国际法院诉讼案件判决的执行问题探析

国际法院判决的执行问题并非只是一个执行或不执行的简单二分法问题,而是一个介于两者之间、包含一系列政治决策的复杂问题。一方面,根据《联合国宪章》和国家的实践,当事国有遵守国际法院判决的义务;另一方面,出于自身利益的考虑,当事国往往以各种理由阻止对自己不利的判决的实际生效。由于目前国际上缺乏一个有效的执行机制,这一矛盾没能得到完满的解决。因此,在分析当事国遵守国际法院判决义务的基础上,对国际法院诉讼案件判决的执行实践和执行方式进行深入探讨有重要意义。     

Evidentiary Issues in the ICJ's Genocide Judgment

Despite the commitment by the International Court of Justice(ICJ or the Court) in clarifying underlying methods and guidelinesof its approach to fact-finding and evidence, it can be doubtedwhether the judgment delivered in the Bosnia and Herzegovinav. Serbia case genuinely marked a decisive step towards a moretransparent and reliable methodology for evidentiary matters.Behind the formula of ‘fully conclusive evidence’,when dealing with Articles II and III of the Genocide Conventionthe Court adopted for all practical purposes a typical criminallaw ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’ standard of proof.By this choice the Court upheld in substance the argument putforward by Serbia that even if the questions of state responsibilityfor acts of genocide are not excluded by the scope of the Convention,they must nevertheless be judged by the same parameters of individualcriminal responsibility. In reaching its conclusions the Courtrelied heavily on the jurisprudence of the ICTY, both as regardsthe ascertainment of facts and their legal qualification. Itremains to be seen whether in future cases the Court will beable to adopt a similar criminal court posture, and whetherit will be similarly prepared to rely on the findings of otherinternational tribunals such as the International Criminal Court,which is not established by the Security Council.     

Divergent Approaches to Determining Responsibility for Genocide: The Darfur Commission of Inquiry and the ICJ's Judgment in the Genocide Case

Internationally sanctioned assessments of genocide are relativelyuncommon, and since genocide is usually assessed in the contextof an individual's criminal prosecution, assessments of stateresponsibility for genocide are even rarer. Yet two such analyseshave recently been completed: the International Commission ofInquiry on Darfur's Report and the International Court of Justice'sJudgment on genocide in Bosnia. On a key issue, the methodologyfor determining whether a state is responsible for genocide,they diverged. Whereas the Darfur Commission determined whetherthe ‘central government’ of Sudan pursued a statepolicy or plan for genocide in Darfur, the ICJ stressed thata state commits genocide through the acts of its officials,holding that if a state organ or a person or group whose actsare legally attributable to the state, engages in genocide,then the international responsibility of that state is incurred.This article critically examines the different methodologicalapproaches taken by these two bodies in light of internationaljurisprudence. It argues that the Darfur Commission erred infocusing its genocide inquiry on whether high-level officialsin Sudan's government possessed genocidal intent, rather thanon the perpetrators of the underlying criminal acts. In addition,it argues that, whether the Commission's goal was to determinestate responsibility or individual criminal responsibility,its approach was at variance with international law as elucidatedin the UN ad hoc tribunals and as subsequently confirmed bythe ICJ in the Genocide Case. In that regard, the ICJ Judgmentreestablishes two sound methodological principles: the existenceof a state plan or policy, although probative of intent, isnot an implicit element of genocide; and determining state intent(however that may be defined) is not a part of determining stateresponsibility for genocide.     

What the ICJ did not say about the Duty to Punish Genocide: The Missing Pieces in a Puzzle

The article focuses on the legal implications of the constructionof the International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court) ofthe duty to punish genocide under Article VI of the Conventionon the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide inthe Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro judgment.It posits that the Court's discussion of the duty to punishis satisfying in terms of what it says and less satisfying interms of what it is silent about. It is satisfying in the sensethat the Court's construction of the duty to cooperate withinternational tribunals prosecuting genocide as including aduty of extradition, seems to extend beyond the plain languageof the Convention and indeed beyond the parties’ originalintent. It is not fully satisfying because the duty to prosecuteremains quite limited. It is further argued that the obligationto punish genocide as established in Article I and the obligationto prosecute genocide as established in Article VI should beunderstood as two distinct obligations. Article VI merely setsthe institutional arrangements for prosecution. Other normativesources support the conclusion that a general duty to prosecuteperpetrators of genocide or extradite them for prosecution elsewhereapplies even in those cases where the offence was not committedin the territory of a contracting state or when the offenderis prosecuted by an international court that has jurisdictionover the state where the alleged perpetrator is found.     

The Background and Causes of the Genocide in Rwanda

This article begins with an account of significant events andsocio-political relationships in the history of Rwanda, leadingto mass murder and genocide in 1994. An explanation is thenoffered of these crimes, based on an analysis of certain ecological,economic, cultural and political factors specific to Rwanda,but shared to an important extent by much of East Africa.     

The Security Council in the Face of Genocide

The genocide in Rwanda will define for our generation the failureto intervene in the face of mass human rights abuses. The UNSecurity Council (the Council) was intimately involved in thisterrible event, with the decisions it took from October 1993,when a peacekeeping mission was created for Rwanda, having adecisive effect on what happened. This article details the crucialmeetings held by the Council in secret and informal sessionsand describes how a serious assessment of the situation in Rwandawas simply missing. It shows how the peacekeepers of the Council'smission to Rwanda were abandoned during the genocide and howthe efforts of these UN personnel to ease the suffering of theRwandan people were ignored by the Great Powers.     

The Crime of Genocide in the ICTR Jurisprudence

The jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal forRwanda (ICTR) has properly focused on the special intent (dolusspecialis) to destroy a group as the distinguishing characteristicof genocide and differentiated it from result-oriented crimes.Although the ICTR has crowned genocide as ‘the crime ofcrimes’, it has simultaneously dethroned it by holdingthat it attracts the same sentence as other humanitarian lawviolations. Nonetheless, ICTR jurisprudence attaches considerableimportance to characterizing the destruction of the Tutsi asgenocide as distinct from crimes against humanity. Because theTutsi cannot be readily distinguished as one of the protectedgroups under the Genocide Convention, Trial Chambers have goneto great lengths to characterize them as an ‘ethnic’group in order to justify the label of genocide.     

国际法院在解决领土争端中的作用及困境评析

当今世界领土争端问题广泛存在,尤其以亚洲、非洲、拉丁美洲、欧洲等居多.国际法作为调整国与国之间关系的法律,在解决领土争端领域正日益发挥着重要作用.作为国际法的主要司法机构--国际法院逐步受到国际社会的关注,以国际法院懈决的领土争端案为依据,比较国际法院与其他政治谈判手段在解决领土争端问题上的不同之处;总结国际法院在审案过程中运用的基本法律原则,受理领土争端案的主要特征;分析在现实世界中国际法院解决领土争端所遭遇的困境以及对我国的启示.     

The Drafting of ICJ Decisions: Some Personal Recollections and Observations

This paper is a study of the process of drafting of decisionsof the International Court of Justice from the standpoint ofthe Registry, showing on the basis of the author's personalrecollections how the Registry contributes to the process. Thequestion of the legal propriety of such contribution is examined,on the basis of a distinction between the task of decision,and that of expression of the decision. Some remarks are alsooffered on drafting techniques.     

Genocide, Complicity in Genocide and International v. Domestic Jurisdiction: Reflections on the van Anraat Case

When adjudicating international crimes, domestic courts arefaced with a choice between the application of internationallaw or national law. In the recent van Anraat judgment, a DutchDistrict Court explicitly opted for the former alternative.This approach led to the accused's acquittal of complicity ingenocide. In the Court's opinion, there was no proof beyonda reasonable doubt that van Anraat had actual knowledge of SaddamHussein's special intent to destroy part of the Kurdish population.According to the Court, such proof is required under internationallaw. This article argues that the Court's preference for internationallaw was not prescribed, either by international law or by domesticlaw, although in principle such preference may prove advisable,whenever international rules are clear and exhaustive. Aftertracing the intricate legal discussions on mens rea requirementsfor genocide and complicity in genocide, the author concludesthat the issue has not yet been completely elucidated in internationalcase law and legal literature. In situations of ambiguity whereinternational case law offers insufficient guidance, domesticcourts would better resort to their own criminal law. As Dutchcriminal law extends the mens rea of the accomplice beyond ‘knowledge’so as to cover dolus eventualis as well, application of domesticlaw might have affected the outcome of the case.     

《国际法院规则》第79条、第80条修订评析

2 0 0 0年年底联合国国际法院通过的对《国际法院规则》第 79条、第 80条的修订 ,改进和发展了法院的初步反对程序和反诉程序。本文阐述了规则修订的法理根据和实际考虑 ,并结合国际法院在新的历史时期面临的机遇和挑战分析了规则修订的背景。本文还结合法院实践 ,比较新旧条款的规定 ,对相关的两个程序进行了法律解释 ,认为相关修订对于强化国际法院在诉讼活动中的主导地位、提高诉讼效率以及行使扩大法院管辖权有积极的促进作用。     

The Legal Effects of Resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ

This article aims to extract from the jurisprudence of the InternationalCourt of Justice a basic theory of legal effects of unilateralinstruments of international organizations in public internationallaw. These effects can be divided into three categories. Thefirst is substantive effects. These include binding, authorizingand (dis)empowering effects. The second category is causativeeffects, whereby determinations of fact or of law bring substantiveeffects into existence. The third category is modal effects– how and when the substantive effects come into existence(e.g. immediate or deferred, retroactive or non-retroactive,reversible or irreversible effect). Each of these categoriesof legal effects behaves differently according to whether theeffects are intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic effects are basedon the special treaty powers of the United Nations SecurityCouncil and General Assembly. In this hypothesis, all threecategories of effects exist to the full extent that the explicitand implicit powers of the adopting body allow for them. Extrinsiceffects are directly based on general international law, inparticular on the rules of formation of customary internationallaw. Here, there are no causative effects. Substantive effectsdo not strictly speaking exist; only pre-substantive ones do.And modal effects are always immediate, non-retroactive andreversible.     

The Fate of the State Revisited

The State, which during the three and a half centuries since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) has been the most important and the most characteristic of all modern institutions, appears to be declining or dying. In many places, existing states are either combining into larger communities or falling apart; in many places, organizations that are not states are challenging them by means fair or foul. On the international level, we seem to be moving away form a system of separate, sovereign, legally equal, states towards less distinct, more hierarchical, and in many ways more complex political structures. Inside their borders, it seems that many states will soon no longer be able to protect the political, military, economic, social and cultural life of their citizens. These developments are likely to lead to upheavals as profound as those that took humanity out of the middle ages and into the modern world. Whether the direction of change is desirable, as some hope, or undesirable, as others fear, remains to be seen.     

The Dayton Peace Agreemnet and Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina

The article provides a short insight into the functioning of one of the most interesting institution established by the Dayton Pace Agreement, that is the protecting machinery of human rights. It examines why and how the Agreement on Human Rights has been adopted wthin the Dayton strustures, reflects onthe role of the established quasiinternational organs within the Bosnian legal system. It pays special attention to the competence and practice of the Human Rights Chamberm which is the highest judicial body in the country protecting human rights.     

Writing the Rwandan Genocide: The Justice and Politics of Witnessing after the Event

This paper tries to read together three texts that refer to the Rwandan genocide and to draw attention to certain paradoxes that emerge from the way in which the texts might be said to talk to and past each other. The overall intention is to throw light on the complications in witnessing such an event, and to themes of justice and politics that arise.