《罗马规约》与国际刑事法院面临的法律问题

《国际刑事法院罗马规约》是国际刑法实践发展的总结 ,是最近成立的国际刑事法院今后运作的理论基础和宪法性依据。作者从解读《罗马规约》入手 ,以国际刑事法院的成立为条件 ,联系现存的国际环境 ,较为详细地分析了该规约所规定和体现的管辖原则、检察官的地位、国际刑法面前人人平等的原则、罪行的界定、国际人权保护的实施、国家的国际刑事司法协助与合作义务等内容中存在的一些亟待解决的法律问题 ,并提出了几点建议。     

国际刑事法院的司法能动主义:实践、反思及限制

国际刑事法院对《罗马规约》近年来的解释中呈现出司法能动主义的趋势,即背离约文的字面含义和立法者的原意,扩张国际刑事法院管辖下犯罪的定义和可受理案件的范围。国际刑法的混合性质、先前国际刑事法庭的司法能动主义政策以及《罗马规约》适用法条款和解释规则的不确定性都是导致国际刑事法院司法能动主义的原因。作为非经授权的司法立法行为,国际刑事法院的司法能动主义不但违背国家主权原则和罪刑法定主义,而且损害了国际社会通过其追究国际犯罪的信心。构建对其司法能动主义进行规制的关键在于厘清和协调《维也纳条约法公约》中的解释规则、罪刑法定原则下的严格解释以及存疑有利于被告解释方法三者在《罗马规约》解释中的适用范围及适用关系。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

国际刑事法院管辖权的性质

《罗马规约》规定的国际刑事法院管辖权 ,既不同于国家刑事管辖权 ,也不同于国际特设刑事法庭和国际法院的管辖权。准确了解国际刑事法院的司法职能及其运行机制 ,以及国际刑事法院管辖权与国家刑事管辖权的关系 ,需要从管辖职能、管辖目的和管辖范围等角度 ,对国际刑事法院管辖权所具有的复合性、补充性、有限性等基本特征进行分析 ,并对国际刑事法院管辖权隐含的延展性作相应的探讨。     

国际刑事法院的管辖原则

1998年6月15日至7月17日在意大利罗马召开联合国设立国际刑事法院全权代表外交会议,联合国120个会员国在罗马通过一项条约——《国际刑事法院罗马规约》 (以下简称《罗马规约》),决定在世界历史上首次成立一个常设国际刑事法院。该规约于2002年1月1日生效,从即日起,任何犯有规约规定之罪行的人,都有承受该院追究其责任的义务。至 2005年3月15日,《罗马规约》签约国共有139个,其中批     

国际刑法和《罗马规约》评价

国际刑法反映了国际社会打击灭绝种族、危害人类、战争等危害全人类的最严重罪行、维护世界和平和国际正义的愿望，其基本原则表现为合法性原则、补充性原则、个人刑事责任原则以及国际合作与司法协助原则：前南刑庭的成功运作使国际刑法真正由设想走向现实，而国际刑事法院目前仍然面临较大挑战，但《罗马规约》总结了各国刑事司法的最新理念，反映了世界各大法系的不同特点，在一定程度上代表了当前全球刑法学的最主流观点，对国内刑法有诸多启发与借鉴。     

惩治严重国际犯罪的新途径——关注国际刑事法院的运作系列论坛综述

《国际刑事法院罗马规约》的生效以及国际刑事法院的诞生,是国际法、国际刑法及国际刑事审判的历史性变革。我国尽管没有加入该规约,但作为最大的发展中国家,不能不予以关注。为了深入了解《罗马规约》以及国际刑事法院的运作,2007年2月3日至4日,由北京师范大学刑事法律科学研究院和加     

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.     

国际刑事法院《罗马规约》犯罪构成要件刍议——以危害人类罪作为样本

尽管世界各国对于犯罪的规定各不相同,但其犯罪规定中所涵盖的成立犯罪的要件(犯罪要素)却大体相当.这种认识对象与内容的相通,正是国际犯罪概念和国际刑事司法审判活动及其机构产生的基础.国际刑事法院管辖的是整个国际社会关注的最严重犯罪,具体包括四类:灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪、战争罪和侵略罪.《罗马规约》对于犯罪构成要件的规定采用规约规定与《犯罪要件》细释相结合的方式,为在国际刑法领域实现法治化作出了有益的创新,开辟了国际刑事司法的新纪元.     

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。     

International Crimes and ICC Cooperation in England and Wales

The United Kingdom, as a party to the ICC Statute, has broughtin a series of similar pieces of legislation in order to fulfilits obligations under the Statute, and to ensure that crimessubject to the jurisdiction of the ICC are also crimes in domesticlaw. This article concentrates on the International CriminalCourt Act 2001, which applies in England and Wales, to appraisewhether it adequately provides for assistance to the ICC, andwhether the crimes subject to the ICC's jurisdiction are adequatelyincorporated into domestic law. The article also mentions thepossible role of the common law of England and Wales in relationto international crimes. It concludes that, for the most part,the Act reflects a sensible approach to issues involved in assistingthe ICC and provides a workable basis for the prosecution ofinternational crimes in that jurisdiction.     

The Enforcement of Arrest Warrants by International Forces: From the ICTY to the ICC

The conflict in the former Yugoslavia set a precedent in modernhistory for having a multinational military force being empoweredand directed to execute arrest warrants issued by an internationalcriminal tribunal. On legal grounds, the International CriminalTribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) attained this resultby relying on the broad wording of its governing Statute coupledwith the ICTY's own rule-making powers. In contrast, the draftersof the International Criminal Court (ICC) Statute elaboratedon the nature of the cooperation from international forces insignificantly more details but at the same time opted for reducingthe ICC's powers vis-à-vis these forces. Therefore, theICC Statute now runs contrary to the ICTY's case law recognizinga judicial power to order an international force to executean ICTY arrest warrant. This deferential stance towards collectiveenterprises of states not only infringes upon the States Parties’general obligation to cooperate with the ICC, but, in the end,weakens the ICC's ability to enforce international criminaljustice.     

从苏丹情势分析国际刑事法院管辖权的补充性原则

联合国安理会向国际刑事法院的检察官提交的苏丹达尔富尔地区发生的情势,引发了非缔约国对国际刑事法院管辖权补充性的质疑。将达尔富尔的情势提交国际刑事法院,应由独立的机构判断苏丹政府“不愿意”和“不能”行使管辖权的客观证据。这样做,一方面为了充分支持安理会向检察官提交情势的行为;另一方面为了国际刑事法院审判工作的独立性和有效性吸引诸如中国和美国等司法制度健全的非缔约国批准《罗马规约》。中国虽然是非缔约国,但始终支持国际刑事法院的建立及其工作,并对国际刑事法院的审判活动采取一种审视态度。有理由相信,通过国际刑事法院建立的良好工作模式,如对达尔富尔公正有效的处理,以及在我国法律条件成熟的情况下,中国会成为《罗马规约》的缔约国。     

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.     

Realising the Potential of the International Criminal Court: The African Experience

To date efforts of the International Criminal Court (ICC) toeradicate impunity for international crimes have been focussedin the African region. With arrest warrants now issued in relationto the situations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ugandaand the surrender of one individual to the Court, this articleprovides a timely examination of the efforts of African Statesto adopt legislation to provide for cooperation with the ICCand the prosecution of ICC crimes in national courts. The articledemonstrates that despite their willingness to make use of theICC system for prosecutions, African States, reflecting thegeneral trend in other regions, have made very little progressin implementing the Rome Statute. The article also examineshow the ICC has conducted its investigations in light of thelack of such implementing legislation.