The International Criminal Court and Africa: Exemplary Justice

This is a theoretical and empirical investigation into the causal link (if any) between international criminal trials and preventing violence through exemplary prosecutions. Specifically how do representative trials of persons accused of having the greatest responsibility for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, supposedly bind recurrent violence? The argument pursued is that by using an accused as an example, a court engages in an indirect and uncertain substitution of personal rights for social harmony and order. These prosecutions combine a peculiar rhetoric, logic and aesthetic, all which substitute the responsibilities for a society in general to a particular individual in order to redeem that society by transferring its communal responsibility onto the individual punished as a form of atonement or expiation. International and domestic trials, as well as truth and reconciliation commissions, are part of a suite of options addressing communal mass violence that can work in tandem. However, because those convicted do not have a monopoly on criminality, nor do those merely reconciled have a monopoly on virtue, exemplification through punishment only targets a few on behalf of the many. Indeed such a redemptively sacrificial economy distinguishes legal justice from mere vengeance.     

量刑公正与刑法目的解释

立基于量刑公正的考量,疑难案件中定罪与量刑之间有失比例的矛盾无可避免。定罪与量刑不仅是以刑事责任为中介的因果历程,而且是以刑法解释为调适的有效对接,同时也是以刑罚目的为依循的一体运作。在立法既定的情况下,刑法目的解释能够合理化解定罪与量刑之间的矛盾,满足实现量刑公正的需要。刑法目的解释应该以刑罚目的为基准逻辑展开,并且充当法源的刑法目的解释应当被禁止,而指导法官量刑的刑法目的解释应当被守护。     

Dispute Settlement under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Article 119 and the Possible Role of the International Court of Justice

This paper examines the dispute settlement procedure establishedby Article 119 of the Rome Statute of the International CriminalCourt, with particular attention paid to whether that provisioncreates any relationship between the International CriminalCourt and the International Court of Justice. The paper firstdiscusses the jurisdictional reach of Article 119, detailingthe types of disputes addressed in its two subsections and themanner in which such disputes are to be handled. Secondly, itfocuses on the possibility of referral of disputes covered inArticle 119(2) to the International Court of Justice. Althoughthe provision expressly contemplates such a referral, it remainsunclear whether the provision adequately supports the jurisdictionof the International Court of Justice in accordance with theStatute of that Court. The paper goes on to suggest ways inwhich the International Criminal Court Assembly of States Partiescan take steps to improve the likelihood that such referralwould be deemed proper in order to enhance the possible andfinal settlement of disputes.     

Kids are Different: The United States Supreme Court Reforms Youth Sentencing Practices for Youth Prosecuted in the Criminal Justice System

In a series of decisions issued between 2005‐2016, the United States Supreme Court relied on emerging scientific research detailing the developmental differences between children and adults to revamp its juvenile sentencing jurisprudence under the Eighth Amendment. The research established that youth’s developmental immaturity reduces their culpability for their criminal conduct, while also demonstrating their heightened capacity for change and rehabilitation. The Court focused on the most extreme sentences for youth, banning the imposition of the death penalty on youth under the age of eighteen in Roper v. Simmons (2005), and severely limiting the availability of life without parole sentences even for youth convicted of murder, in Graham v Florida (2010) and Miller v Alabama (2012). This article traces the Court’s evolution in reviewing sentences for youth in our justice system, and considers how the Court’s reasoning in these cases may influence further reforms in the justice system’s treatment of youth looking ahead.     

对台湾法院刑事判决之认可研究 --以韩书学劫持航空器案为起点

由于大陆同台湾地区的交往愈来愈多 ,包括刑事判决的相互承认问题在内的刑事管辖权问题愈发突显 ,本文以我国大陆法院对一起刑事案件的判决为例 ,阐释相应问题 ,以其对明确和解决上述问题有所裨益。一长春市中级人民法院的判决认定 ①:被告人韩书学伙同李向誉预谋劫机出境 ,1 993年 1 1月 1 1日乘坐北方航空公司飞机在长春机场起飞。 9时 3 0分李向誉窜至前服务舱 ,用暴力逼迫乘务长将驾驶舱叫开 ,而韩书学则持手术刀进入驾驶舱抵在副驾驶员颈部 ,李向誉并谎称手中持有炸药 ,以炸机威胁 ,强迫机组改飞台湾 ,并于 1 1时 3 0分降落在台北桃园…     

Artificial Intelligence,Algorithms and Sentencing in Chinese Criminal Justice: Problems and Solutions

Criminal Law Forum - The State Council of the People’s Republic of China has declared its intention to introduce AI into the Chinese criminal justice system including the imposition of...     

非政府组织与国际刑事法院

近十年来,非政府组织在国际关系中取得的最大成绩就是在促成国际刑事法院的建立方面做出了巨大的努力和贡献。从建立国际刑事法院构想的提出,到《国际刑事法院规约》的起草、谈判,到《规约》的通过与生效,以"支持国际刑事法院的非政府组织联盟"(简称"国际刑事法院联盟")为核心的非政府组织都发挥了至关重要的作用。在国际刑事法院的诉讼程序中,非政府组织也可以发挥信息提供者、法庭之友、法院与受害人和证人之间桥梁、监督人等作用。国际刑事法院已正式认可了非政府组织的作用。非政府组织在国际刑事法院的建立和运行中所发挥的作用堪称国际市民社会参与国际关系的一个范例。     

Complementarity, Amnesties and Alternative Forms of Justice: Some Interpretative Guidelines for the International Criminal Court

The question to what extent amnesties and pardons may bar criminalinvestigations or prosecutions under the Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court (the Statute) has been left unresolved by theRome process. This essay seeks to develop some general guidelinesthat may help the Court to address this problem, should it arisein a specific case. It suggests four basic principles to dealwith the issue of amnesties and pardons: (i) the Court has interpretativeautonomy to decide whether an amnesty or a pardon is permissibleunder the Statute; (ii) exemptions from criminal responsibilityfor the core crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court byamnesties or pardons should generally be considered incompatiblewith the Statute; (iii) prosecution by states and by the Courtmay be limited to the most serious crimes and the most responsibleperpetrators (targeted prosecution); (iv) amnesties or pardonsshould, if it all, only be permitted in exceptional cases, namelywhere they are conditional and accompanied by alternative formsof justice.     

《国际刑事法院罗马规约》浅析

20 0 2年 7月 1日 ,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(以下简称“罗马规约”或“规约”) 〔 1〕 经 67个国家批准 ,1 39个国家签署后生效。〔 2〕 这标志着国际刑事法院的正式成立 ,并将对国际法和国际刑法在新世纪的发展产生重大的影响。对于国际刑事法院的成立与罗马规约的生效 ,“大多数国际刑法学者更是欢欣鼓舞 ,对这部国际刑法法典倾注了很大的热情。”〔 3〕 著名国际刑法教授巴西奥尼先生甚至指出 :“国际刑事法院的建立象征并包含着全世界人民所共有的某种基本价值和期望 ,因此 ,也是世界人民的胜利。”〔4〕 国内法学界对罗马规约的制定…