论国际刑事法院管辖权

为加强国际社会刑事司法协作,惩治国际社会的严重犯罪,1998年联合国在罗马召开了联合国外交会议,并通过了<国际刑事法院规约>和<会议最后文件>,据此,联合国于2002年7月1日正式成立了国际刑事法院.这是世界上第一个专门审判灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪、战争罪和侵略罪的国际机构,表明了国际社会决心改变以往对国际罪行采取间接管辖的做法,标志着国际人道主义法和国际人权法上的一个重大突破.同时,这也带来了一个非常现实的问题,即国际刑事法院对国际罪行行使管辖权时,如何做到和一国的主权及司法管辖权的并行和相容?因此,本文将就国际刑事法院管辖权行使的相关问题作一探讨.     

论国际刑事法院管辖权的社会基础

国际社会的主权体制与全球化的客观趋势,构成国际刑事法院管辖权的社会基础。主权体制与全球化存在一定的矛盾,主权国家的社会体制要求以国家主权原则作为社会运行的基本准则,全球化的国际社会则强调人类利益的总体保护,要求贯彻全球治理的原则。但二者又具有契合点,即国际社会的正常秩序。国际社会主权体制与全球化的矛盾与统一必然反映到国际刑事法院的管辖权上,国际刑事法院管辖权一方面要尊重国家主权,但同时也不免带有超国家权力的因素。     

Realising the Potential of the International Criminal Court: The African Experience

To date efforts of the International Criminal Court (ICC) toeradicate impunity for international crimes have been focussedin the African region. With arrest warrants now issued in relationto the situations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ugandaand the surrender of one individual to the Court, this articleprovides a timely examination of the efforts of African Statesto adopt legislation to provide for cooperation with the ICCand the prosecution of ICC crimes in national courts. The articledemonstrates that despite their willingness to make use of theICC system for prosecutions, African States, reflecting thegeneral trend in other regions, have made very little progressin implementing the Rome Statute. The article also examineshow the ICC has conducted its investigations in light of thelack of such implementing legislation.     

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”。     

国际刑事法院行使管辖权与国家的同意

国际刑事法院的正式建立涉及到一系列国际法律问题 ,尤其是关于国际刑事法院的管辖权方面的问题 ,由于往往涉及国家主权 ,复杂而敏感。因而 ,从国际法原理的角度 ,对这些问题进行深入探讨 ,极为必要。特别是我国政府暂时还没有批准《国际刑事法院规约》 ,也没有签字 ,而其原因主要集中于国际刑事法院有关管辖权方面的某些规定 ,所以更应从国际法原理的角度出发对所涉及的有关问题予以深入分析与客观评介 ,尤其是对规约有关管辖权方面某些重要条款存在的不恰当理解更有必要予以澄清 ,以期为将来我国考虑加入《国际刑事法院规约》、成为国际刑事法院的成员国提供一些参考。     

The Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court — A Jurisdictional Rule of Reason for the ICC?

Netherlands International Law Review - The territorial scope of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court was an issue which was hotly debated prior to the adoption of the Rome Statute....     

国际刑事管辖权冲突的“适当法”观照——来自国际私法学的借鉴

国际刑事管辖权冲突的适当法是受国际私法学中关于侵权行为的适当法理论的启迪而提出来的。它主张将犯罪问题加以分解而对所涉及的各种因素进行更为精确的分析 ,从而确定与犯罪有最密切联系的国家具有管辖权的“适当性” ,为此 ,本文提出了确定最密切联系地的“质量相结合标准”。国际刑事管辖权冲突的适当法为有关国家间国际刑事管辖权争议的公正合理的解决提供了一种新的模式 ,将有利于对国际犯罪的有效惩治和打击 ,也为不同学科之间在理论上的相互借鉴提供了一个良好的范例。     

The International Criminal Court at Ten

Criminal Law Forum -     

从苏丹情势分析国际刑事法院管辖权的补充性原则

联合国安理会向国际刑事法院的检察官提交的苏丹达尔富尔地区发生的情势,引发了非缔约国对国际刑事法院管辖权补充性的质疑。将达尔富尔的情势提交国际刑事法院,应由独立的机构判断苏丹政府“不愿意”和“不能”行使管辖权的客观证据。这样做,一方面为了充分支持安理会向检察官提交情势的行为;另一方面为了国际刑事法院审判工作的独立性和有效性吸引诸如中国和美国等司法制度健全的非缔约国批准《罗马规约》。中国虽然是非缔约国,但始终支持国际刑事法院的建立及其工作,并对国际刑事法院的审判活动采取一种审视态度。有理由相信,通过国际刑事法院建立的良好工作模式,如对达尔富尔公正有效的处理,以及在我国法律条件成熟的情况下,中国会成为《罗马规约》的缔约国。     

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 International Criminal Court and Africa: Exemplary Justice

This is a theoretical and empirical investigation into the causal link (if any) between international criminal trials and preventing violence through exemplary prosecutions. Specifically how do representative trials of persons accused of having the greatest responsibility for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, supposedly bind recurrent violence? The argument pursued is that by using an accused as an example, a court engages in an indirect and uncertain substitution of personal rights for social harmony and order. These prosecutions combine a peculiar rhetoric, logic and aesthetic, all which substitute the responsibilities for a society in general to a particular individual in order to redeem that society by transferring its communal responsibility onto the individual punished as a form of atonement or expiation. International and domestic trials, as well as truth and reconciliation commissions, are part of a suite of options addressing communal mass violence that can work in tandem. However, because those convicted do not have a monopoly on criminality, nor do those merely reconciled have a monopoly on virtue, exemplification through punishment only targets a few on behalf of the many. Indeed such a redemptively sacrificial economy distinguishes legal justice from mere vengeance.