国际法院判决在美国国内法院的效力分析——以拉格朗案和阿维纳案判决为例

2001年和2004年国际法院针对美国违反《维也纳领事关系公约》的行为,分别作出了拉格朗案和阿维纳案判决。但是,上述判决作出后,美国各级法院却以种种理由拒绝遵从和执行国际法院的判决。从美国法院当前的相关司法实践来反驳其据以不执行国际法院判决的种种理由,可揭示其怠于遵守国际法院判决的深层原因。国际法院判决对美国法院应具有间接的法律效力,这也要求美国法院应尽可能地找寻适当的国内法路径以遵循国际法院的判决。     

国际法院诉讼案件判决的执行问题探析

国际法院判决的执行问题并非只是一个执行或不执行的简单二分法问题,而是一个介于两者之间、包含一系列政治决策的复杂问题。一方面,根据《联合国宪章》和国家的实践,当事国有遵守国际法院判决的义务;另一方面,出于自身利益的考虑,当事国往往以各种理由阻止对自己不利的判决的实际生效。由于目前国际上缺乏一个有效的执行机制,这一矛盾没能得到完满的解决。因此,在分析当事国遵守国际法院判决义务的基础上,对国际法院诉讼案件判决的执行实践和执行方式进行深入探讨有重要意义。     

国际法院判决在当事国国内法院的效力研究——由麦德林诉德克萨斯州案引发的思考

本文通过美国联邦最高法院2008年3月25号对麦德林诉德克萨斯州案(Jose Ernesto MEDELL N v TEXAS)的裁决的分析,围绕国际法院判决在当事国国内法院产生法律效力的国际法依据探究了国际法院判决对当事国国内法院产生直接法律效力所面临的理论和现实上的困境以及造成这种困境的原因,寻求使国际法院判决在当事国法院的效力得到切实有效保障的途径。     

“决”而“未决”——国际法院诉讼案件判决为什么不能彻底执行

国际法院诉讼案件判决的执行问题并非简单的执行或不执行.国际法院成立至今,其所作的判决大部分得到执行,不执行的情况只是少数.对于这少数案件而言,这些原本提交国际法院以待解决的纠纷并没有彻底得到解决,当事国之间争议不断,甚至对局部地区的安全问题产生影响.为什么国际法院做出的生效判决在当事国之间得不到彻底解决呢？本文围绕这个核心问题,对国际法院处理的案件进行比较分析,找出共同存在的问题,以及对我国的启示.     

“乌拉圭河纸浆厂案”判决在环境法上的意义

国际法院对"乌拉圭河纸浆厂案"的判决涉及到环境法上的一系列重要问题,且又与国际投资问题有关,因而备受关注。国际法院的判决确认了利用共享自然资源时,事先通知是必须遵守的义务,进行环评构成一般国际法上的义务。国际法院同时对诉讼保全、公众参与、采用最佳先进技术、专家评估、举证责任、环境损害赔偿标准等环境法问题亦表述了意见。判决体现了对共享水资源使用的可持续发展原则及公平合理利用原则,并表明了国际法院在处理跨国环境案件上的态度由畏缩不前变为积极裁判。     

欧洲人权法院判决效力改革研究

《欧洲人权公约》第四十六条规定了欧洲人权法院的判决效力问题,此类判决效力仅约束诉讼当事国。随着积案问题以及判决执行难题的加重,法院从判决效力角度采取了改革。引导性判决改革打破了法院针对具体案件作出特定性判决的裁决思路;非当事国判决改革打破了一般国际法判决仅约束诉讼当事国的传统。这在国际法上具有极大创新性,体现了欧洲人权法院不再仅仅依靠部长委员会监督判决执行,而不断重视自身在判决执行中的作用;同时也体现了欧洲人权法院不断重视国内人权保护机制,人权保护由国际保护层面向国内保护层面转移。     

美国法院的判决执行制度及其启示

美国作为一个法治国家,公民的法律观念和法律意识均很强,法官的"年长 精英"制度使法官普遍受到社会各界的尊重,法官作出的裁判一般都能得到自觉履行,因此美国不存在我们感到头痛的"执行难"问题。由于在美国执行并不难,因此美国并没有单独的强制执行法,也没有单独的机构或部门负责执行工作,甚至没有专门的人员从事执行工作。但是,这并不是可以说,美国的判决执行制度就没有我们借鉴、参     

论资产追回中的没收判决承认与执行问题

<联合国反腐败公约>创制了两种可供腐败犯罪受害国选择适用的资产追回途径.其中,在通过刑事没收国际合作追回腐败犯罪所得的过程中,请求国的没收判决能否得到资产所在国当局的承认并获得执行,是资产能否最终得以追回的前提和基础.目前,没收判决的承认与执行有直接执行和间接执行两种方式,无论何种执行方式,多数国家都对承认与执行外国的没收判决设置了一定的前提条件.当前,我国必须按照资产追回关于没收判决承认与执行的要求,不断创立和完善关于没收判决承认与执行的国内法律制度.     

将判决承认与执行事项纳入WTO体系之思考--对美国学者Perez观点之分析与回应

美国学者Perez主张,应将判决承认与执行事项纳入WTO体系之中,并提出纳入WTO体系的司法改革途径和立法改革途径.然而通过分析可以发现,帕氏的此种观点和方法如果付诸实施存在诸多困难.与此相对,通过海牙国际私法会议拟定判决承认与执行公约应比将判决承认与执行事项纳入WTO体系更具可行性,效果更好.我国不适合贸然支持美国学者帕氏的观点.     

将判决承认与执行事项纳入WTO体系之分析

近年来,国外有学者提出,将外国判决的承认与执行事项视为"贸易关联问题"纳入WTO体系,本文欲对此进行分析:第一部分绍了国际法不同的分支对外国判决承认与执行问题的关注;第二部对Perez教授的观点进行了评述,从实证的角度,赞同其对海牙公约所谓的"私法解决方法"不作看好的观点,同时,对其纳入WTO体系所谓的"公法解决方法"的观点难以认同,主要从理论和可行性两个层面上对其学说进行分析;第三为我国应采取的立场提供了建议。     

Executions and Apologies: The U.S., International Law and Right to Consular Notification

Following the execution of two German nationals in the United States in 2001, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found the U.S. in violation of international law stating that foreign nationals must be notified of their right to contact their embassy. When they learned of this right ten years after their arrest, they were barred from raising the claim; and after exhausting available avenues in American courts, the German consulate took the case to the International Court of Justice. The U.S. executed the two men while the case was still before the ICJ, in spite of its request to stay the execution and German objections that “violations of Article 36 followed by death sentences and executions cannot be remedied by apologies or the distribution of leaflets”. This paper discusses the importance of consular notification to the fairness of prosecutions. Cases reviewed indicate the U.S. still frequently does not provide notification and is at times oblivious to the ICJ's ruling. The paper discusses reasons the U.S. should honor notification, including reciprocity for Americans traveling abroad and the larger development of international law. A final section provides several mechanisms for bringing U.S. practices into compliance that could be easily implemented. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The Court of Public Opinion: Lay Perceptions of Polygraph Testing

We sampled a total of 411 participants and randomly assigned them one of three brief trial vignettes that contained either no-polygraph evidence, evidence of a passed polygraph test, or evidence of a failed polygraph test. Participants rendered guilt judgments and answered a series of questions concerning the trial in particular, and polygraph tests in general. Similar to previous studies on the impact of polygraph evidence on jurors' guilt judgments, this sample of jury-eligible adults indicated that they did not find polygraph test evidence to be persuasive. Moreover, it mattered little to participants whether the results indicated the defendant passed a polygraph test, or that he failed a polygraph test. However, when our findings are compared to those of previous surveys involving experts in the field of psychophysiology, they differ in a number of important respects. The implications for decisions regarding admissibility (e.g., U.S. v. Alexander, 1975 and U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998) are discussed.     

美国对外国国家的送达制度

美国《外国主权豁免法》明确规定了对外国国家的送达程序,以区别于《联邦民事诉讼法》中的送达程序。这些特殊的送达规则以及送达实践强调被送达的外国国家实际接收和接受送达的效果,更加注重程序公正,在某种程度上给予外国国家更多的正当程序保障,增强审判程序和判决的可接受性,减少或避免国家豁免诉讼可能带来的政治风险。中国应对在美国法院被诉时,应当充分利用美国《外国主权豁免法》中的送达规则和实践,更好地维护我国的尊严和主权。     

Toward Normalization of Defamation Law: The U.K. Defamation Act of 2013 and the U.S. SPEECH Act of 2010 as Responses to the Issue of Libel Tourism

In the wake of several high-profile libel actions brought by U.S. celebrities and foreign businessmen in London because of more favorable defamation laws there, London was dubbed the “libel tourism capital of the world.” The U.S. response in 2010 was the passage of the SPEECH Act, preventing courts from enforcing libel judgments from foreign jurisdictions not providing the same level of protection as the United States. Similarly, in 2013 the United Kingdom responded to international and national criticism by passing the Defamation Act to address the loophole in its system that caused the abuse. Both acts have been criticized, the first for its aggressiveness, and the second for its conservative nature. This article examines the development of the law of defamation in the two jurisdictions and analyzes the content of both statutes, along with their criticisms, proposing international cooperation to address the issue of libel tourism.     

领事通知问题论要

领事协助是一国保护本国在国外公民的重要方式，当一国公民在所在国受到羁押、拘禁时，其获得领事协助的前提是其本国驻该国的驻外国领事机关获得领事通知。近年来国际法院在布雷德案、拉格朗案、阿维纳案等案件中针对《维也纳领事关系公约》第36条1款作出了美国违背其向有关国家领事的通知义务和告知当事人其获得领事帮助的义务的判决，法院认为公约赋予个人以权利，即当事人有领事通知权。领事通知的一体两面在于对所在国为一项义务，对外国当事人则为其享有的权利。领事通知的发展反映了人权背景下对外国人保护的加强，主权国应该重视在对外国人执法和司法过程中的进行领事通知。海外中国公民应当注意运用领事通知权保护自己的权利。     

Application of the Essential Facilities Doctrine to Liquefied Natural Gas Regasification Terminals: An Analysis through a Chilean Case

This article analyzes relevant issues that shall be considered in a claim requiring the application of the essential facilities doctrine of antitrust law to a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal, through the analysis of a Chilean case. For this purpose, the research draws some significant lessons from the judgments of U.S. courts—which initially developed such theory—and identifies the conditions that have to be met according to the Chilean Competition Tribunal for the application of the essential facilities doctrine.     

Race-Based Judgments, Race-Neutral Justifications: Experimental Examination of Peremptory Use and the Batson Challenge Procedure

Practically speaking, the peremptory challenge remained an inviolate jury selection tool in the United States until the Supreme Court's decision in Batson v. Kentucky. 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Batson's prohibition against race-based peremptories was based on two assumptions: (1) a prospective juror's race can bias jury selection judgments; (2) requiring attorneys to justify suspicious peremptories enables judges to determine whether a challenge is, indeed, race-neutral. The present investigation examines these assumptions through an experimental design using three participant populations: college students, advanced law students, and practicing attorneys. Results demonstrate that race does influence peremptory use, but these judgments are typically justified in race-neutral terms that effectively mask the biasing effects of race. The psychological processes underlying these tendencies are discussed, as are practical implications for the legal system.     

Coming to Terms with the Past in Germany after 1945 and 1989: Public Judgments on Procedures and Justice

Germany presents the unique case of a society that has been forced to come to terms with its past twice within a fifty‐year period. This double experience can contribute to our understanding of the legal processes of lustration. This paper examines a largely neglected dimension of this phenomenon: justice judgments by the general population. Justice judgments about the Nuremberg Trials and denazification after 1945 are compared to analogous procedures that took place in post‐communist East Germany after 1989. The study uses two theoretical models in its comparative approach: the Leventhal model, and the "group value" model of procedural justice set forth by Lind and Tyler. The analysis is based on survey data collected by the Office of the Military Government of the U.S. (OMGUS) from 1945 to 1949, and survey data taken in East Germany from 1989 to 1994. The results lend support to the "group value" model for the specific situation of social transition. During both periods justice judgments developed according to analogous patterns. The German experience yields some important lessons for legal policies of lustration.     

HOW COLLECTIVE IS COLLECTIVE EFFICACY? THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSENSUS IN JUDGMENTS ABOUT COMMUNITY COHESION AND WILLINGNESS TO INTERVENE

Existing studies have generally measured collective efficacy by combining survey respondents’ ratings of their local area into an overall summary for each neighborhood. Naturally, this approach results in a substantive focus on the variation in average levels of collective efficacy between neighborhoods. In this article, we focus on the variation in consensus of collective efficacy judgments. To account for differential consensus among neighborhoods, we use a mixed‐effects location‐scale model, with variability in the consensus of judgments treated as an additional neighborhood‐level random effect. Our results show that neighborhoods in London differ, not just in their average levels of collective efficacy but also in the extent to which residents agree with one another in their assessments. In accord with findings for U.S. cities, our results show that consensus in collective efficacy assessments is affected by the ethnic composition of neighborhoods. Additionally, we show that heterogeneity in collective efficacy assessments is consequential, with higher levels of criminal victimization, worry about crime, and risk avoidance behavior in areas where collective efficacy consensus is low.