国际刑事法院检察官自行调查权及其实践策略

国际刑事法院检察官自行调查权是国际刑事法院检察官根据自己从来文中掌握的犯罪资料独立启动对任何一个缔约国国内发生的犯罪情势进行调查的权力,它既是最能体现国际刑事法院检察官独立性的权力,同时也是国际社会最担心被滥用的权力。在《罗马规约》缔约过程中,检察官自行调查权的行使是各国争论最激烈的问题之一,基于对检察官滥用权力的疑虑,《罗马规约》为检察官行使自行调查权设置了一定的制约机制。国际刑事法院检察官从上任伊始便采取了对自行调查权尽量备而不用并鼓励缔约国自我提交情势的策略;尽管检察官对肯尼亚和科特迪瓦情势两次行使自行调查权的实践取得了成功,但这并不会改变其审慎使用自行调查权的策略。     

限制国际刑事法院管辖权的美国双边豁免协定的合法性问题

根据国际刑事法院《罗马规约》第12条,国际刑事法院可以在三种情形下对《罗马规约》的非缔约国国民行使管辖权,这是美国加入国际刑事法院的重大障碍。美国为防止国际刑事法院对美国国民行使管辖权采取了多种手段,其中一种重要手段是美国根据自己对《罗马规约》第98(2)条的解读,与其他国家缔结所谓的双边豁免协定。虽然美国双边豁免协定并不是《罗马规约》第98(2)条所指的"国际协定",但是根据《维也纳条约法公约》,美国双边豁免协定仍然是合法的双边协定。这对于那些既是《罗马规约》的缔约国,又与美国缔结了双边豁免协定的国家而言,它们可能面临着双重条约义务,并由此导致国家责任。     

安理会向国际刑事法院移交达尔富尔情势的法律问题

2005年3月31日,联合国安理会决定将自2002年7月1日以来达尔富尔局势问题移交国际刑事法院检察官。这是国际刑事法院自2002年7月1日成立以来,安理会提交的第一个情势,这无异开创了一个重要的先例。该决议反映了国际社会对防止和中止有罪不罚的现象的决心与行动。然而,该决议中也涉及了若干值得注意和研究的法律问题。本文集中讨论了下列问题:启动国际刑事法院诉讼程序的方式,罪行发生地国和行为人国籍国的管辖与补充性原则,普遍管辖权与补充性原则,安理会1593号决议第6段对国际刑事法院管辖权的限制,国家配合国际刑事法院进行调查和起诉的义务。通过对这些法律问题的探讨,希望能对更好地理解《罗马规约》的含义与适用起到积极的作用。     

论国际刑事法院行使管辖权的条件

《罗马规约》的生效,确立了国际刑事法院对国际犯罪中＂最严重的罪行＂的管辖权。然而,刑事司法管辖权关乎国家主权,妥当处理国家及国际刑事法院的管辖权关系,是后者顺利行使的前提。本文立足于《罗马规约》,以国际刑事法院管辖权作为补充管辖权的属性为出发点,提出国际刑事法院行使管辖权的具体条件。同时分析国际刑事法院管辖权与国家主权的关系,进一步论证国际刑事法院行使管辖权的前提。     

论《国际刑事法院罗马规约》管辖权补充性原则

《国际刑事法院罗马规约》所确立的管辖权具有相当的特殊性,是坚持主权原则与打击整个国际社会关注的最为严重犯罪需要之间的微妙协调。国际刑事法院所采用的并非是一般意义上的普遍管辖权,而是强调管辖权的补充性,强调缔约国内法院具有优先管辖权。根据《国际刑事法院罗马规约》的规定,只有在相关国家不愿意或不能够的情况下,才能启动国际刑事法院的管辖。管辖权的补充性原则可以起到促使国内法院起诉国际犯罪的积极作用,但是判断是否存在不愿意或不能够,该规约的有关规定并不明确,而且实践中国际刑事法院管辖权补充性原则的运行会遇到诸多障碍。     

析个人国际豁免权对国际刑事法院逮捕令的制约——以苏丹总统巴希尔个案为考察对象

作为国际机构,国际刑事法院不受调整国家之间现任国家元首豁免权的习惯国际法限制,有权签发对苏丹总统巴希尔的逮捕令。认可国际刑事法院签发逮捕令之权,并不意味着国际刑事法院有权请求国家将该人逮捕并移交到国际刑事法院。苏丹不是《罗马规约》的缔约国,苏丹总统巴希尔也不是《罗马规约》缔约国的国民,国际刑事法院的逮捕令是对苏丹现任国家元首合法的强制措施,但国际刑事法院请求缔约国将巴希尔逮捕并移交到国际刑事法院却与《罗马规约》第98条第1款的规定不符,是一种超越权限的行为,缔约国不受该请求的约束。     

论国际刑事法院管辖权补充性原则与非缔约国主权的冲突

2002年7月1日,人类历史上第一个常设国际刑事司法机构--国际刑事法院在海牙成立.但是成立后的国际刑事法院的管辖权与非缔约国主权问题一直是国际社会争论的焦点.<国际刑事法院罗马规约>中有关管辖权的规定与传统的国家主权原则存在矛盾:主要体现为在检察官启动调查程序阶段产生的冲突.在本文中将会针对这些问题提出解决措施.     

公正审判——1949年《日内瓦公约》与1998年《罗马国际刑事法院规约》之比较

引论： 本文之目的在于向中国的法官、检察官和律师们介绍设立国际刑事法院的1998年《罗马规约》。本文的核心是“公正审判”这一正在国际法中发展的概念。……     

检察官的自行调查权

本文将探讨国际刑事法院和国内法院之间整合成一个体系的内涵,尤其关注国际刑事法院检察官的调查和起诉权,并涉及约束检察官这些职权的相关法律和检察政策。一、法律框架在《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(以下简称《罗马规     

评析“美国98条协定”

《罗马规约》于2002年生效,国际刑事法院也正式成立。尽管国际刑事法院得到了广泛的支持,但美国却持反对态度,“美国98条协定”就是美国反对国际刑事法院的典型表现。本文从《罗马规约》入手对美国签订的“美国98务协定”进行评析。     

国际刑事法院管辖权与联合国安理会职权关系论——《罗马规约》的妥协性规定评析

关于国际刑事法院管辖权与联合国安理会职权的关系,《罗马规约》作出了妥协性的规定,二者的关系既表现为平等与协作,又反映出相互间的适度制约。这种妥协性的规定反映了国际社会现实,体现了国际刑事法院司法职能与安理会政治职能的相对分离和互动,具有现实合理性。     

攻击联合国人员和有关人员犯罪的国际法控制

长期以来,国际社会一直致力于通过立法来惩治针对联合国人员和有关人员的恐怖袭击活动。1998年生效的《国际刑事法院罗马规约》将攻击联合国人员和有关人员的罪行纳入法院管辖范围。2003年《安理会第1502号决议》进一步完善了规约的规定,并要求各国也在国内立法惩处这类犯罪。     

国际刑事法院管辖权的属性

自 1998年《国际刑事法院罗马规约》通过后 ,围绕管辖权属性问题的争辩始终没有休止。实际上 ,国际刑事法院管辖权的多维性体现了主权与人权国际保护的逻辑延伸。透视国际刑事法院管辖权内容上的多维性特征可见 ,《罗马规约》规定的国际刑事法院管辖权游弋于补充性和普遍性与强制性之间 ,体现了适用上的多角度、多层次和多维空间。这种多维特征之间既相互独立 ,又相辅相成 ,充分显示国际刑事法院的历史地位和重要性 ,当被控国际罪行的程序逐渐制度化时 ,国际刑事法院的运行机制也会更加公正、合理与完善     

India and the ICC

The Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute)would have been more acceptable to India if it had containedan opt-in provision whereby a state could accept the jurisdictionof the ICC by declaration (possibly for a specified period),and this might be limited to particular conduct or to conductcommitted during a particular period of time. The lack of sucha provision, and the inherent jurisdiction which replaced it,are perceived as representing a violation of the consent ofstates, and thus a threat to sovereignty. India's resistanceto accepting the inherent jurisdiction of the ICC is explained,in part, by anxieties about how investigation, prosecution andcriminal proceedings in the Indian system may be judged by aninternational court. The inclusion of ‘armed conflictnot of an international character’ in defining ‘warcrimes’ in Article 8 ICCSt. constitutes another reasonfor India's concern (that the conflicts that persist in Kashmir,the North-East and as was experienced in Punjab, as well asthe violence of more recent vintage in Gujarat, could be referredto the ICC). Further elements giving rise to India's misgivingsare the fear that the Court might be used with political motives,the power conferred on the Prosecutor to initiate investigationsproprio motu and the role allotted to the Security Council.     

Reclaiming Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the Darfur Case

According to the authors, the Report of the UN Commission ofInquiry on Darfur and the Security Council referral of the situationin Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC) bring tolight two serious deficiencies of the ICC Statute and, moregenerally, international criminal law: (i) the systematic ambiguitybetween collective responsibility (i.e. the responsibility ofthe whole state) and criminal liability of individuals, on whichcurrent international criminal law is grounded, and (ii) thefailure of the ICC Statute fully to comply with the principleof legality. The first deficiency is illustrated by highlightingthe notions of genocide and genocidal intent, as well as thatof joint criminal enterprise. The second is exposed by drawingattention to the uncertainties and ambiguities surrounding suchnotions as recklessness and dolus eventualis, and in additionto the frequent reliance in both international case law andthe legal literature on customary international law and looseconcepts such as proportionality. The authors finally pointout that if the ICC tries to operate as a real criminal courtunder the rule of law and shows sensitivity to the rights andinterests of the accused, US fears of politicized prosecutionwill diminish.     

Military Courts and Prosecution of Offences by National Defense Forces in the Dawn of the Complementarity Regime: The Case of Uganda

With the coming into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute) and its complementarity regime, much emphasis has been placed on the role of national courts in prosecuting international crimes. Some states have demonstrated their commitment to this regime by; inter alia, ratifying the ICC Statute, enacting national legislation to implement the ICC Statute and establishing national judicial forums for prosecution of international crimes. Uganda is a prime example of states rising up to this challenge. Uganda ratified the ICC Statute in 2002. In 2008, it established the International Crimes Division (ICD) to prosecute international crimes and in 2010, it enacted the International Criminal Court Act to implement the ICC Statute. Even before these reforms, Uganda’s military courts had always relied on service offences to prosecute members of the national defence force. Worthy to note, members of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) have been implicated in a number of atrocities, some of which can be categorised as international crimes. However, military courts continue to prosecute UPDF soldiers for these atrocities on the basis of service offences. The situation current in Uganda highlights a number of legal issues relating to: first, the adequacy of service offences to advance accountability for the international crimes allegedly committed by UPDF soldiers; secondly, the jurisdiction of military courts over international crimes; and thirdly, the effect of concurrent jurisdiction by the ICD and military courts on the rule against double jeopardy.     

国家与国际刑事法院的国际合作与司法协助义务述评

国际刑事法院是否成功的关键取决于《罗马规约》的缔约国和国际社会与之真诚的国际合作与司法协助。反之 ,国家也应根据国际法的基本原则善意履行其自愿承担的义务 ,向国际刑事法院提供国际合作与司法协助。本文通过阐述《罗马规约》有关国家与国际刑事法院的国际合作与司法协助方面的实体性和程序性规定 ,说明国家在国际刑事法院调查、起诉和惩治国际社会关注的最严重的国际犯罪中的作用和义务     

China's Attitude Towards the ICC

Unlike the USA, China has few overseas military commitments,and therefore is not concerned that its troops may one day comeunder International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction. Moreover,China is not in a position to pressurize other countries tosign bilateral agreements as the USA has done. Whether or notChina eventually accedes to the Rome Statute, it cannot avoidthe jurisdiction of the ICC in other parts of the world. Thereare five main reasons for China's opposition to the ICC. First,its jurisdiction is not based on the principle of voluntaryacceptance; furthermore, complementarity gives the ICC the powerto judge whether a state is able or willing to conduct propertrials of its own nationals. Secondly, also war crimes in internalarmed conflicts fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Thirdly,crimes against humanity are prohibited in time of peace as well.Fourthly, the inclusion of the crime of aggression within thejurisdiction of the ICC weakens the power of the UN SecurityCouncil. Fifthly, the proprio motu power of the Prosecutor maymake the ICC open to political influence. The authors try toshow how all these objections can be legally met and set fortha series of considerations that would make China's participationin the Court a welcome development in China's national and internationalinterests. They finally argue that the Chinese government shouldtake an open attitude, taking into consideration the Court'sactual performance, and should not, therefore, exclude the possibilityof acceding at an appropriate time to the ICC Statute.     

South Africa's Implementation of the ICC Statute: An African Example

In this article, the author analyses the most important provisionsof South Africa's Implementation of the Rome Statute of theInternational Criminal Court Act, 2002. In particular, attentionis given to the complex complementary scheme that is establishedunder the Act, including the jurisdictional bases under theAct for South African prosecution of war crimes, crimes againsthumanity and genocide; the substantive law that applies to anyprosecution of an ICC crime undertaken on South African soilpursuant to the Act; and the procedure to be followed in respectof such a prosecution. Other topics examined include the problemof immunities and amnesties in the South African context, andthe mechanisms devised by the Act to ensure South Africa's cooperationwith the ICC in respect of any investigation or prosecutionundertaken by the Court. The author concludes that the implementationAct is likely to serve as a meaningful example for other AfricanStates Parties in their efforts to domestically give effectto their obligations under the Rome Statute.     

Amid domestication and Afriexit: whither Nigeria and South Africa on the International Criminal Court?

There is a silent revolution going on among African states regarding the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Some states that previously signed the Statute refused to ratify it. Some that ratified the Statute refused to domesticate it. Some that domesticated it withdrew or threatened to withdraw from it. Some that withdrew from it revoked their withdrawal. The African Union called for the mass withdrawal of African states from the Statute. Amid this storm of domestication and Afriexit, this study probes the question: what will be the status of Nigeria and South Africa on the ICC by 2022, considering the events in these states so far, evidence from data and the spate of domestication and exit procedures in homogeneous African states in contemporary times? The objectives of the study are to predict the status of Nigeria and South Africa by 2022 and reflect on the implication of the predictions for the on-going viability, sustainability and credibility of the ICC. It predicts that Nigeria has a zero per cent indication of domesticating the Statute. South Africa has 100 per cent positive indication to remain an ICC state party.