The Requirement of an 'Express Agreement' for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability: A Critique of Brdanin

The mode of liability known as joint criminal enterprise (JCE)has emerged in the case law of the International Criminal Tribunalfor the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) as a means of assigning criminalliability to individuals for activities carried out by a collective.As a result, the doctrine must be carefully defined so as notto allow it to extend a defendant's liability beyond the appropriatelimits of individual criminal responsibility. In this regard,a recent ICTY Trial Chamber decision in Branin held that, wherea defendant is not alleged to have participated in the physicalperpetration of the crimes charged but to have contributed insome other way to the commission of the crimes by a group, theprosecution must demonstrate that the defendant entered intoan express agreement with the physical perpetrators to committhe crimes charged. The author argues that this ‘expressagreement requirement’ is both conceptually unsound andpractically unhelpful. Conceptually, it would be inconsistentwith core principles of JCE liability to require an expressagreement between a defendant and the physical perpetratorsof crimes, at least in circumstances in which it is allegedthat there existed a structure of two or more overlapping JCEs.Moreover, because this structure allows the accused and thephysical perpetrators to be operating in two separate JCEs,they need not even share a common criminal purpose. On a practicallevel, arguably in a ‘system-criminality’ contextsuch as the one that developed in the former Yugoslavia duringthe time period in question, the organizers of criminal activityare unlikely to enter into express criminal agreements withthose who physically carry out crimes, because existing organizedhierarchies provide much more efficient mechanisms by whichleaders are able to ensure the realization of their criminalplans.     

中国大陆刑法和澳门刑法中共同犯罪比较研究

共同犯罪, 是一种相对于单独犯罪而言的更为复杂的犯罪形态,具有更加严重的社会危害性, 历来是各国及地区刑法的锋芒所向。本文对中国大陆和澳门地区刑法关于共同犯罪的立法模式和内容、共同犯罪的概念与构成、共同犯罪人的种类及处罚以及认定和处理共同犯罪的一些特殊问题等进行了比较研究, 并提出可供两地关于共同犯罪的立法和司法借鉴改善之处。     

Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide

This article discusses one of the most controversial yet importantmodes of liability in international criminal law: joint criminalenterprise (JCE). One such controversy is whether Third CategoryJCE can serve as a basis for genocide convictions. To answerthis question one needs to uncover the nature and origins ofJCE. It is submitted that convictions for genocide based uponthe application of Third Category JCE are justifiable. Thiscontention stems from the premise that JCE is a form of criminalparticipation to which principles of derivative liability apply.However, such an approach is only valid when JCE is strippedto its core and applied as a small-scale group crime, whichrequires proof of a direct link between co-perpetrators. Moreover,in the case of Third Category JCE, a participant should be convictedof participating in genocide, which would carry a lower sentencethan committing genocide as a participant in a First or SecondCategory JCE.     

跨境证券犯罪刑事管辖及法律适用探讨

境内与境外的证券市场适用不同的法律监管体制,跨境证券犯罪的跨境特征可能使境内境外对相关证券犯罪均具有刑事管辖权,从而引发刑事管辖冲突。对于跨境证券交易的监管和法律适用,无论是在法律规定层面还是在司法实践层面,均应遵循“主场原则”。应明确监管职能上的分工以避免适用不同法律法规的混乱情况,应体现最大的监管效能并减少区际法律冲突。跨境证券犯罪的刑事管辖权归属应充分尊重行政监管原则和考虑前置性法律的适用,并与行政管辖权归属保持一致。跨境证券犯罪的刑事管辖权归属应考虑犯罪行为社会危害的主要发生地。以内幕交易为代表的跨境证券犯罪的主要行为是“交易”,根据区际刑事管辖冲突的解决规则,应由交易行为的发生地管辖,按照交易地的刑法对相关行为进行刑事评价。     

对我国刑法学中"犯罪构成"概念的反思

"犯罪构成"一词在我国刑法理论中虽然经常使用,但我国任何刑事法律中均无此规定.我国刑法理论一方面将其视为犯罪的成立条件,另一方面又使犯罪构成概念越位取代犯罪构成理论,使犯罪构成理论被架空,导致"犯罪构成"与"犯罪构成理论"经常混淆.应以犯罪构成理论为中心,犯罪构成是通过犯罪构成理论解释后获得的犯罪类型的观念形象,是由犯罪构成理论归纳后的产物,它仪是犯罪构成理论中的一部分.     

不容许的侦查陷阱对被唆使者刑事责任的影响——德国法视角的分析

德国司法判例认为不容许的侦查陷阱构成对被唆使者的刑罚减轻事由,德国学界则主要存在着不容许的侦查陷阱导致证据使用禁止、形成程序障碍或者构成刑罚排除事由等见解之间的争议.本文在归纳总结了各方观点后指出,在德国法体系中,不容许的侦查陷阱之所以不被容许,根本原因在于其侵犯了<德国宪法>第1条第1款所规定的人性尊严和<德国宪法>第2条第1款所保障的公民基本权利,并对各种见解进行了批判性的分析.     

“盗版”犯罪与刑法遏制

目前受版权市场高额利润引诱,加上市场制度不健全、地方经济发展中急功近利的取向,我国盗版犯罪形势严峻,因此有必要对其实现刑法遏制。即严格刑事立法中的有关定罪标准;改变运动式严打的做法,准确、持久地运用刑法手段,提高盗版犯罪成本;与此同时,刑法对版权领域的有限介入,不应解读为刑事法被虚置。     

论英美刑法中的严格责任犯罪及其对中国刑事诉讼证明制度的价值

严格责任犯罪源于英美刑法,有着其自身本土性和历史性的特定内涵.因为其构罪原理与我国通说的犯罪构成理论相异甚远,因而在实体法上没有加以引进的空间和借鉴的意义.然而制度虽有不同,却无法避免需要面对相同的问题.在追究行为人刑事责任的条件上,到底应该如何应对一些主观状态难以证明的犯罪类型,这是任何制度框架内都要解决的实际问题.在追求效率与正义的博弈中,是放弃主观要件的存在,还是在审视其征明所要付出的超常代价的基础上进行证明环节上的局部修正?严格责任犯罪给我们的启示就是对下一些特殊类型的犯罪,我们必须正视其主观要件的难以证明性,从而寻求特殊的证明方式,以期实现效率与正义的最佳平衡.     

论我国刑法中的聚众犯罪

聚众犯罪是指我国《刑法》明文规定以聚集特定或不特定多人进行违法犯罪活动为构成要件的犯罪。我国《刑法》共用11个条文规定了14个聚众犯罪,其中大多数聚众危害社会是构成犯罪的必要条件,少数是该罪的选择行为要件。聚众犯罪的主要特征有法定性、聚众进行、实施的是复数行为等。从犯罪形态上看,聚众为着手,实施具体违法犯罪活动为既遂。它与煽动犯罪、教唆犯、组织犯、首要分子既有联系又有区别,与组织犯部分交叉重合。聚众犯罪的一罪数罪标准在于行为个数、数行为之间是否牵连、牵连时定一罪是否能体现罪刑相适应。     

Review of “Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law”

This is a review of the challenging book in which Larry Alexander and Kimberly Ferzan propose sweeping revisions to the structure of substantive criminal law.     

犯罪定量刑法模式的比较与选择

中外刑法中有"立法定性、司法定量"和"立法既定性又定量"两种犯罪定量模式,两者各有利弊.但传统的法文化与现实法体系的冲突注定了在我国刑法典中对犯罪进行"立法定量"的合理性和现实性.只有将"立法定量"与"司法定量"协调统一起来,犯罪定量才会得以实现.     

刑事法治视野中的罪刑法定原则——对我国刑法第3条的反思

罪刑法定原则与法治理念是同一时代背景下的产物。现代刑法的规范设置应与罪刑法定原则的真正蕴涵和法治理念和契合，我国刑法第3条的规定没能确切回应这一时代要求。     

作为犯罪构成要件的罪量要素--立足于中国刑法的探讨

一犯罪构成是犯罪成立之条件 ,这已是刑法理论上的共识。然而 ,各国刑法对犯罪成立条件的设置是有所不同的 ,犯罪构成理论对此必须予以足够的关注。在大陆法系国家 ,通行的是“立法定性 ,司法定量”的方法 ,因此根据行为性质区分罪与非罪的界限。任何犯罪都是一种行为 ,这种行为具有特定的性质 ,是否属于刑法规定的某种行为 ,就成为定罪的根据。在这种情况下 ,犯罪构成是行为的质的构成 ,而不涉及行为的量。因此 ,犯罪构成要件是罪质要素。当然 ,日本刑法理论上也有“可罚的违法性说”之倡导 ,主张轻微的法益侵害行为不予处罚。但在犯罪构成…     

Complicity in International Criminal Law and Canadian Refugee Law: A Comparison

International criminal law is normally seen as the purview ofcriminal prosecutions, either internationally or domestically.However, international criminal law is also increasingly beingapplied in refugee law. This is because the 1951 Refugee Conventioncontains an exclusion clause prohibiting asylum seekers fromobtaining refugee status if they have committed a crime againstpeace, a war crime or a crime against humanity. Thus, refugeelaw refers back to international criminal law; however, whileinternational criminal tribunals deal with persons who bearthe greatest responsibility, in actual practice persons whohave been excluded from refugee protection have been mostlyfrom the lower echelons of organizations involved in atrocities.This article, based on Canadian case law, examines the conceptsof complicity, aiding and abetting and joint criminal enterprisefrom both an international criminal law point of view and froma Canadian refugee law angle, in order to determine whetherthese notions have similar contents in the two jurisdictions.     

我国贿赂犯罪刑法制度的演变与发展完善

回顾了1949年以来我国打击贿赂犯罪的刑事立法历程,根据不同的节点将其分为七个历史阶段,整理了不同阶段的重要刑事立法文献及其特征.贿赂犯罪刑法制度进一步发展完善需要解决的关键问题有:通过司法解释进一步明确受贿罪的数额标准,取消现行对国家机关判处罚金的规定,取消受贿罪中“为他人谋取利益”的规定,将贿赂犯罪对象由财产扩大为财物和财产性利益,对贪污罪、受贿罪适用死刑的条件作进一步明确以从严控制死刑,明确贿赂犯罪中的共犯问题.     

大陆与澳门刑法中排除犯罪性之执行命令事由的比较

排除犯罪性的事由是指根据刑法规范或者社会相当性理念而排除行为的犯罪性使之正当化的事实。在我国澳门刑法与大陆刑法中,依法执行命令的事实均可排除行为之犯罪性。但是,由于受诸种因素的影响,两地刑法对于执行命令的立法渊源、构成条件以及排除犯罪性的理由等方面存在显著差异。     

侵权连带责任的现实类型

侵权连带责任可分为"一般类型"和"特殊类型"。《侵权责任法》上的一般侵权连带责任以共同侵权为中心,而特殊侵权连带责任的适用范围则变动不羁。全面考察侵权连带责任的现实类型,可以发现:一般侵权连带责任不限于共同侵权,还可基于合同或"侵害行为直接结合"而生;特殊侵权连带责任是政策衡量的产物,可广泛适用于控制危险致害、提供场所者责任、惩治挂靠经营、提升信用者责任以及独立责任之衡平等场合。