论个人刑事责任原则在国际刑法中的体现

经过历史发展,个人刑事责任原则的观念逐渐形成,并体现在主要的国际性法律文件以及国际刑事审判活动中,成为国际刑法中的一项重要的基本原则。然而,鉴于多种因素的考量,目前权威国际刑法规范所规定的个人刑事责任原则只体现在自然人实施特定国际犯罪的情形中,并没有确认法人和国家的刑事责任主体地位。     

追溯国际刑法中的执行命令不免责原则

在国际刑法规范中,执行命令不免责原则是个人刑事责任原则衍生出的一项重要原则。从实践价值看,该原则从主体方面严密了国际刑法的法网,使得任何对特定国际犯罪负有刑事责任的个人均不能逃脱刑事追究,这对于遏制国际犯罪和有效进行国际刑事审判具有重要的意义。经过一系列国际刑事司法实践,执行命令不免责的原则逐渐地形成,并充分确立在习惯国际法和主要的国际性法律文件中。     

个人国际刑事责任及相关问题

个人已经成为承担国际刑事责任的主体——从二战以后纽伦堡审判和东京审判,到当代的前南审判和卢旺达审判,我们都可以得出上述结论。国际刑事法院的《罗马规约》更是将个人国际刑事责任加以详细化。这是因为国际法上的犯罪通常需要个人,至少是政府权威人士和军队的指挥者的直接或者间接的参与才能完成。     

国际犯罪刑事责任的性质及主体界定

考虑到国际刑法本身的特有属性,国际刑法中的国际犯罪只能是国家实施的国家行为,即以国家名义或者代表国家实施的,侵犯和危害全人类共同生活利益的严重危害行为,不应当是个人行为,而这正是国际刑事责任的基础。国际犯罪刑事责任从其本质上来讲只能是国家责任而不能是个人责任,其责任的承担主体只能是特定的个人,这反映了国际刑法的特殊性。     

国际刑事责任

文章通过分析国际刑事责任的概念和历史沿革,指出作为国际刑事责任主体的个人和国家应承担国际刑事责任及其实现途径。     

转化型抢劫罪主体条件的实质解释——以相对刑事责任年龄人的刑事责任为视角

转化型抢劫罪主体的刑事责任年龄问题,是一个刑法立法不明确、刑法学理论有争议、司法解释不统一、司法适用有困惑的问题。基于刑法的基本原则与机能、《中华人民共和国刑法》第269条规定的精神实质及其法律拟制规定与转化犯的性质,根据刑法对未成年人犯罪刑事责任的规定以及刑法学界与司法实务部门对相关问题的一贯立场,从处罚的必要性与合理性的角度对此问题进行分析,宜提倡相对刑事责任年龄人可以成为本罪主体的"非身份说";同时只有在以"暴力或者以暴力相威胁"致人重伤或死亡时才能追究行为人的刑事责任。"非身份说"体现了《中华人民共和国刑法》第269条规定处罚范围的合理性,符合罪刑法定原则,且与处理未成年人犯罪刑事政策理念相一致,确保了犯罪构成要件的定型性。     

论国际刑事责任的主体——浅析国家不承担国际刑事责任

由于国家之间平等独立无管辖权,没有国际法渊源适用于国家承担国际刑事责任,刑法上的刑罚方式无法适用于国家以及个人犯罪与国家责任之间的界限难以划清等原因,国家不能承担国际刑事责任。     

国家刑事责任的研究现状及前景评析

国家刑事责任问题是近年来国内外刑法学界研究的热点,也是国际刑法研究中倍受重视的一个方面。国家是公认的国际法主体,但是国家能否作为国际犯罪的主体,从而承担刑事责任一直是一个悬而未决的问题。本文拟通过对国家刑事责任研究现状的阐述,从而对其发展前景进行评析,以期对国家刑事责任主体的研究提供理论上的支撑。     

国家刑事责任的研究现状及前景评析

国家刑事责任问题是近年来国内外刑法学界研究的热点,也是国际刑法研究中倍受重视的一个方面。国家是公认的国际法主体,但是国家能否作为国际犯罪的主体,从而承担刑事责任一直是一个悬而未决的问题。本文拟通过对国家刑事责任研究现状的阐述,从而对其发展前景进行评析,以期对国家刑事责任主体的研究提供理论上的支撑。     

当代国际刊法的新发展

大量证据显示国际刑事审判的展开促进了国际刑法的发展,而在国际刑法发展的进程中,出现了一系列新的观念和原则并逐渐得到国际社会的广泛认可,诸如灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪和战争罪的定义,以及合法性原则、补充性管辖原则、个人刑事责任原则和国际合作与司法协助原则等。国际刑事法院的建立在国际刑法制度发展中具有里程碑式的意义,联合国、联合国宪章以及联合国大会的一系列决议为国际刑法的发展发挥了至关重要的作用。     

改革开放三十年来刑事责任研究述评

改革开放三十年来,我国刑事责任的研究经历了萌芽、发展、繁荣和稳步提高阶段,刑事责任在刑法学中的基础理论地位得以确立,研究视野和研究方法日渐开阔,比较刑法和国际刑法视野下的刑事责任研究成果备出。展望未来,我们应当继续深入刑事责任基础理论研究、拓展特别理论研究,关注实践中的热点和难点问题,应用新的研究方法,在更大程度上推动我国刑事责任和刑法学研究的发展。     

国际航空犯罪法人刑事责任及其国内立法转化研究

2010年《北京公约》和《北京议定书》首次规定了国际航空犯罪法人责任,法人责任以法人的高级管理人员代表法人实施劫持航空器等国际航空犯罪为要件,法人为此承担刑事、民事或行政责任。公约对法人犯罪及其责任的立法需要转化为国内法才能适用。世界各国国内法对法人犯罪及其责任的态度差别较大,英国、加拿大、法国等国刑法规定有航空犯罪的法人刑事责任,德国国内法规定有航空犯罪的法人行政责任,意大利刑法规定有航空犯罪的法人民事责任,我国仅在个别航空犯罪中规定有法人犯罪及其刑事责任。我国法人犯罪及其刑事责任的立法和理论具有较强的包容性,可在我国刑法中取消法人犯罪法定化限制,全面规定包括航空犯罪在内的法人犯罪及其刑事责任。     

International Economic Criminal Law

This inquiry explores the question of transnational companies’ criminal liability for international crimes, reviewing the current state of research in the field of international economic criminal law, a discipline that hitherto has received only scant analysis. Following some preliminary conceptual remarks (I.), the forms of corporate participation in such crimes (II.) and the supranational and national practice since Nuremberg are presented. This practice reveals a clear trend towards corporate liability, albeit represented by leading company staff. For this reason, and because legal persons (companies) ultimately act through natural persons (their staff), their liability (IV.) cannot be convincingly established on a purely collective basis – in the sense of a pure organisation model (IV. 4.1.) – but only on the basis of the attribution model, namely as a derivative corporate liability based upon supervisory or organisational culpability (IV.4.2.). The attribution model’s individual approach – or, to use procedural terms, the individualistic “trigger” for the prosecution of companies – finally brings us to the well-known forms of criminal participation (V.), with liability for complicity in particular coming into question. All in all, the essay concludes (VI.), we should not expect too much of (international) criminal corporate liability. Here, as in many other areas, criminal law can only have a (limited) preventive effect as part of a holistic approach.     

组织进化视野下对企业刑事归责模式的反思

我国传统企业刑事归责模式的典型特征在于:一方面,其包含了企业和企业成员两个主体的归责,另一方面,企业归责适用的是以特定企业内个人犯罪行为为处罚根据的同一视原则。虽然该模式与我国早期单一科层制企业形态相适应,但随着组织形态的进化,企业规模扩大,内部权力去中心化以及组织结构复杂化,企业犯罪出现了不同于我国早期企业形态下新的特征。为此,传统企业归责模式不仅难以公正地对企业及其成员进行归责,还会造成组织无责、惩罚效果不理想等一系列不利后果。在法人社会下忽略对企业组织犯罪的控制需求并不现实,法人刑事责任拟制论应当被否定。相反,有必要构建与企业成员归责路径相分离的、以企业自身过错为处罚依据的组织责任模式。应当依据功能对等原则对组织责任模式进行构建,维持刑法体系的逻辑严谨性,并遵守刑法的罪责原则。     

The Merowe Dam Project – When Does the Coin Flip from Legal Business Activity to Criminal Behavior? Reflections on the Concept of Guarantor’s Liablity in the Context of Transnational Business Activities

The individual liability of corporate officers for crimes that are often framed as transnational human rights abuses is much debated. While it seems that some standards of liability are developing in the field of international criminal law, standards of criminal liability in cases where the alleged crimes do not amount to international crimes remain to some extent unclear. This article will examine a concrete case that was investigated by the Frankfurt/Main prosecutor’s office. Additionally, it will be considered whether international soft law standards on corporate human rights due diligence have an influence on how the existing standards of guarantor’s liability, and especially that of principals (Geschäftsherrenhaftung), are to be interpreted in these cases.     

The Concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise and Domestic Modes of Liability for Parties to a Crime: A Comparison of German and English Law

The concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) has becomea useful tool in international criminal law. It allows courtsto hold individuals criminally liable for group activities towhich they have contributed in a criminally relevant way. Theconcept allows for an attribution of criminal responsibilityof unforeseen consequences of such group activities, and itseems to enable the prosecution and the courts to extend criminalliability to high-level perpetrators that use subordinated personsfor their criminal aims. The advantages of such a tool are obvioussince the crimes under international criminal law are mostlyof a systematic, large-scale and collective character, whiledomestic criminal law mainly deals with less complex crimesthat are normally committed by individuals who can easily belinked to the crime. Due to this empirical or criminologicalfact, it seems logical that the normal modes of liability forparties to a crime used in domestic criminal law need to beadapted, and that a rather extensive assignment of criminalliability for secondary parties is justified in internationalcriminal law. This article seeks to question this assumptionby undertaking a comparative analysis of domestic modes of liability.The author aims to show, on the one hand, to what extent theconcept of JCE is in line with the general concept of partiesto a crime in domestic criminal law. On the other hand, theauthor argues that abandoning the idea of JCE as an independentmode of liability may lead to better compliance with the principlesof legality and individual criminal responsibility and therebyincrease the legitimacy of international criminal law.     

Indirect Co-Perpetration

National and international criminal law systems are continually seeking doctrinal and theoretical frameworks to help them impose individual liability on collective perpetrators of crime. The two systems move in parallel and draw on each other. Historically, it has been mostly international criminal law that leaned on domestic legal systems for its collective modes of liability. Currently, however, it is the emerging jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court that is at the forefront of innovation, with the doctrine of indirect co-perpetration taking the lead in international prosecutions. The article assesses the potential contribution as well as the limits of this compound doctrine to domestic criminal law jurisprudence, particularly with regard to small-group criminality. Four modes of indirect co-perpetration are discussed, namely shared control, concerted control, controlling board, and flawed triangle perpetration. A doctrine of indirect co-perpetration would enable liability in these modes of perpetration, perhaps with the exception of the latter, which marks the limits of its applicability.     

国际刑事司法协助与引渡问题探析

刑事司法协助是国家关系的重要内容,是一国司法权的有效域外延伸,具有重要的外交价值和司法价值。开展刑事司法协助问题的研究,特别是建立我国现代引渡制度,对于打击跨国犯罪、引渡跨国犯罪、追究逃窜到国外罪犯的刑事责任、监控追缴赃款赃物等方面具有重要意义。目前,在我国现存的各种法律规范以及与外国签订的司法协助协定之中,缺乏切实可行的措施。为此,制定切实可行的引渡制度仍是任重而道远的法制任务。     

论国际犯罪主体的范围与特征

由于对国际犯罪的本质、国家法律责任性质、国家犯罪标准的不同认识,学界对国际犯罪主体的范围界定不一。基于国际刑法规范及惯例中关于国际犯罪的规定、国际刑事审判实践、国际犯罪构成理论特质、国际刑法保护、国际社会共同利益的宗旨以及国际犯罪新形态等国际犯罪主体的内涵性考察,可以明确国际犯罪主体的外延应当包括个人、组织或团体(单位)、国家、国际组织,并可以概括出这四类国际犯罪主体的本质和认定特征。     

An Economic Analysis of State and Individual Responsibility Under International Law

The international law of state responsibility determines whenstates are liable for international law violations. States aregenerally liable when they have control over the actions ofwrongdoers; thus, the actions of state officials can implicatestate responsibility whereas the acts of private citizens usuallydo not. We argue that the rules of state responsibility havean economic logic similar to that of vicarious liability indomestic law: the law in both cases provides third parties withincentives to control the behavior of wrongdoers whom they canmonitor and influence. We also discuss international legal remediesand individual liability under international criminal law.