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.     

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。     

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。     

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”。     

The Proposed International Criminal Jurisdiction for the African Court: Some Problematical Aspects

Netherlands International Law Review - This article discusses some problems arising from the proposed conferral of international criminal jurisdiction on the African Court of Justice and Human...     

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.     

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。     

Complementarity, Amnesties and Alternative Forms of Justice: Some Interpretative Guidelines for the International Criminal Court

The question to what extent amnesties and pardons may bar criminalinvestigations or prosecutions under the Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court (the Statute) has been left unresolved by theRome process. This essay seeks to develop some general guidelinesthat may help the Court to address this problem, should it arisein a specific case. It suggests four basic principles to dealwith the issue of amnesties and pardons: (i) the Court has interpretativeautonomy to decide whether an amnesty or a pardon is permissibleunder the Statute; (ii) exemptions from criminal responsibilityfor the core crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court byamnesties or pardons should generally be considered incompatiblewith the Statute; (iii) prosecution by states and by the Courtmay be limited to the most serious crimes and the most responsibleperpetrators (targeted prosecution); (iv) amnesties or pardonsshould, if it all, only be permitted in exceptional cases, namelywhere they are conditional and accompanied by alternative formsof justice.     

《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 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....     

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.     

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.