 34.

    Actually, with the recent Italian, Czech, Hungarian and Luxembourg criminalization there are now 12 countries that have enacted specific anti-stalking legislation.

  35. 35.

    The countries that felt the need to pass anti-stalking legislation were Italy, Portugal, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Cyprus and Luxembourg. The countries that did not feel this necessity were Estonia, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Spain and Slovenia. See Modena Group on Stalking (2007). Protecting Women from the New Crime of Stalking: A Comparison of Legislative Approaches Within the European Union. Final report, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia for the European Commission, p. 12.

  36. 36.

    36The respective provisions on stalking can be found in Section 107a Austrian Penal Code (‘Beharrliche Verfolgung’); Article 460ter Belgian Penal Code (‘belaging’); Section 264 Danish Penal Code (‘forfølgelse’); Paragraph 238 German Penal Code (‘beharrlicher Nachstellungen’); Section 10(1) Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 (Ireland); Article 251a and 251b Maltese Penal Code (‘fastidju’); Article 285b Dutch Penal Code (‘belaging’); and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (UK).

  37. 37.

    In fact, the courts have decided that ‘repetitiveness’ is also a requirement in Belgium (De Hert, P., Millen, & Groenen (2008). ‘Het delict belaging in wetgeving en rechtspraak. Bijna tot redelijke properties gebracht’, Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, 9, 3–9.

  38. 38.

    Modena Group on Stalking (2007). Protecting Women from the New Crime of Stalking: A Comparison of Legislative Approaches Within the European Union. Final report, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia for the European Commission, p. 69.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., p. 70.

  40. 40.

    National Center for Victims of Crime (2007). The Model Stalking Code Revisited: Responding to the New Realities of Stalking, Washington, DC, National Center for Victims of Crime, p. 48.

  41. 41.

    For example, Bruynooghe, R., Vandenberk, M.A., Verhaegen, L., Colemont, A., & Hens, I. (2003). Geweld in het Meervoud: Een kwalitatieve benadering van de betekenissen rond geweldvormen in België, Diepenbeek/Louvain-la-Neuve, SEIN; Groenen, A. (2006). Stalking: Risicofactoren voor fysiek geweld, Antwerpen/Apeldoorn, Maklu.

  42. 42.

    This estimation was expressed during a personal conversation of the author with Mrs Marie-Louise Janssen-Brouwer, the former research director of the organization. Some of the victims that had filled out the questionnaire as referred to in note 4 confirmed that they had been sent away without having a registration taken down.

  43. 43.

    For example, Finch E. (2001). The Criminalisation of Stalking: Constructing the problem and evaluating the solution, London, Cavendish. Morris, Anderson, & Murray, Stalking and Harassment in Scotland, and Spitzberg, B.H. (2002). ‘The Tactical Topography of Stalking Victimization and Management’, Trauma Violence and Abuse, 2, 261–288.

  44. 44.

    Tjaden & Thoennes (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, Washingon, DC, National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  45. 45.

    Finch E. (2001). The criminalisation of stalking: Constructing the problem and evaluating the solution, London, Cavendish.

  46. 46.

    For instance: Attinello, K.L. (1993). ‘Anti-Stalking Legislation: A Comparison of Traditional Remedies Available for Victims of Harassment versus California Penal Code Section 646.9 (California Anti-Stalking Law)’ Pacific Law Journal, 24, 4, 1945–1980; Groenen, A. (2006). Stalking: Risicofactoren voor fysiek geweld; Malsch, M. (2004). De Wet Belaging: Totstandkoming en toepassing, Nijmegen, Ars Aequi Libri.

  47. 47.

    Bettermann, in: Hoffmann, J. (2003). ‘Stalking: Polizeiliche Prävention und Krisenmanagement’, Kriminalistik, 12, 726–731.

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    Rupp, M. (2005). Rechtstatsächliche Untersuchung zum Gewaltschutzgesetz: Zusammenfassung: Ein Überblick über die Ergebnisse allerTeilstudie, retrieved 9 May 2008, from Bundesministerium der Justiz. Available at: http://www.bmj.bund.de.

  50. 50.

    Morris, Anderson and Murray, Stalking and harassment in Scotland and Spitzberg, B.H. (2002). ‘The Tactical Topography of Stalking Victimization and Management’, Trauma Violence and Abuse, 2, 261–288.

  51. 51.

    National Center for Victims of Crime (2007). The Model Stalking Code Revisited: Responding to the New Realities of Stalking, Washington, DC, National Center for Victims of Crime, p. 17.

  52. 52.

    Koops, B. J. & Brenner, S.W. (2006). ‘Cybercrime Jurisdiction – An introduction’, in: Koops, B.-J. & Brenner, S.W. (Eds.). Cybercrime and Jurisdiction: A Global Survey, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 6. Technically, it is incorrect to refer to these cases as negative jurisdictional conflicts, since the conflict does not derive from a lack of jurisdiction.

  53. 53.

    A positive jurisdictional conflict is “(…) a situation in which more than one country claims jurisdiction over a perpetrator based on the same general course of conduct.” (Brenner, S.W. (2006). “The Next Step: Prioritizing jurisdiction,” in: Koops & Brenner (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 328).

  54. 54.

    Cox, N. (2006). ‘Cybercrime and Jurisdiction in New Zealand’, in: Koops & Brenner (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, pp. 289–290.

  55. 55.

    Koops, B.J. & Brenner, S.W. (2006). ‘Cybercrime jurisdiction – An introduction’, in: Koops & Brenner (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, pp. 4–5.

  56. 56.

    Ibid.

  57. 57.

    Zúñiga & Londoño (2006).‘Cybercrime and Jurisdiction in Chile’, in: Koops & Brenner (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 152.

  58. 58.

    Brenner, S.W. (2006). ‘The Next Step: Prioritizing jurisdiction’, in: Koops & Brenner (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 330.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., pp. 333–334.

  60. 60.

    Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, Budapest, 23 November 2001, ETS No 185, into force 1 July 2004, Article 22(5).

  61. 61.

    Koops, B. J. & Brenner, S.W. (2006). ‘Cybercrime jurisdiction – An introduction’, in: Koops & Brenner (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction: A Global Survey, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 2.

  62. 62.

    In order not to complicate matters further the possibility that offender and victim are continuously travelling or relocating around the world is not considered. Neither is the possibility that a group of stalkers from different countries harasses only one single victim, as might be the case with so-called “solicited stalking” or “stalking by proxy”, in which one person instigates other people to harass a victim, e.g., by placing an appeal on a weblog or an internet forum.

  63. 63.

    Koops, B.J. & Brenner, S.W. (2006). ‘Cybercrime jurisdiction – An introduction’, in: Koops & Brenner (eds.). Cybercrime and Jurisdiction: A Global Survey, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 5.

  64. 64.

    For example, Article 12 European Convention on Extradition, Paris, 13 December 1957, in force 18 April 1960, ETS 24.

  65. 65.

    Glerum, V.H. & Rozemond, N. (2008). ‘Overlevering en uitlevering’ in: Sliedregt, Sjöcrona, & Orie, (eds.), Handboek Internationaal Strafrecht, Deventer, Kluwer, p. 196.

  66. 66.

    For instance, Article 5 (1) subparagraph a of the Dutch Extradition Act (Uitleveringswet). The minimum of 1 year imprisonment is not required for extradition to member states of the European Union if treaties between the Netherlands and those member states prescribe a different maximum penalty (Article 6 (1) Dutch Extradition Act).

  67. 67.

    At least, according to the Dutch Supreme Court: HR 30 augustus 2004, NJ 2004, 552.

  68. 68.

    HR 30 augustus 2005, NJ 2005, 541.

  69. 69.

    Borgers, M. J. & Sjöcrona, J.M. (2008). ‘Europees straf (proces) recht’ in: van Sliedregt, E. Sjöcrona, J.M., & Orie, A.M.M. (eds.). Handboek Internationaal Strafrecht: Schets van het Europese en Internationale Strafrecht, Deventer, Kluwer, p. 117.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., Article 2 (1) subparagraph 1.

  71. 71.

    Article 2 (2) of the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., Article 2 (4).

  73. 73.

    Article 7 (1) subparagraph 2 Dutch Surrender Act (Overleveringswet).

  74. 74.

    Some countries, such as Brazil, as a rule refuse to extradite their citizens (Albuquerque, R. Chacon de (2006). ‘Cybercrime and jurisdiction in Brazil: From extraterritorial to ultraterritorial jurisdiction’, in: Koops & Brenner, (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 129). Japan only ratified two extradition treaties; with the US and Korea (Reich, P.C. (2006). ‘Cybercrime and jurisdiction in Japan’, in: Koops & Brenner, (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 252).

  75. 75.

    Urbas, G. & Grabosky, P. (2006). ‘Cybercrime and Jurisdiction in Australia’, in: Koops & Brenner, Cybercrime and Jurisdiction, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 65.

  76. 76.

    Reijntjes, J.M., Mos, M.R.B., & Sjöcrona, J.M. (2008). ‘Wederzijdse rechtshulp’, in: Van Sliedregt, Sjöcrona, & Orie, (eds.), Handboek Internationaal Strafrecht, Deventer, Kluwer p. 296.

  77. 77.

    Ibid., p. 246.

  78. 78.

    Zúñiga & Londoño (2006). ‘Cybercrime and Jurisdiction in Chile’, in: Koops & Brenner, (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction, Deventer: Kluwer, p. 154; Reich (2006). ‘Cybercrime and Jurisdiction in Japan’, in: Koops & Brenner (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdicion, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 252.

  79. 79.

    Lee, J.H. (2006). ‘Cybercrime and Jurisdiction in the Republic of Korea’, in: Koops & Brenner, (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdicion, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 266.

  80. 80.

    Walden, I. (2006). ‘Cybercrime and Jurisdiction in United Kingdom’, in: Koops & Brenner, (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdicion, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 307.

  81. 81.

    Urbas, G. & Grabosky, P. (2006). ‘Cybercrime and Jurisdiction in Australia’, in: Koops & Brenner, (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdicion, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 65.

  82. 82.

    Reijntjes, J.M., Mos, M.R.B., & Sjöcrona, J.M. (2008). ‘Wederzijdse rechtshulp’, in: Van Sliedregt, Sjöcrona, & Orie, Handboek Internatonaal Strafrecht, Deventer, Kluwer p. 291.

  83. 83.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18 December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters, OJ 2008, No. L350, 30 December 2008.

  84. 84.

    This information can be found by searching for the Convention on Cybercrime on: http://www.conventions.coe.int.

  85. 85.

    Kaspersen, H. (2004). ‘Convention on Cybercrime – Current state of implementation’, Council of Europe Octopus Interface Conference: Challenge of Cybercrime, 15–17 September, Strasbourg.

  86. 86.

    Explanatory Report of the Convention on Cybercrime, consideration 82.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., consideration 42.

  88. 88.

    Ibid., consideration 35.

  89. 89.

    This information was given to the author during an e-mail conversation with judge Schjølberg.

  90. 90.

    Convention on Cybercrime, Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5.

  91. 91.

    Although it should be noted that cyberstalking does not differ from other cybercrimes in this respect. The committee that drafted the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime contends that one of the major challenges in combating cybercrime is assessing the extent and impact of the criminal act (Explanatory Report of the Convention on Cybercrime, consideration 133).

  92. 92.

    Ellison, L. & Akdeniz, Y. (1998). ‘Cyber-stalking: The Regulation of Harassment on the Internet’, Criminal Law Review, Criminal Justice and the Internet, spec. ed., 29–48.

  93. 93.

    The mention of stalking as a conduct that should be declared a breach of law by Women Against Violence Europe during an expert group meeting of the UN Division for the Advancement of Women is a good start. (Issues brief prepared by WAVE (Women Against Violence Europe) Violence against women: Good practices in combating and eliminating violence against women, Expert Group Meeting, Organized by: UN Division for the Advancement of Women, Vienna, Austria, 17–20 May 2005).

  94. 94.

    Groenen, A. (2006). Stalking: Risicofactoren voor fysiek geweld, p. 43.

References

  • Attinello, K.L. (1993). ‘Anti-Stalking Legislation: A Comparison of Traditional Remedies Available for Victims of Harassment versus California Penal Code Section 646.9 (California Anti-Stalking Law)’, Pacific Law Journal, 24, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaauw, E., Sheridan, L., & Winkel, F.W. (2002). ‘Designing Anti-stalking Legislation on the Basis of Victims’ Experiences and Psychopathology’, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocij, P. (2004). Cyberstalking: Harassment in the Internet Age and How to Protect Your Family, Westport CT, Praeger Publishers, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruynooghe, R., Vandenberk, M.A., Verhaegen, L., Colemont, A., & Hens, I. (2003). Geweld in het Meervoud: Een kwalitatieve benadering van de betekenissen rond geweldvormen in België, Diepenbeek/Louvain-la-Neuve, SEIN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budd, T. & Mattinson, J. (2000). The Extent and Nature of Stalking: Findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey, London, Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, N. (2006). ‘Cybercrime and Jurisdiction in New Zealand’, in: Koops, B.-J., Brenner, S.W. (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction: A Global Survey, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, pp. 289–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, L. & Akdeniz, Y. (1998). ‘Cyber-stalking: The Regulation of Harassment on the Internet’, Criminal Law Review, Criminal Justice and the Internet, spec. ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glerum, V.H. & Rozemond, N. (2008). ‘Overlevering en Uitlevering’, in: Sliedregt, E., van Sjöcrona, J.M., & Orie, A.M.M. (eds.), Internationaal strafrecht. Schets van het internationale en Europese strafrecht (International Criminal Law. An introduction to international and European Criminal Law), Deventer, Kluwer, p. 196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenen, A. (2006). Stalking Risicofactoren voor fysiek geweld, Antwerpen, Maklu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koops, B.J. & Brenner, S.W. (2006). ‘Cybercrime Jurisdiction – An introduction’, in: B.-J. Koops & S.W. Brenner(eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction: A Global Survey, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J.H. (2006). ‘Cybercrime and Jurisdiction in the Republic of Korea’, in: Koops, B.J. & Brenner, S.(eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction, Den Haag, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malsch, M. (2004). De Wet Belaging: Totstandkoming en toepassing, Nijmegen, Ars Aequi Libri.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane, J.M., Campbell, J.C., Wilt, S., Sachs, C.J., Ulrich, Y., & Xu, X. (1999). ‘Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide’, Homicide Studies, 3, 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modena Group on Stalking (2007). Protecting Women from the New Crime of Stalking: A comparison of legislative approaches within the European Union. Final report, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia for the European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, S., Anderson, S., & Murray, L. (2002). Stalking and Harassment in Scotland, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Victims of Crime (2007). The Model Stalking Code Revisited: Responding to the New Realities of Stalking, Washington, D.C, National Center for Victims of Crime, p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Criminal Justice Association (1993). Project to Develop a Model Anti-stalking Code for States, Washington, D.C, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, M.E. (2002). ‘The Prevalence and Nature of Stalking in the Australian Community’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijntjes, J.M., Mos, M.R.B., & Sjöcrona, J.M. (2008). ‘Wederzijdse rechtshulp’, in Van Sliedregt, Sjöcrona and Orie, in: Sliedregt, Ev.an, Sjöcrona, J.M., & Orie, A.M.M. (eds.), Handboek Internationaal Strafrecht, Internationaal strafrecht. Schets van het internationale en Europese strafrecht (International Criminal Law. An introduction to international and European Criminal Law), Deventer, Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, A.R. & Green, D. (2007). ‘Crisis Intervention with Victims of Violent Crimes’, in: R.C. Davis, A.J. Lurigio, & S. Herman (eds.), Victims of Crime, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, p. 256

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitzberg, B.H. (2002). ‘The Tactical Topography of Stalking Victimization and Management’, Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitzberg, B.H. & Cupach, W.R. (2007). ‘The State of the Art of Stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature’, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjaden, P. (2007). ‘Stalking in America: Laws, Research, and Recommendations’, in: Davis, R.C., Lurigio, A.J., & Herman, S. (eds.), Victims of Crime, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, p. 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walden, I. (2006). ‘Cybercrime and Jurisdiction in United Kingdom’, in: Koops, B.-J. & Brenner, S.W. (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction, The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press, p. 307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocij, P. (2003). ‘Victims of Cyberstalking: An Exploratory Study of Harassment Perpetrated via the Internet’, First Monday, 8, Available at: http://www.firstmonday.org

  • Aa van der, S. & Kunst, M. (2009). ‘Prevalence of Stalking in the Netherlands’, International Review of Victimology, 16, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, Washington, DC, National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S Department of Justice (2001). Stalking and Domestic Violence: Report to Congress under the Violence Against Women Act, Washington, D.C, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S Department of Justice (2002). Strengthening Antistalking Statutes, OVC Legal Series Bulletin, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hert, P., Millen, J., & Groenen, A. (2008). ‘Het delict belaging in wetgeving en rechtspraak. Bijna tot redelijke properties gebracht’, Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, 9, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finch, E. (2001). The Criminalisation of Stalking: Constructing the Problem and Evaluating the Solution, London, Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, M. (2005). Rechtstatsächliche Untersuchung zum Gewaltschutzgesetz: Zusammenfassung: Ein Überblick über die Ergebnisse allerTeilstudie, retrieved May 9, 2008, from Bundesministerium der Justiz. Available at: http://www.bmj.bund.de

  • Zúñiga, C.R. & Londoño, F. (2006). ‘Cybercrime and Jurisdiction in Chile’, in: Koops, B.-J. & Brenner, S.W. (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction: A Global Survey, The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, S. (2006). ‘The Next Step: Prioritizing Jurisdiction’, in: Koops, B.J. & Brenner, S.W. (eds.), Cybercrime and Jurisdiction. A Global Survey, The Hague, TMC Asser Press, pp. 327–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgers, M.J. & Sjöcrona, J.M. (2008). ‘Europees straf(proces)recht’, in: Sliedregt, Ev.an Sjöcrona, J.M., & Orie, A.M.M. (eds.), Internationaal strafrecht. Schets van het internationale en Europese strafrecht, (International Criminal Law. An introduction to international and European Criminal Law), Deventer, Kluwer, p. 117.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Prof. Theo de Roos and Prof. Marc Groenhuijsen for reviewing previous drafts of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Suzan van der Aa (Senior researcher at INTERVICT)

Authors
  1. Suzan van der Aa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzan van der Aa .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Victimology, Institute (INTERVICT), Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands

    Rianne Letschert

  2. International Victimology, Institute (INTERVICT), Tilburg University, Tilburg, 5000 LE, Netherlands

    Jan van Dijk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van der Aa, S. (2011). International (Cyber)Stalking: Impediments to Investigation and Prosecution. In: Letschert, R., van Dijk, J. (eds) The New Faces of Victimhood. Studies in Global Justice, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9020-1_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation