神秘数字的法文化蕴含

神秘数字起源于原始文化,遗存于文明社会的文化里。神秘数字的出现与万物有灵、巫术、互渗等观念的存在有关。神秘数字对人类法文化有着深刻的影响。对神秘数字的起源及含义的理解,有助于搞清一些法律制度的起源并准确把握其意蕴。从一到十的数字都是神秘数字,十以上的神秘数字多是十以下神秘数字的倍数。十以下以及少数十以上的神秘数字皆有法文化蕴含。     

晚近刑法对危害公共安全罪的修改与补充

毒品在全球泛滥,危害着人类安全;吸毒耗费了巨额财富,禁毒需要大量资金,毒品影响着各国经济发展。同时,制毒、贩毒助长国际恐怖活动的蔓延,使国家安全受到了威胁;毒品引发了各种犯罪与社会不稳定因素。冷战后国际禁毒合作加强,但由于毒品问题的跨国性、复杂性,毒品问题还将长期存在。     

The Interpersonal Style and Complementarity Between Crisis Negotiators and Forensic Inpatients

Previous negotiation research has explored the interaction and communication between crisis negotiators and perpetrators. A crisis negotiator attempts to resolve a critical incident through negotiation with an individual, or group of persons in crisis. The purpose of this study was to establish the interpersonal style of crisis negotiators and complementarity of the interpersonal interaction between them and forensic inpatients. Crisis negotiators, clinical workers and students (n = 90) used the Check List of Interpersonal Transactions-Revised (CLOIT-R) to identify interpersonal style, along with eight vignettes detailing interpersonal styles. Crisis negotiators were most likely to have a friendly interpersonal style compared to the other non-trained groups. Complementarity theory was not exclusively supported as submissive individuals did not show optimistic judgments in working with dominant forensic inpatients and vice versa. Exploratory analysis revealed that dominant crisis negotiators were optimistic in working with forensic inpatients with a dominant interpersonal style. This study provides insight into the area of interpersonal complementarity of crisis negotiators and forensic inpatients. Whilst further research is required, a potential new finding was established, with significant ‘similarity’ found when dominant crisis negotiators are asked to work with dominant forensic inpatients.     

From Criminal Law to Legal Theory: The Mysterious Case of the Reasonable Glue Sniffer

The modern idea of criminal justice is organised around a series of antinomies which include the formal and the substantive, the universal and the particular, the individual and the social. This paper examines the place of these antinomies in four different but connected settings: the plight of the humane judge, the classical enlightenment theory of retributive punishment, the judgment of provoked killing, and the critique of orthodox subjectivism in the Anglo–American law. The play of the universal and the particular and the formal and substantive within law reflects and embodies the underlying antinomy of the individual and the social – even where it does not mention it.
The qualitative moment is preserved in all quantification, as the substrate of that which is to be quantified.     

Universal Jurisdiction Meets Complementarity: An Approach towards a Desirable Future Codification of Horizontal Complementarity between the Member States of the International Criminal Court

This paper will propose a first draft provision concerning horizontal complementarity between the member states of the ICC. Firstly, the idea of subsidiary universal jurisdiction will be introduced. At its heart, the work will bring the concepts of vertical complementarity and subsidiary universal jurisdiction into relation to define a desirable future codification of horizontal complementarity. The author will focus on the following seven issues that have to be addressed during the drafting of such codification: The relationship between the actors; the legal qualification of horizontal complementarity; the underlying idea and ratio behind the concept; a positive or negative determination of complementarity; the definition of horizontal complementarity; the question who the final arbiter of a determination should be; the matter of compliance with decisions. It will be seen that Art 17 ICC Statute can serve as a useful basis of this codification but that the special relationships on the inter-state level will inevitably lead to some deviating requirements of this principle.     

Applying The Rome Statutes Complementarity Principle: Drawing Lessons From The Prosecution of Core Crimes by States Acting Under the Universality Principle

Criminal Law Forum -     

On the Principle of Complementarity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the RomeStatute or the Statute) entered into force on 1 July 2002, withthe satisfaction of Article 126 of the Statute.¹ Up until 24 September 2004, 139 States have signed the Statuteand 97 States have become the Parties. Under such circumstances,China, as one of the permanent members of the Security Councilof the United Nations and a non-party State playing a greatrole in international affairs, needs to acquire a better understandingand also makes a detailed study on the Statute. One of the mostunique characters of the International Criminal Court (the ICCor the Court)—as reflected in the principle of complentarity—willbe discussed and analysed in the following essay.     

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.     

Labor Regulation,Corporate Governance,and Legal Origin: A Case of Institutional Complementarity?

We explore the influential claim that "legal origin"—the historical origin of a given national legal system in the common law or civil law—accounts for a significant degree of cross-national diversity in economic regulation and development. We show that the claim is undermined by problems in index construction and by a misreading of the implications of the common law/civil law divide for the respective roles of courts and legislatures in law making. We argue that a critical factor, instead, was the timing of industrialization in relation to the emergence of legal institutions associated with the modern business enterprise (the employment relationship and the joint stock company). We also show how distinctive "legal cultures" of the common law and civil law have played a part in setting national systems on separate pathways to economic development.     

Complementarity, Amnesties and Alternative Forms of Justice: Some Interpretative Guidelines for the International Criminal Court

The question to what extent amnesties and pardons may bar criminalinvestigations or prosecutions under the Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court (the Statute) has been left unresolved by theRome process. This essay seeks to develop some general guidelinesthat may help the Court to address this problem, should it arisein a specific case. It suggests four basic principles to dealwith the issue of amnesties and pardons: (i) the Court has interpretativeautonomy to decide whether an amnesty or a pardon is permissibleunder the Statute; (ii) exemptions from criminal responsibilityfor the core crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court byamnesties or pardons should generally be considered incompatiblewith the Statute; (iii) prosecution by states and by the Courtmay be limited to the most serious crimes and the most responsibleperpetrators (targeted prosecution); (iv) amnesties or pardonsshould, if it all, only be permitted in exceptional cases, namelywhere they are conditional and accompanied by alternative formsof justice.