国际法院咨询管辖权初探

从常设国际法院到国际法院,其咨询管辖权和“司法性”之间的协调一直是一个难题。要想满意地解决法院当前面临的困境,不必急于扩大有权寻求咨询意见的机构的范围,而必须确保各机构在利用国际法院的咨询管辖权时,更多的是出于解决法律问题的目的而非政治目的。     

国际法庭管辖的战争罪与武装冲突

本文介绍了战争与武装冲突的概念及其区别,并根据1945年《欧洲国际军事法庭宪章》和1946年《东京国际军事法庭宪章》,1991年《前南国际法庭规约》以及2002年生效的《国际刑事法院罗马规约》关于战争罪的规定,探讨了战争法规和惯例是否适用国际性武装和非国际性武装冲突的问题。     

论国际刑事法院管辖权

为加强国际社会刑事司法协作,惩治国际社会的严重犯罪,1998年联合国在罗马召开了联合国外交会议,并通过了<国际刑事法院规约>和<会议最后文件>,据此,联合国于2002年7月1日正式成立了国际刑事法院.这是世界上第一个专门审判灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪、战争罪和侵略罪的国际机构,表明了国际社会决心改变以往对国际罪行采取间接管辖的做法,标志着国际人道主义法和国际人权法上的一个重大突破.同时,这也带来了一个非常现实的问题,即国际刑事法院对国际罪行行使管辖权时,如何做到和一国的主权及司法管辖权的并行和相容?因此,本文将就国际刑事法院管辖权行使的相关问题作一探讨.     

The 2006 Record of the International Court of Justice

This article presents a brief overview of developments relatingto the International Court of Justice during 2006 and reportson certain revisions and additions that were introduced to thePractice Directions and on the latest changes in the Court'scomposition. Finally, a brief outlook is presented on the basisof the status of the Court's docket as on 31 December 2006.     

The International Criminal Court and Africa: Exemplary Justice

This is a theoretical and empirical investigation into the causal link (if any) between international criminal trials and preventing violence through exemplary prosecutions. Specifically how do representative trials of persons accused of having the greatest responsibility for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, supposedly bind recurrent violence? The argument pursued is that by using an accused as an example, a court engages in an indirect and uncertain substitution of personal rights for social harmony and order. These prosecutions combine a peculiar rhetoric, logic and aesthetic, all which substitute the responsibilities for a society in general to a particular individual in order to redeem that society by transferring its communal responsibility onto the individual punished as a form of atonement or expiation. International and domestic trials, as well as truth and reconciliation commissions, are part of a suite of options addressing communal mass violence that can work in tandem. However, because those convicted do not have a monopoly on criminality, nor do those merely reconciled have a monopoly on virtue, exemplification through punishment only targets a few on behalf of the many. Indeed such a redemptively sacrificial economy distinguishes legal justice from mere vengeance.     

论国际刑事法院管辖权的社会基础

国际社会的主权体制与全球化的客观趋势,构成国际刑事法院管辖权的社会基础。主权体制与全球化存在一定的矛盾,主权国家的社会体制要求以国家主权原则作为社会运行的基本准则,全球化的国际社会则强调人类利益的总体保护,要求贯彻全球治理的原则。但二者又具有契合点,即国际社会的正常秩序。国际社会主权体制与全球化的矛盾与统一必然反映到国际刑事法院的管辖权上,国际刑事法院管辖权一方面要尊重国家主权,但同时也不免带有超国家权力的因素。     

国际刑事法院的管辖权与国家主权原则

1998年在罗马召开的联合国外交会议通过的《国际刑事法院规约》,在惩治国际社会中的严重国际犯罪、加强国际刑事司法制度建设及实现个人的国际刑事责任等方面具有特别重要的意义。但有人认为《规约》有关法院管辖权的规定是对国家主权原则的否定。本文认为：主权不是绝对的,不能推至极端。《规约》确立国际刑事法院对“核心罪行”的普遍管辖权的,是对国家主权原则的否定,不利于法院被国际社会广泛接受。但是《规约》除此之外的有关法院管辖权的规定则反映了当今国际社会组织化过程中“国际组织对国家主权的软侵蚀”的趋势。这种趋势“并不意味着动摇了国家主权构成国际关系的基础和国际法的核心这一神圣地位”。     

国际刑事法院行使管辖权与国家的同意

国际刑事法院的正式建立涉及到一系列国际法律问题 ,尤其是关于国际刑事法院的管辖权方面的问题 ,由于往往涉及国家主权 ,复杂而敏感。因而 ,从国际法原理的角度 ,对这些问题进行深入探讨 ,极为必要。特别是我国政府暂时还没有批准《国际刑事法院规约》 ,也没有签字 ,而其原因主要集中于国际刑事法院有关管辖权方面的某些规定 ,所以更应从国际法原理的角度出发对所涉及的有关问题予以深入分析与客观评介 ,尤其是对规约有关管辖权方面某些重要条款存在的不恰当理解更有必要予以澄清 ,以期为将来我国考虑加入《国际刑事法院规约》、成为国际刑事法院的成员国提供一些参考。     

Internet for International Criminal Justice Organizations

Increasing pressure to reduce operational cost and the simultaneously arising demand to make more and more information available to a wider audience are the main motivation for using Internet as basis for publishing material. The project described in this contribution is an ongoing co-operation between the United Nations Centre for International Crime Prevention and the University of Vienna which is aimed at providing an Internet platform for the distribution of United Nations information related to crime prevention and criminal justice. It is shown how the technology is applied by an international organisation as basis for disseminating information and how the available information can be used by researches for analysis. The implemented system, UNCJIN (United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network), today has been received very well in the community and serves as a valuable basis for research requiring international data, such as country reports and statistics.     

国际法院作用探讨

国际法院是联合国的主要司法机关 ,但尚未发挥其应有的作用。本文在《国际法院规约》的范围内 ,从国际法院管辖权的角度 ,探讨了加强国际法院作用的现实途径 :有所侧重地利用其诉讼管辖 ;充分利用具有多种优势的特别分庭 ;而咨询管辖则为国际组织提供了预防与解决争端的新途径。     

The Proposed International Criminal Jurisdiction for the African Court: Some Problematical Aspects

Netherlands International Law Review - This article discusses some problems arising from the proposed conferral of international criminal jurisdiction on the African Court of Justice and Human...     

The International Court of Justice and International Law-making: The Judicial Activism/Self-Restraint Antinomy

The antinomy between judicial activism and self-restraint, wellknown to students of the US Supreme Court, has implicationstoday also for international tribunals. The resort to judicialsettlement of international dispute is still predicated upona certain basic homogeneity of legal cultures and values goingwith them. When, however, social and cultural values are infundamental tension or collision with each other, there maybe an inclination towards activism to try to resolve the conflictsor contradictions. Any such activism on the part of the InternationalCourt of Justice, after the way seemed opened by the landmarkadvisory opinion in Nambia in 1971, effectively "overruling"earlier, more static jurisprudence, seems, however, to havebeen tempered by a perceived obligation of judicial respectfor the constitutional role and missions of the other policy-makingUN organs and other main players in the international community.As a result, this tends to lead to a situation in which theCourt may be dealing with no major, high political–legaltension-issues of the day.