《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 -     

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.     

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《…     

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.     

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.     

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。     

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?     

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.