International Criminal Tribunals and the Media

The media are widely different in outlook and level of interestwhen the subject is international criminal justice. Newspapersand television stations have widely divergent needs. Similarly,there are marked discrepancies between media in countries directlyaffected by the atrocities that are probed during internationaltrials, and media elsewhere. In reporting war crimes trialsfor public opinion at large (in this case in the United Statesand in Europe), one must take into account the difficulty ofcapturing the interest of readers. The crimes in Bosnia or inRwanda were in the headlines more than a decade ago. Today attentionhas moved to other countries. Ideally, the trials should bepresented through captivating narratives, but the complexityand length of criminal proceedings often make this difficult.Although the arrests of senior officials get much attention,interest in the legal aspects of their case wanes quickly. Moreover,the impression that international criminal justice is selective,and seems to wield double standards as to which cases are prosecuted,and which are not, continues to produce scepticism.     

Assessing Asylum Claims in Africa: Missing or Meeting Standards?

Netherlands International Law Review -     

比较法对国际刑事法庭工作的影响

本文标题多少有些令人惊异,因为它组织了一场似乎不可能的相遇--比较法和国际刑法,而且二者处于不相称的两种状态(比较法不过是一种方法,而国际刑法却是国际法中正在蓬勃发展的一个分支,且转致到一个实在法的整体),并且在语言、惯例、学理和研究群体上都明显表现出相互的漠视和隔阂.     

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.

     

Finding the Best Epistemic Fit for International Criminal Tribunals: Beyond the Adversarial-Inquisitorial Dichotomy

This article considers how well evidentiary processes withinthe international criminal tribunals match up to the challengeto provide fair and reliable verdicts. Rather than using theadversarial–inquisitorial dichotomy as the basis for exploringthis question, the article takes as its reference point thewell recognized norms of equality of arms and the right to adversarialprocedure. It is argued that although the tribunals have metthe minimum standards of fairness required by these norms, thecombination of adversarial party presentation and free admissionof evidence, within an evidentiary context in which it is difficultfor the defence to make their own inquiries, has restricteddefence access to information and its ability to challenge evidence.The article goes on to argue that some of these shortcomingshave been addressed within the International Criminal Courtby the establishment of a Pre-Trial Chamber but that the Chamberneeds to be developed further to promote a truly participativeapproach to fact-finding between the parties.     

从我国刑事法庭设置看刑事审判构造的完善

刑事法庭的设置因其直观形象地反映了控、辩、审三方诉讼主体在审判中所处的法律地位和相互关系而成为刑事审判构造的重要表征。由于我国古代以“审讯”为核心的审判模式的影响、被告人沉默权的缺失以及刑事审判方式改革不够彻底等原因,导致我国现行刑事法庭设置呈现出“伞型”特征。重塑我国刑事审判构造,应当去除目前庭审方式的“审讯”色彩,加强庭审的“听证”性,建立审判中立、控辩平等、当事人主导的“正等腰三角形”的审判构造。     

刑事诉讼中瑕疵证据补正的若干操作问题研究

刑事诉讼中瑕疵证据的补正必须具有严谨可行的操作规范,才能避免随意性。控方必须以明示方式提出补正瑕疵证据的申请,并由法官裁判是否允许,对于不属于瑕疵证据的非法证据,应当直接排除;瑕疵证据经补正后,仅获得证据能力,并非直接成为定案根据;对于欠缺真实性保证条件的瑕疵证据不应再进行补正,而应当予以排除;对于瑕疵证据的合理解释的缜密程度应与合法取证期待可能性成正比。     

The Problem of Self-Representation at International Criminal Tribunals: Striking a Balance between Fairness and Effectiveness

The principle that the right to self-representation is not absolute,as established by international criminal tribunals, raises difficultquestions of application that are still being worked out inthe jurisprudence. There has been a recent shift in focus, fromestablishing the modalities for the exercise of the right inthe early stages of the Miloevi trial to establishing the circumstancesin which the right may be qualified. This article examines recentdevelopments and considers where the threshold for revokingor qualifying the right to self-representation lies, how thevarious modes of court imposed representation may be synthesizedand what the standard is for counsel who is representing anuncooperative accused.     

论刑事证据审查判断的标准与方法

刑事证据是整个诉讼活动的基础和核心,是正确进行刑事诉讼活动的事实根据。如何对刑事证据进行审查判断,实现对案件处理的公平正义,一直是各界学者和司法工作人员的研究热点。分别对刑事证据审查判断的标准与方法予以论述,以期为刑事证据的研究与应用提供一定的参考。     

我国刑事笔录类证据制度探析

笔录类证据在诉讼中形成,由特定人员制作,具书面特征.其制作强调及时、纪实和合法.笔录类证据有助案件信息发现,将证据材料与案件事实连接起来,固定证据材料,反映取证过程,有的还具情景再现功能.搜查、提取、扣押笔录和审判笔录应纳入笔录类证据范围.询问与讯问笔录属于人证范畴,不宜纳入笔录类证据范围,且应当限制询问、讯问笔录在庭审中的过量适用,促使审理形式从“笔录为中心”转向“证人为中心”.真实性与可靠性保障不足已成为影响笔录类证据适用的重要问题,解决之道在于细化笔录制作规范和强化笔录证据制作的外部监督机制,落实见证人制度,扩大全程录音录像适用范围,确立笔录制作相关人员出庭制度和辩护律师在场权.     

刑事瑕疵证据补救的实证观察

通过实证观察,侦查阶段较大数量的案件或多或少地存在瑕疵证据,而审判阶段法院要求控方补救瑕疵证据的案件数量却仅占存在瑕疵案件的7.5%。控方对证据瑕疵的补救方法主要集中在重新制作与情况说明两种;瑕疵证据在补救措施和理由普遍并不完善的情况下,仍有93.2%被法院采纳作为定案的依据。对上述现象可以从诉讼构造、结果考核、利益驱动和规则的操作性角度进行解释。应当建立庭审中心主义的诉讼结构、健全法官评价机制、完善瑕疵证据规则的操作程序,以构建瑕疵证据补救规则保障机制。     

试论刑事诉讼瑕疵证据及其证明力

本文通过对狭义瑕疵证据及其证明力的辨析,反驳了在此问题上的许多片面观点和认识,强调了现代社会刑事诉讼中的证据对人权保护的重要意义,并指出:在刑事诉讼中对瑕疵证据一律不得采信,瑕疵证据不能成为定案的根据。     

检察官起诉裁量权的外部控制及其反思——以国际刑事诉讼为视角

在国际刑事诉讼中,检察官起诉裁量权的外部控制不可或缺,而单纯的外部控制却凸显范围有限、效果不佳、成本高昂等局限与不足。与单纯的外部控制相比,内部控制具有主动性、自律性的特点,且这种内部监督和控制的限度还与国际刑事法治的境界相契合。在当前检察官的起诉裁量权广泛存在且业已渗入非缔约国司法领域的情况下,只有将基于内外因辩证关系原理指导下的双重控制有机结合起来,才能防范裁量权滥用,促进实现裁量正义,保证国际刑事诉讼中检察官裁量权的公正行使。     

法理学视角下的刑事证人作证制度立法问题研究

刑事证人作证制度立法存在问题是影响证人出庭作证的最主要原因。从法理学视角来看,这些问题表现为违背法制的统一性,法律的调整机制远未建立,立法技术欠缺科学性等,因此必须在刑事诉讼法再修订时予以完善,使证人愿意出庭作证。