《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 -     

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.     

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.     

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?     

Shaping the Spiderweb: Towards the Concept of Joint Commission Through Another Person Under the Rome Statute and Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court

This article argues that the concept of joint commission through another person has a central place in the co-perpetration architecture of the Rome Statute and jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court. The concept of joint commission through another person envisages a commission of a crime by two or more individuals through one or more subordinated persons. Even though the concept of joint commission through another person does not expressly derive from the Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute of the ICC, this article argues that an individual can be held responsible as a co-perpetrator of a crime committed jointly with another individual through subordinated individuals if he or she has joint control over the crime because of his/her essential contribution to the commission of the crime.     

国际刑事司法中的中止犯研究——基于《罗马规约》第25．3．6条的比较刑法分析

《罗马规约》的诞生在国际刑法上系统地确立了个人刑事责任。该规约第25.3.6条关于“犯罪中止”的理解在大陆法系和英美法系存在不同。《罗马规约》是缔约国不断协调妥协的结果,其中止犯条款的理论更为侧重大陆法系,应以国际习惯法法典化的观点来看待这一条款的合理性,排除司法实践与法学理论中不必要的纠葛。第25.3.6条无论从刑事政策和正当程序上说,是一个良性条款,虽然其与不同缔约国的国内刑法理论有不一致的地方,理智的做法是协调好这些差异,从而促进个案公正和国际刑事司法正义的实现。     

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.

     

全球化背景下的国际刑事法院与国际法治

本文将就国际刑事法院与国际法治理念形成的历史脉络、国际法治的基本内涵、在国际法治原则约束下的国际刑事法院所面临的问题等几个方面展开相应的分析。