混合型审判机构:惩治国际犯罪的新途径

混合型审判机构是近年来才出现的新事物 ,通过介绍东帝汶、科索沃及塞拉里昂三个国家和地区的混合型审判机构 ,并且在考察现存和正在商议中的混合型审判机构的基础上总结了其特点。由于混合型审判机构的具有较强的适应性和灵活性及其他优点 ,决定了其可能替代国际特设刑事法庭 ,在惩治国际犯罪司法体系中占据一席之地。     

Punish Once or Punish Twice: A Theory of the Use of Criminal Sanctions in Addition to Regulatory Penalties

Though clearly distinct in nature and procedure, both regulatoryagencies and courts frequently rely on similar instruments tosanction the same or very similar kinds of illegal behavior.In this article, we develop a theory of the use of criminalsanctions in addition to regulatory penalties. We show that,even though it is generally more effective to have a penaltyimposed by a regulatory agency rather than by the courts, undersome conditions it is optimal to have both. The article providesthree arguments: agency costs when delegating law enforcement,legal error, and collusion between a regulatory agency and anoffender. The objective of the article, though, is not limitedto the determination of the theoretical conditions that canmake the use of both sanctioning schemes optimal. Our analysisis also relevant to the application of a specific legal doctrine,the Double Jeopardy Clause.     

International Crimes and the Right to Punish

What can international courts say when criminals ask, by what right do you try me? Some authors attempt to draw a connection between humanity's responsibility to call offenders to account and the harm humanity has suffered as a consequence of the offender's crimes. Others have argued that there need not be a special connection between those calling to account and the offenders, as the right to punish offenders is a general right each and every person has. Both lines of argument are ultimately unconvincing. Instead, I argue for a modified version of the second position which proposes a democratically based theory of responsibility for punishment held by international criminal law institutions.     

论惩治恐怖活动犯罪的国际国内立法

恐怖活动严重危害国际秩序与安全,需要各国共同努力,联手行动,而健全与完善相关的国际立法与国内立法是非常重要的一个方面。我们要在充分了解国际社会及其他国家惩治与防范恐怖活动立法的同时,进一步完善我国的相关刑事立法。     

The Extraterritorial Scope of the Right to Punish

This paper provides a philosophical critique of the principles that govern extraterritorial punishment under international law. It advocates an interest-based theory of punishment that accounts for states’ right to punish offences committed on their territory or against their sovereignty, security or important governmental functions. Yet, it criticizes the states’ well-established right to punish crimes committed extraterritorially on grounds of the nationality of the offender or that of the victim. Indeed, it shows that the arguments on the basis of which these jurisdictional bases are commonly defended either beg the fundamental question they are meant to answer or are simply committed to much broader rules than those currently in force. The last section of this paper examines whether competing justifications for legal punishment based on other grounds have more promise in terms of being able to better explain how the international law currently regulates extraterritorial punishment. It suggests that even refined consequentialist and deontological theories ultimately do not fare as well as the argument advocated here in accounting for certain core intuitions regarding the practice of legal punishment.