《国际刑事法院罗马规约》浅析

20 0 2年 7月 1日 ,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(以下简称“罗马规约”或“规约”) 〔 1〕 经 67个国家批准 ,1 39个国家签署后生效。〔 2〕 这标志着国际刑事法院的正式成立 ,并将对国际法和国际刑法在新世纪的发展产生重大的影响。对于国际刑事法院的成立与罗马规约的生效 ,“大多数国际刑法学者更是欢欣鼓舞 ,对这部国际刑法法典倾注了很大的热情。”〔 3〕 著名国际刑法教授巴西奥尼先生甚至指出 :“国际刑事法院的建立象征并包含着全世界人民所共有的某种基本价值和期望 ,因此 ,也是世界人民的胜利。”〔4〕 国内法学界对罗马规约的制定…     

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Challenge to Impunity

Netherlands International Law Review -     

中国加入《国际刑事法院规约》的利弊分析

1998年 7月 1 7日联合国通过了《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(以下简称《规约》)。该《规约》2 0 0 2年 7月 1日生效 ,国际刑事法院在当日正式成立。该法院专门审判国家、检举人和联合国安理会委托审理的受到国际关注的最严重犯罪 :灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪、战争罪和侵略罪。联合国秘书长安南称国际刑事法院的成立是一个“历史性的时刻” ,体现了国际社会防止和惩治战争罪恶和有组织反人权罪行的决心 ,呼吁世界各国尽快加入并批准《规约》。中国尚未加入《规约》。对中国未加入《规约》态度的重新审视已成为当前亟待解决的问题。一、我国加入《…     

Dispute Settlement under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Article 119 and the Possible Role of the International Court of Justice

This paper examines the dispute settlement procedure establishedby Article 119 of the Rome Statute of the International CriminalCourt, with particular attention paid to whether that provisioncreates any relationship between the International CriminalCourt and the International Court of Justice. The paper firstdiscusses the jurisdictional reach of Article 119, detailingthe types of disputes addressed in its two subsections and themanner in which such disputes are to be handled. Secondly, itfocuses on the possibility of referral of disputes covered inArticle 119(2) to the International Court of Justice. Althoughthe provision expressly contemplates such a referral, it remainsunclear whether the provision adequately supports the jurisdictionof the International Court of Justice in accordance with theStatute of that Court. The paper goes on to suggest ways inwhich the International Criminal Court Assembly of States Partiescan take steps to improve the likelihood that such referralwould be deemed proper in order to enhance the possible andfinal settlement of disputes.     

State Withdrawal Notifications from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: South Africa,Burundi and the Gambia

In 2016 three African states namely South Africa, Burundi and The Gambia submitted written notifications of withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) to the Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to Article 127 of the Rome Statute. Although the African Union welcomed and fully supported the three withdrawal notifications and considered them as ‘pioneer implementers’ of its ‘Withdrawal Strategy’, The Gambia and South Africa withdrew their notifications of withdrawal. Some other states – Kenya, Namibia and Uganda – have made threats to submit withdrawal notifications. This article examines four issues arising out of the said withdrawal notifications. First, why did the three states submit withdrawal notifications from the Rome Statute? Second, what is the impact of the three states’ withdrawal notifications? Third, is the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (or the yet-to-be-established African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights) a suitable African regional ‘alternative’ to the ICC? Finally, what steps might be taken to avoid, or at least minimise, further withdrawals in the future and to avoid impunity of perpetrators of international crimes in states that have withdrawn from the Rome Statute?     

Shaping the Spiderweb: Towards the Concept of Joint Commission Through Another Person Under the Rome Statute and Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court

This article argues that the concept of joint commission through another person has a central place in the co-perpetration architecture of the Rome Statute and jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court. The concept of joint commission through another person envisages a commission of a crime by two or more individuals through one or more subordinated persons. Even though the concept of joint commission through another person does not expressly derive from the Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute of the ICC, this article argues that an individual can be held responsible as a co-perpetrator of a crime committed jointly with another individual through subordinated individuals if he or she has joint control over the crime because of his/her essential contribution to the commission of the crime.     

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.     

国际刑事法院调查的特征

国际刑事法院的调查呈现的四个特征:尊重国家主权、禁止溯及既往、不适用时效、调查范围有限。在调查的过程中应尊重各个国家主权利益以获得国家的认同和合作;在司法资源有限的情况下,只有重点调查原则才能使司法资源得到最有效率的利用;加强对被调查人的权利保护,可以使国际刑事法院的调查活动获得国际社会的普遍认可。     

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”。     

国际刑事法院司法合作的基本原则

目前,国际刑事法院研究已成为当代国际刑法领域的一个热点。平等互利原则、法院权威原则、相对主权原则和诉讼便宜原则是国际刑事法院进行司法合作的几项基本原则。贯彻基本原则时应限制检察官权力,强化对不合作的制裁。     

Kai Ambos (ed.), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article-by-Article Commentary, 4th ed., Beck Hart Nomos 2022, 3064 pp

Criminal Law Forum -