国际刑法的展望——兼论国际刑事法院

本文密切结合当前国际社会的发展变化,对国际刑法的发展趋势及设立国际刑事法院的前景、作用等,结合国际刑法的实践,进行了较为深入的理论探讨,认为,国际刑事法院的建立是历史发展的必然,并研究了设立国际刑事法院所面临的问题。     

论国际刑事法院对国际恐怖主义犯罪的管辖权

随着国际恐怖主义犯罪的大量出现,国际恐怖主义泛国际化日益明显,目前世界大多国家采取的武力应对方式不能从根本上解决问题,相反会带来很多负面效,正如有些学者所指出的,以反恐名义出现的不受制约的军事行动像恐怖活动一样,都会给世界安全造成难以估量的影响。因此,有必要探索更为合理有效的对策。在本文看来,国际刑事法院对国际恐怖主义犯罪进行管辖具有一定的可行性。     

中国加入国际刑事法院的利弊分析

《国际刑事法院规约》是国际刑法领域迄今为止最全面和最重要的国际公约。《国际刑事法院规约》有关对国际犯罪行使管辖权的规定意味着国际社会不再容忍犯有最严重的国际罪行、粗暴践踏人权者不受惩罚的现象存在,这无疑将会震慑未来的或潜在的最严重的国际犯罪,从而促进对国际人权法的进一步遵守。然而中国迄今为止仍然没有加入该规约。国内有一些学者撰文希望中国加快步伐加入该规约。本文从法理和实证两个方面探讨了该问题,并对该问题提出了自己的看法。     

中国加入国际刑事法院的必然性

中国作为《国际刑事法院规约》的非缔约国,一直高度关注着它的发展。本文以国际法的视角,反驳了中国未能通过该规约的五点理由,阐述了笔者对中国加入国际刑事法院的鲜明立场,以求对我国政府的决策有所启迪。     

国际刑事法院管辖权的性质

《罗马规约》规定的国际刑事法院管辖权 ,既不同于国家刑事管辖权 ,也不同于国际特设刑事法庭和国际法院的管辖权。准确了解国际刑事法院的司法职能及其运行机制 ,以及国际刑事法院管辖权与国家刑事管辖权的关系 ,需要从管辖职能、管辖目的和管辖范围等角度 ,对国际刑事法院管辖权所具有的复合性、补充性、有限性等基本特征进行分析 ,并对国际刑事法院管辖权隐含的延展性作相应的探讨。     

评国际刑事法院的管辖权

本文从传统国际法中的刑事管辖原则入手 ,对国际法委员会提交的管辖方式以及规约中规定的普遍管辖原则作了探讨 ,以期了解国际法在刑事管辖权问题上的发展动向。     

论国际刑事法院管辖权与国家主权

国际刑事法院管辖权与国家主权一直是人们论争的焦点。作为补充性管辖权 ,国际刑事法院管辖权是国家主权相对性的表现 ,也是国家主权的自愿让渡 ,与国家主权总体相容 ,但其隐含的第三国义务则超越了现有国际体制。为保证国际刑事法院的有效运作 ,必须坚持国际社会共同利益与国家利益的统一 ,保证国际秩序追求与国家权力追求之平衡     

非政府组织与国际刑事法院

近十年来,非政府组织在国际关系中取得的最大成绩就是在促成国际刑事法院的建立方面做出了巨大的努力和贡献。从建立国际刑事法院构想的提出,到《国际刑事法院规约》的起草、谈判,到《规约》的通过与生效,以"支持国际刑事法院的非政府组织联盟"(简称"国际刑事法院联盟")为核心的非政府组织都发挥了至关重要的作用。在国际刑事法院的诉讼程序中,非政府组织也可以发挥信息提供者、法庭之友、法院与受害人和证人之间桥梁、监督人等作用。国际刑事法院已正式认可了非政府组织的作用。非政府组织在国际刑事法院的建立和运行中所发挥的作用堪称国际市民社会参与国际关系的一个范例。     

国际刑事法院的前景与中国的应策

国际刑事法院的建立是强化国际法律秩序进程中的巨大进步,是在追究个人国际刑事责任方面的历史性突破。国际刑事法院的前景是机会和挑战并存,我国应审时度势在条件成熟时加入国际刑事法院,积极参与国际刑事法院规约的制定和修改,以维护我国的国家利益以及世界的和平和正义。     

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”。     

The State of the International Criminal Court,of Special Tribunals and of International Criminal Law: A Concise Review

International criminal law has changed rather dramatically in the last three decades. Whereas in the early 1990s the field was an almost exotic specialization of penal law, it has now developed into a thriving part of the law. Nowadays, most law schools have specialists in international criminal law which has usually developed into an important field of research. An important factor in this development has been the performance of three Special Criminal Tribunals established by the United Nations Security Council. In this article their institutional record as well as their importance for the development of international criminal law will be reviewed. In both senses, on the basis of a necessarily concise review, it is submitted that the performance of the tribunals must be considered a success. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is already twenty years in existence. Its performance cannot be judged equally successfully, however. In particular as an institution it cannot point to records comparable to those of the Special Criminal Tribunals. Still, although it is undoubtedly fragile, the ICC has become a relevant feature of modern international law and in international relations (as a brief examination of its potential role regarding the Special Military Operation in Ukraine shows). Notwithstanding its institutional weaknesses, the importance of the ICC manifests itself in its Statute which can be seen as a codification of international criminal law. The strong increase in the domestic administration of international crimes as a consequence of the principle of the complementarity of the Statute is taken into consideration.

     

The International Criminal Court at Ten

Criminal Law Forum -     

The Procedural Texts of the International Criminal Court

With the recent approval of the Regulations of the Registrythe procedural law applying before the International CriminalCourt has been written down in the books almost completely.The following overview of the pertinent documents is to facilitatea thorough study of this new international criminal procedure,the architecture of which is of unprecedented complexity.     

The Mavi Marmara Incident and the International Criminal Court

On 15 May 2013 the OTP announced that it was conducting a preliminary examination of the events surrounding Israel’s enforcement of its naval blockade against the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010 in order to determine whether a formal investigation into the incident should be opened. According to Article 53 of the Rome Statute, the OTP shall open a formal investigation where there is a reasonable basis to believe that (a) the ICC possesses temporal, territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction in relation to the situation, (b) it is admissible before the ICC and (c) that a formal investigation would not be contrary to the interests of justice. The application of this framework to the events that occurred on 31 May 2010 is difficult and complex, especially in regard as to whether the situation can be considered of sufficient gravity to warrant the ICC’s attention and whether any of the crimes enumerated in Article 5 of the Rome Statute have been committed. This notwithstanding, I argue that there is a reasonable basis to believe that these criteria are satisfied and therefore conclude by encouraging the OTP to open a formal investigation into the situation.