论混合型海洋争端的管辖权问题

以"查戈斯群岛仲裁案"和"南海仲裁案"为代表,混合型海洋争端的管辖权问题从理论争议演变为现实困境。受制于特定的属物管辖权,《联合国海洋法公约》争端解决机制框架下的国际仲裁庭不能对混合型海洋争端整体实施管辖权。相关争端当事方为规避管辖权的障碍,故意将混合型海洋争端的局部提交强制仲裁机制。但是,由于领土主权和海洋权益争端之间的固有联系,这种人为的割裂难以使海洋争端纯粹化,相反给国际仲裁庭的裁决带来了更大程度的困扰。鉴于混合型海洋争端所引发的正当性、实效性和公正性危机,国际仲裁庭在裁决管辖权问题时不得不持谨慎态度。国际仲裁庭在"查戈斯群岛仲裁案"中所使用的"重心检验"方法能确保对混合型海洋争端进行相对准确的定性,并随之确定管辖权。而在"南海仲裁案"中,国际仲裁庭并没有沿用"重心检验"方法对菲律宾的仲裁请求逐项进行客观和全面的审查,致使其管辖权裁决出现重大瑕疵。     

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     

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。     

国际刑事审判机构中的法官

国际刑事审判机构的法官必须具备三个条件，即公正性、独立性和普遍性，这也是所有国际刑事审判机构应有的三大要素。公正性是任何刑事审判机构所必不可少的重要因素，关系着诉讼当事人的合法权益，关系着整个司法体系的权威性与信誉。独立性系指法官独立办案，不接受来自任何组织、政府与个人的指示。普遍性则意味着国际刑事审判机构的法官应来自世界上各大法律和文化体系，具有最广泛的代表……     

论混合型行政性垄断及其规制

混合型行政性垄断业已成为我国行政性垄断的常态之一。混合型行政性垄断系指基于抽象行政性垄断而生成的具体行政性垄断行为或者状态。其构成要件可分为必要的构成要件和辅助性的构成要素,其表现形态甚为复杂。新近一年来,频发的混合型行政性垄断诸种事例,充分表明了混合型行政性垄断是由行政机关滥用行政权力而直接或间接地产生,并受到行政权力的持续支持与保护。对此,我们应当以依法行使行政权为核心,从行政组织法、程序法和救济法角度加以全面规制,反混合型行政性垄断的制度建设任重而道远。     

论灭绝种族罪的受保护团体

《防止和惩治灭绝种族罪公约》首次将灭绝种族罪规定为一项国际犯罪,但是在其生效以来的40年间,国际社会一直缺乏对灭绝种族罪的惩治实践,直到1995年卢旺达国际刑事法庭对阿卡耶苏案作出审判,才开启了国际刑事机构审判灭绝种族罪的先河。1998年通过的《国际刑事法院罗马规约》也将灭绝种族罪列为各项国际犯罪之首,以体现其严重性。本文试图对灭绝种族罪的受保护团体以及不受保护的团体进行讨论,以期为国际刑事司法中灭绝种族的定罪实践提供理论上的支持。     

论国际刑事司法机构的发展与国际法治

自20世纪90年代以来,国际刑事司法机构的兴起使国际法装备了"牙齿",降低了其"弱法"性质带来的负面影响,为实现国际法治提供了最具强制力的保障。其审判实践使国际法规范进一步"实定化",突出和强化了国际法的"制裁"功能,增强了国际法整体特别是国际人权法与国际人道法的效力和实效。假如能够突破和超越诸如"合法性受质疑"、"缺乏普遍性"和"选择性司法"等局限性,国际刑事司法机构的发展将在一定程度上有助于促进实现国际法治。     

论未成年人犯特殊审判机制的程序关爱

未成年犯由于其在认知能力和承受能力的不足,适用与成年人一致的普通审判程序的矫正效果不佳。对未成年人犯的审理,要在审判机构、审判方式及审判人员的选择上予以关照,建立适应未成年人身心特点的专门机制。     

国际刑事审判的早期模式——以远东国际军事法庭为例

东京审判作为国际特设刑事法庭,是国际刑事审判的早期模式,这一针对二战战犯而设立的国际法庭,抚慰了人们那段痛苦的记忆。本文从国际组织角度,由其设立到审判过程,围绕《远东国际军事法庭宪章》的内容,旨在从回顾中梳理出它在国际刑事审判发展脉络中的贡献和教训。     

国际刑事审判机构中的“电子法庭”——访前南国际刑庭刘大群法官

目前,各国司法机构都为了提高审判效率,节约有限的资金与投入而在探索有效的解决途径。国内也有不少法院在高科技与审判工作的结合方面做了尝试,如网上立案、电子证据的使用等等。这些无疑都会大大促进审判效率的提高。但是如何处理好公正与效率的关系,电子高科技与法院审判管理之间还有许多问题值得关注和研究。最近,联合国前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭(以下简称"前南国际刑庭")开始采用高科技电子法庭的审判方式审理案件。为此,记者采访了去年在联合国大会举行的前南国际刑庭法官选举中以高票连任的刘大群法官(以下简称刘法官)。请他介绍了前南国际刑庭电子法庭系统的应用现状。     

论国际投资仲裁中贿赂行为的证明标准

对于贿赂行为的证明标准,国际投资仲裁庭的倾向是从回避到明确借鉴传统商事仲裁中的＂更高证明标准＂。然而,国际投资仲裁与国际商事仲裁存在较大的区别。支持国际商事仲裁庭采用＂更高证明标准＂的传统理由及潜在动机在国际投资仲裁中并不存在。因此,在国际投资仲裁中采用＂更高证明标准＂的法律依据不足。建议中国在BIT中将贿赂作为不可仲裁的投资争端事项之一加以规定,或者明确规定应采纳的证明标准。如中国作为被申请方参加国际投资仲裁程序,应该主动与仲裁庭讨论关于贿赂的证明标准问题,以争取有利条件。     

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.     

论成立国际刑事法庭的合法性问题

刑法上的“合法性原则”要求一个法庭必须“依法成立”。法庭只有“依法成立”,才有资格进行审理、并在确定被告有罪时对其进行定罪。刑法上这个原则,当然也适用于国际刑事法庭。自上个世纪90年代以后,国际社会为了惩治严重的国际犯罪行为,已成立了不少国际刑事法庭。尽管这些国际刑事法庭的宗旨和目的相同,但它们的成立方式却各不相同:前南斯拉夫国际刑事法庭和卢旺达国际刑事法庭是联合国安理会通过决议成立;塞拉利昂特别法庭是塞拉利昂政府与联合国通过签订协议而成立。虽然,成立方式可以不一样,但都必须符合“合法性”原则。本文将通过案例分析,来探讨这些国际刑事法庭在实践中是如何论证和裁决关于成立国际刑事法庭的“合法性”原则的法理问题。     

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.     

Establishing Universal Human Rights through War Crimes Trials and the Need for Cosmopolitan Law in an Age of Diversity

This article explores the practical and philosophical issues associated with bringing diverse moral conceptions into the judgments of international crimes. It is argued that a Habermasian view of cosmopolitan law provides a possibility for envisioning the way international courts can contribute to a universal morality across culturally disparate human rights conceptions. It is also argued that the most universally acceptable human rights conceptions reflect a convergence of procedures and substance. The author explores the treatment of rape in international war crimes tribunals in order to demonstrate how these judgments advance a more universally-acceptable human rights conceptions. Barbara Korth Faculty of Education. Indiana University 201 North Rose Ave Bloomington IN 47405, USA.     

Refugee status determination in Australia: breaking the rules?

This article looks at the asylum regime in Australia. In particular, it evaluates the procedures that are used to assess claims for asylum and the extent to which they meet international refugee and human rights standards. The article discusses four key issues in the adjudication programme: the appointment of decision-makers to tribunals that hear refugee applications, the accessibility of the review process by asylum seekers, questions relating to the efficiency of the procedures used and the mandatory detention system. It is argued that whereas Australia is party to the main international treaties that seek to protect refugees and asylum seekers, its asylum law and policy is in many ways inconsistent with international norms. To conclude, the author proposes the observance of human rights and refugee standards by asylum states. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Positive Obligations and the International Criminal Tribunals’ Law of Detention: Funding Family Visits and the ICC Presidency’s Ngudjolo Decision

This article addresses the issue of whether the international criminal tribunals are under an obligation to fund family visits for indigent detainees. It examines the concept of positive obligations and its relation to the detention situation and describes the practice of funding family visits as it has developed at the International Criminal Court. It further analyses relevant developments in the Court’s case law. It argues that the Court is indeed obliged to fund family visits. In this regard, the mere recognition of a detainee’s right to family visits in the tribunals’ legal frameworks andin international soft-law penological standards can be said to inadequately reflect the particularities of international detention.

     

THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS IN FEDERAL COURTS: 1980–1998*

Research Summary: This study reports findings from the American Terrorism Study. The data show that from 1980 to 1998, the U.S. government periodically tried accused domestic and international terrorists through the use of traditional criminal trials. The extent to which federal prosecutors “explicit politicized” these trials (and the success that the politicization had) varied among the types of terrorist groups. Explicit politically was not found to be successful in trials of domestic terrorists but seemed to work for trials involving international terrorists. Over the 20‐year period, however, federal prosecutors began to rely more heavily (and more successfully) on the politicization of the criminal acts by international terrorists. The results also show that international terrorists, like their domestic counterparts, are much less likely to plead guilty. Finally, the study shows that these traditional trials have resulted in international terrorists being punished more severely than domestic terrorists. Unfortunately, the practice of performing these politicized trials within the venue of the federal court system may have been compromised by defense strategies that capitalized on the due process procedures so prominent in the U.S. system of justice. In the wake of the terrorism attacks in September 2001 by foreign nationals, the federal government began to take the next step in its “war against terrorism” by instituting the use of military tribunals. Policy Implications: Although the federal government has been relatively successful in the prosecution of terrorism in America in the past two decades, the movement toward the use of military tribunals has perhaps become inevitable (as the use of the traditional criminal trial for international terrorists manifests weaknesses). In the short term, it is likely that several international terrorism cases stemming from the September 2001 attacks and other subsequent attacks (which may be presumed) will be tried in federal courthouses across the country (even with the advent of military tribunals). Federal prosecutors will need to be trained on the specifics of trying these kinds of cases. In the long term, the use of military tribunals will provide greater ease of prosecution for the federal government. Long‐term consequences such as retaliatory attacks and attacks aimed at the release of political prisoners cannot be ignored by policy makers.     

Measuring gross disproportion in environmental precaution to establish regulatory expropriation and quantum of compensation in international investment arbitration

This article applies a new methodology for the assessment of environmental risk prevention expenditure to the adjudication process of international investment arbitration. The Disproportion Factor Model can be implemented by investment arbitration tribunals to evaluate the reasonableness of environmental regulations imposed by host states that have a damaging impact upon foreign investment activity, such as would be the subject for a claim of indirect or regulatory expropriation. In this setting the Disproportion Factor Model can help illustrate whether a host state measure is unreasonable and in that sense should engage the investor’s entitlement to compensation under international law. It also acts as an objective guide to the setting of an appropriate quantum of compensation for the injured investor by reference to the environmental benefits that the regulation aimed to achieve relative to their costs, as evaluated by a rational decision-maker. The formula should be consequently viewed as a useful tool in judicial analysis by international investment tribunals.