国际检察官的独立性及其保障

国际刑事特设法庭,即前南国际刑事法庭、卢旺达国际刑事法庭以及常设性国际刑事法院,对检察官的独立性都作了明确规定。这不仅符合国内刑事司法制度中的共同原则,也是打击危害国际社会的最严重犯罪的必要保障。可以说,国际检察官的独立性是国际刑法体系的一个结构性保障。     

近期应加强研究的国际刑法问题

国际刑法是一个相对国际法其他学科而言比较新的一门学科。1993年5月,联合国安理会通过第827号决议,决定设立一个特设国际法庭(即“前南国际刑事法庭”)来审理前南斯拉夫境内所发生的这些罪行。安理会又于1994年1 1月通过第995号决议成立了卢旺达国际刑事法庭。这两个特设     

前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭——国际刑事司法的新开端

前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭(以下简称前南法庭)在二战后的纽伦堡和东京国际军事法庭之后,由国际社所设立的第一个追究个人包括国家领导人刑事责任的设国际刑事法庭。由于其最近首次对一位前国家元首米舍维奇进行审判,该法庭也是国际媒体和民众所关注的点之一,而法律界对此案甚至对法庭本身的合法性等的论也从未中断。法庭运作10余年来,在惩治战争罪犯和他违反国际人道法和严重违反人权的犯罪,为被害人伸正义,威慑未来的罪犯,促进国际法尤其是国际人道法国际刑法的发展,强化国际法治等方面,发挥了重要作,也为其后10余年来国际刑事司法的发展…     

国际刑庭法官眼中的世纪大审判

前南斯拉夫国际刑事法庭、卢旺达国际刑事法庭和近日开审的伊拉克萨达姆法庭,并列为近年三大国际大审判。本刊特约了联合国国际刑事法庭法官凌岩教授,就萨达姆世纪大审判的合法性和发展趋势给我们做权威的解读。     

论国际犯罪的管辖机制

国际犯罪的管辖问题是国际刑法中最基本和最首要的问题。现行的普遍管辖、“或引渡或起诉”、并行管辖以及国际刑事法庭管辖所形成的管辖机制存在着一些不足，有待完善。应建立优先管辖原则、修正“或引渡或起诉”原则、确立国家拒绝对国际犯罪进行管辖和起诉的法律责任。     

前南国际刑事法庭的创立及管辖原则

前南斯拉夫国际刑事法庭是联合国安理会针对前南斯拉夫武装冲突中严重违反国际人道主义法的行为而设立的国际特设法庭 ,该法庭不仅传承了纽伦堡和远东军事法庭的原则及审判精髓 ,而且在很大程度上延展了国际刑事审判的原则与理论 ,并未以后的国际刑事审判以及常设国际刑事审判机构的建构提供了可行性的先导模式     

刑法总则的修改与检讨——以《刑法修正案（九）》为重点

关于刑法修正案对“刑法总则”内容修改的合法性问题的“依法”审查,必须回归《立法法》的明确规定,笼统地断言全国人大常委会是否有权修改刑法总则内容并不适当。“职业禁止”的保安处分法典化有利于进一步强化我国刑法上刑罚与保安处分的二元制裁体系的正式形成,死刑缓期执行制度的修改完善有利于实现限制死刑立即执行的良好功效,但是终身监禁制度的横空出世却使得我国刑法“死刑过多”老问题尚未解决、“生刑过重”新“病灶”业已生成,我国刑罚改革的发展前景可谓喜忧参半。终身监禁的创设性修订完全背离了无期徒刑保留论的基本立场,突出违反了作为刑法基本原则的罪刑法定原则、罪责刑相适应原则,经不起刑罚人道主义的正当性拷问,因而理论上应当反思“完全堵塞”犯罪人回归之路的终身监禁的合法性问题,立法上应删除在宣判死刑缓期执行改为无期徒刑之际即事先“预判”终身监禁的新规定,保留无期徒刑“准许假释”等补救措施的既有规定。     

打击索马里海盗：既是责任也是挑战

＂海盗行为＂是一种国际法罪行,也是联合国安理会两次专门通过决议要予以坚决打击和惩治的犯罪活动。然而,要有效地打击与惩治索马里海盗,还必须具备一个有效的法律机制。不管是通过建立国际刑事法庭的形式,还是通过国内法庭的司法程序,都得适用已成为国际习惯法的＂司法公正＂原则。这对于中国及其他国家而言,是一种责任与挑战。     

设立前南斯拉夫问题国际法庭的法理根据

前南斯拉夫问题国际法庭的设立，开创了由国际法庭审判国内战争罪犯的先例。尽管该法庭的设立已十年有余，并且已经审判了一批罪犯，但是，时至今日，该法庭的合法性仍受到质疑和批评。本文对通过国际刑事法庭追究个人刑事责任的依据进行了充分的阐述，认为违反国际法是追究个人国际刑事责任的依据；进而，在此基础上对设立前南国际法庭的法理根据进行探讨，并认为国际组织暗含权力是联合国安理会设立前南国际法庭的法理根据，设立这样的法庭作为安理会的一项执行措施乃是源自于安理会根据《联合国宪章》第七章而具有的暗含权力。     

从米洛舍维奇案看前南国际法庭的合法性问题

前南斯拉夫国际刑事法庭作为联合国安理会设立的一个附属机构是一个临时性司法机构。米洛舍维奇在审理期间突然死亡,引发了国际社会对前南国际刑事法庭的争议。本文拟从前南国际刑事法庭设立的合法性角度讨论。     

Sentencing Contempt of Court in International Criminal Justice: An Unforeseen Problem Concerning Sentencing and Penalties

International criminal tribunals, like any criminal court, havebeen faced with offences against the administration of justice,such as contempt of court. The power of the UN ad hoc Tribunalsto punish these offences has raised problematic issues mainlyconcerning respect for the principle of legality (includingfrequent amendments to contempt-provisions, and the substantialincrease of the sentencing frame for contempt within only afew years). This article seeks to clarify some aspects concerningapplicable penalties and sentencing for contempt of court throughthe examination of the case law of the ad hoc Tribunals andthe Special Court for Sierra Leone, discussing its implicationsfor the principle of legality. It is argued that the processfollowed in sentencing contempt is in many aspects not dissimilarto the traditional judicial practice of the Tribunals concerningpurposes of punishment, aggravating and mitigating circumstancesand guilty pleas.     

International criminal justice: reflections on the past and the future

While Nuremberg constitutes a watershed in the evolution of international law with its establishment of the fundamental principle of individual criminal responsibility under international law it has not left much else by way of precedent for the subsequent international criminal tribunals. The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 827 establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and Resolution 955 (1994) establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, set the groundwork for a new model of hybrid tribunals, with the establishment of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in 2002, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia in 2006, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in 2007. Perhaps one of the greatest legacies of these ad hoc and hybrid courts and tribunals has been paving the way for the establishment of a permanent international criminal court. However, they have also brought about the development of international criminal law through judicial interpretation, elaborating, inter alia, the elements of the crime of genocide as detailed in the 1948 Genocide Convention, the judicial recognition of the concept of joint criminal enterprise and the principle that national arrangements for amnesties in respect of international crimes are no bar to prosecution for such crimes at an international tribunal. In view of the completion strategies of the ad hoc Tribunals, as well as of the SCSL, this article delves into some of their legacies and outlines some of the difficulties and challenges they have faced, while identifying areas of best practice in order for the newly‐operational International Criminal Court to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past or even reinventing new wheels.     

Witnesses in the special court for Sierra Leone: The importance of the witness–lawyer relationship

This study is concerned with the relationship between witnesses testifying in the Special Court for Sierra Leone and their legal teams. Other research conducted with witnesses in international war crimes tribunals suggests that this relationship has a significant impact on the experience of such witnesses. A structured interview was administered to 171 witnesses who had testified in the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Witnesses generally felt their lawyers' attitude towards them was extremely good. Emotional support and good preparation for testifying seem to be particularly important predictors of witnesses' relationship with their lawyers, as does the level of respect they felt they received from court staff. However, communication between witnesses and their legal teams after the testimony is over did not have a significant impact on witnesses' evaluations of their lawyers' attitude towards them.     

混合型审判机构:惩治国际犯罪的新途径

混合型审判机构是近年来才出现的新事物 ,通过介绍东帝汶、科索沃及塞拉里昂三个国家和地区的混合型审判机构 ,并且在考察现存和正在商议中的混合型审判机构的基础上总结了其特点。由于混合型审判机构的具有较强的适应性和灵活性及其他优点 ,决定了其可能替代国际特设刑事法庭 ,在惩治国际犯罪司法体系中占据一席之地。     

初探塞拉里昂特别法庭

塞拉里昂特别法庭是进入21世纪以来,联合国主导创立的国际化刑事法庭之一。通过介绍其创立及创立依据的法律文件、其机构及其管辖权,总结出塞拉里昂特别法庭的特点,指出其兼备了国际特设刑事审判机构和国际化刑事法庭的优点。     

论“大民事”

我国法院系统关于取消经济审判庭的“大民事”改革 ,实际上是向公、私法严格分野的“小民事”的倒退。司法真要改革 ,就要确立官民合作、“民行 (政 )”相容、实事求是、公平和诚信的理念。适应市场经济及其法治要求的理念确立了 ,相应的法和司法制度设计问题也就迎刃而解了。     

Difficulties Confronted by ICSID Tribunals in Deciding International Investment Corruption Cases and Possible Solutions

The issue of corruption has attracted increasing attention in the study and practice of international investment law during recent years. After taking prudent consideration of the corruption defense invoked by the host states in some international investment arbitration cases involved with corruption, International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunals accordingly determined the final awards. However, some parts of the arbitral jurisprudence aroused strong criticism, especially with regard to the ICSID tribunals’ reasoning that arbitrators have no jurisdiction over corruption-tainted international investments. The ICSID tribunals are legitimately supposed to exercise their jurisdiction and are lawfully obliged to probe into the nature of corrupt activities. The tribunals are strongly expected to adopt a balanced approach in deciding the merits and fairly weighing the obligations, rights, and interests of both disputing parties. It is preferable to strengthen the collaborative interaction between ICSID proceedings and domestic anti-corruption enforcement mechanisms when it comes to combating corrupt international investment activities. Existing international treaties (or specific treaty provisions) on combating corruption in international business transactions and calling for international cooperation, alongside domestic anti-corruption enforcement legislation, have actually laid solid legal foundations for the establishment of such an anti-corruption coordinative mechanism between ICSID and domestic corruption regulatory authorities on the global level.     

相对人对行政行为的合法预期与信赖保护原则

传统行政法上的信赖保护原则,只限于就相对人对行政主体已生效的行政行为信赖的保护,而相对人对行政主体作出行政行为的合法预期则不含其中。从严格依法行政和全面保护相对人合法权益的角度出发,这种合法预期也应纳入信赖保护的范畴。本文从相对人对行政行为合法预期的构成及其落空分析了信赖保护的适用条件,探讨了信赖保护对此类预期进行保护的原则及具体适用。     

论法律推理的合法性要求

合法性是对司法审判活动的基本要求,在法律推理中同样如此。法律形式主义的合法性理论遭到了法律现实主义的否定,这两种理论都是以简化的法律推理模式为出发点的。本文指出,法律推理的合法性首先要求法律推理必须使用法律上的理由;其次还取决于当事人及其律师的合法参与以及社会对司法判决的一般性接受。     

法官合并审理自由裁量权之规制——以诉的客观合并适用为中心

案多人少背景下诉的客观合并可以成为程序扩容方式。目前法官对同一当事人间的数诉在是否合并审理上专断恣意,表现为诉的合法性评价混乱和合并形态的肯认无序。前者应通过合并要件设置树立诉的合法性评价标尺,后者应通过特定合并形态的肯认确定当事人请求能多大程度上拘束法院。在合并要件方面,须通过法规范明确同一原告对同一被告提出数诉、法院对数诉之一具有管辖权、数诉必须适用同一诉讼程序三项合并要件,防止法官在诉的合法性评价上专断;在合并形态肯认方面,应通过颁布指导性案例确立有牵连关系的单纯合并与预备合并,及时回应当事人提起数诉的审理裁判要求。