国家与国际刑事法院的国际合作与司法协助义务述评

国际刑事法院是否成功的关键取决于《罗马规约》的缔约国和国际社会与之真诚的国际合作与司法协助。反之 ,国家也应根据国际法的基本原则善意履行其自愿承担的义务 ,向国际刑事法院提供国际合作与司法协助。本文通过阐述《罗马规约》有关国家与国际刑事法院的国际合作与司法协助方面的实体性和程序性规定 ,说明国家在国际刑事法院调查、起诉和惩治国际社会关注的最严重的国际犯罪中的作用和义务     

International Crimes and ICC Cooperation in England and Wales

The United Kingdom, as a party to the ICC Statute, has broughtin a series of similar pieces of legislation in order to fulfilits obligations under the Statute, and to ensure that crimessubject to the jurisdiction of the ICC are also crimes in domesticlaw. This article concentrates on the International CriminalCourt Act 2001, which applies in England and Wales, to appraisewhether it adequately provides for assistance to the ICC, andwhether the crimes subject to the ICC's jurisdiction are adequatelyincorporated into domestic law. The article also mentions thepossible role of the common law of England and Wales in relationto international crimes. It concludes that, for the most part,the Act reflects a sensible approach to issues involved in assistingthe ICC and provides a workable basis for the prosecution ofinternational crimes in that jurisdiction.     

Holding Collectives Accountable

This article argues that there is a need to understand better the legal origins of collective responsibility, as well as to provide additional material for further judicial interpretation of this form of responsibility. For the purposes of this article, collective responsibility refers to the form of individual criminal responsibility that holds individuals accountable for the criminal purpose or objective of a group where they acted in concert with others or otherwise contributed to the fulfillment of the common criminal plan. To spur on further inquiry into the subject of collective responsibility specifically, this article examines the contribution of the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC) to the development of this mode of liability and discusses how it is relevant today. In order to provide sufficient background information on this subject matter, this article begins by presenting an overview of the evolution of collective responsibility from Nuremberg to where it stands in practice at the ICC. Finally, the article will demonstrate how the Commission’s diplomatic exchanges in tandem with cases under its supervision contributed to early formation of customary international law and how these historical events are important today.     

国际刑事法院的司法能动主义:实践、反思及限制

国际刑事法院对《罗马规约》近年来的解释中呈现出司法能动主义的趋势,即背离约文的字面含义和立法者的原意,扩张国际刑事法院管辖下犯罪的定义和可受理案件的范围。国际刑法的混合性质、先前国际刑事法庭的司法能动主义政策以及《罗马规约》适用法条款和解释规则的不确定性都是导致国际刑事法院司法能动主义的原因。作为非经授权的司法立法行为,国际刑事法院的司法能动主义不但违背国家主权原则和罪刑法定主义,而且损害了国际社会通过其追究国际犯罪的信心。构建对其司法能动主义进行规制的关键在于厘清和协调《维也纳条约法公约》中的解释规则、罪刑法定原则下的严格解释以及存疑有利于被告解释方法三者在《罗马规约》解释中的适用范围及适用关系。     

从旭普林公司案看我国法院对国际商事仲裁的监督

运用国际商事仲裁的一般理论和国际商事仲裁立法与实践,结合我国法院就国际商会国际仲裁院仲裁庭根据该院仲裁规则就德国旭普林公司案在我国上海作出的仲裁裁决所实施的司法监督,探讨了国际商事仲裁裁决与涉外裁决、外国裁决和《纽约公约》项下的非本国裁决之间的联系与区别。由此认为本案项下的裁决,既不是我国裁决,也不是外国裁决,而是《纽约公约》项下的非内(本)国裁决。     

国际刑事法院《罗马规约》犯罪构成要件刍议——以危害人类罪作为样本

尽管世界各国对于犯罪的规定各不相同,但其犯罪规定中所涵盖的成立犯罪的要件(犯罪要素)却大体相当.这种认识对象与内容的相通,正是国际犯罪概念和国际刑事司法审判活动及其机构产生的基础.国际刑事法院管辖的是整个国际社会关注的最严重犯罪,具体包括四类:灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪、战争罪和侵略罪.《罗马规约》对于犯罪构成要件的规定采用规约规定与《犯罪要件》细释相结合的方式,为在国际刑法领域实现法治化作出了有益的创新,开辟了国际刑事司法的新纪元.     

The truth and the trial: victim participation,restorative justice,and the International Criminal Court

In the field of international criminal justice, the international criminal court (ICC) has been lauded for its integration of victim participants into its legal proceedings. In particular, the ICC’s framework of victim participation has been understood to figure as a balance between retributive and restorative justice as it enables the actual voices of the victims to be heard. However, there has been little research that considers how victim participation works in practice as a form of truth-telling. In order to begin to address this gap, the integration of the ‘voices of the victims’ into the proceedings and outcome of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is explored. The forms of harms and experiences that comprise the truth of the events under adjudication put forward by the victim participants are considered, and then how the truth-telling functions of the ICC represent these states of injury. While the ICC’s legal proceedings enable victims to speak of their harms and experiences, their ‘voices’ are largely absent from its judgment. To address this issue, the ICC needs to develop and maintain a level of ‘restorative justice coherence’ to manage victims’ expectations of its justice approaches.     

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.

     

论国际刑事法院管辖权与国家主权

国际刑事法院管辖权与国家主权一直是人们论争的焦点。作为补充性管辖权 ,国际刑事法院管辖权是国家主权相对性的表现 ,也是国家主权的自愿让渡 ,与国家主权总体相容 ,但其隐含的第三国义务则超越了现有国际体制。为保证国际刑事法院的有效运作 ,必须坚持国际社会共同利益与国家利益的统一 ,保证国际秩序追求与国家权力追求之平衡     

Military Courts and Prosecution of Offences by National Defense Forces in the Dawn of the Complementarity Regime: The Case of Uganda

With the coming into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute) and its complementarity regime, much emphasis has been placed on the role of national courts in prosecuting international crimes. Some states have demonstrated their commitment to this regime by; inter alia, ratifying the ICC Statute, enacting national legislation to implement the ICC Statute and establishing national judicial forums for prosecution of international crimes. Uganda is a prime example of states rising up to this challenge. Uganda ratified the ICC Statute in 2002. In 2008, it established the International Crimes Division (ICD) to prosecute international crimes and in 2010, it enacted the International Criminal Court Act to implement the ICC Statute. Even before these reforms, Uganda’s military courts had always relied on service offences to prosecute members of the national defence force. Worthy to note, members of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) have been implicated in a number of atrocities, some of which can be categorised as international crimes. However, military courts continue to prosecute UPDF soldiers for these atrocities on the basis of service offences. The situation current in Uganda highlights a number of legal issues relating to: first, the adequacy of service offences to advance accountability for the international crimes allegedly committed by UPDF soldiers; secondly, the jurisdiction of military courts over international crimes; and thirdly, the effect of concurrent jurisdiction by the ICD and military courts on the rule against double jeopardy.     

Sexual Slavery: Do We Need This Crime in Addition to Enslavement?

The article focusses on the crime of sexual slavery in the ICC Statute. It examines the legal definition of enslavement in Article 7 (2) (c) ICC Statute and the Elements of Crimes (EOC) of enslavement and sexual slavery as well as the jurisprudence of the SCSL which was the first to deal with the application of the EOC of sexual slavery to a concrete situation (so-called ‘forced marriage’ phenomenon). The author questions whether there is a necessity to have two crimes against humanity of enslavement and sexual slavery but on the other hand, no war crime of enslavement. Further, she rejects the interpretation that human trafficking has become part of the definition of slavery/enslavement as the footnote in the EOC seems to suggest. The author argues vigorously that the phenomenon of ‘forced marriage’ should be prosecuted as sexual slavery and not under the residual offence of inhumane acts as a ‘new’ international crime.     

International Recognition of Victims' Rights

Since its inception, the United Nations has adopted two GeneralAssembly resolutions dealing with the rights of victims: the1985 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victimsof Crime and Abuse of Power and the 2006 Basic Principles andGuidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victimsof Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and SeriousViolations of International Humanitarian Law. The focus of theformer was on victims of domestic crimes, while that of thelatter is on victims of international crimes; more particularly,gross violations of international human rights law and seriousviolations of international humanitarian law. The 2006 Principlesare, for all practical purposes, an international bill of rightsof victims. Their adoption has been hard-fought, but their implementationboth at the national and international levels is sure to stillface many obstacles. Parallel to this historic development havebeen decisions by the European Court of Human Rights and theInter-American Court of Human Rights, as well as provisionsin the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), givingstanding to victims in ICC proceedings, but also certain rightsof compensation. These parallel developments, as well as otherswithin domestic legal systems, evidence a wide movement towardsthe recognition of the rights of victims of crime, whether domesticor international, or gross violations of human rights. Thisarticle re-traces the historic origin of victims' rights indomestic and international legal systems, focusing particularlyon the adoption of the two international instruments mentionedabove, and more particularly on the negotiating history of the2006 Principles. A detailed commentary of these Principles constitutesthe centerpiece of this article.     

Proofing the Ban on `Witness Proofing’: Did the ICC Get it Right?

This paper focuses on the reasons for disaccord between the ICC and the more seasoned international criminal tribunals on the issue of allowing substantive preparation of witnesses for testifying in court. The rationales behind the opposing decisions and the ensuing debate on the legitimacy and utility of witness proofing continue to be overshadowed by competition between the ?adversarial’ and the ?inquisitorial’ ideologies unfolding in the guise of policy rhetoric. The ban on witness proofing imposed by both Pre-Trial Chamber I and Trial Chamber I of the ICC is based on a stringent application of Article 21 and the evidentiary regime in which the Court's discretion to elect the applicable rules of evidence is more circumscribed than under Rule 89 (B) of its counterparts. Although the ICC trial scheme is rather obscure, attempts to read the possibility of witness proofing into it may well reveal that the practice would be an extraneous element in the ICC procedural system characterized by a different configuration of the truth-finding mandate that eschews the concept of partisan ownership of witnesses. The antipodal judicial stances on witness preparation stem from the substantial dissimilarities between the two models of international criminal procedure, and each of them may be defended both legally and in policy terms. While there is little chance of attenuating the fragmentation of international criminal practice in this area, the ICC’s dissent may have had positive systemic effects insofar as it emphasizes the independent value of witness familiarization and the need for enhanced judicial control over witness contact.     

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.     

攻击联合国人员和有关人员犯罪的国际法控制

长期以来,国际社会一直致力于通过立法来惩治针对联合国人员和有关人员的恐怖袭击活动。1998年生效的《国际刑事法院罗马规约》将攻击联合国人员和有关人员的罪行纳入法院管辖范围。2003年《安理会第1502号决议》进一步完善了规约的规定,并要求各国也在国内立法惩处这类犯罪。     

The Relevance of the Work of the International Criminal Court to Refugee Status Determinations

This article considers the work of the International CriminalCourt (ICC) and its overlaps with refugee law and practice.It focuses on ICC complementarity determinations. These involvethe organs of the ICC considering whether a state is willingand able to prosecute individuals accused of international crimes.The article draws attention to the fact that such determinationsprovide information on the extent to which state legal systemsare functional and non-discriminatory, and thus able to ensurethat those who violate human rights are brought to justice.Such information, it is suggested, can and should be drawn uponin deciding whether there is a real chance that an applicantfor refugee status will be able to receive the protection oftheir state through its justice system. The paper draws on thisoverlap between the work of the ICC and refugee law and practiceto support its concluding recommendation that refugee practitionersshould see, and take advantage of, the overlap between the workof the ICC and refugee status inquiries. It is suggested thatthis will help to ensure that persons deserving internationalprotection get it. It will at the same time bring us anotherstep closer to the development of a fully integrated systemfor the protection and promotion of human rights.     

Managing a New ‘Partnership’

Defence allegations about the malpractice of intermediaries in the Lubanga Case have revealed the ICC’s dependence upon intermediaries. Yet, surprisingly, the role of intermediaries has received relatively little attention in the academic literature. Since 2009, the Registry has been developing a court-wide set of guidelines to manage the Court’s relationship with intermediaries, which, if adopted, will substitute a large measure of standardisation over the disparate policies and practices currently in place across the various ICC organs and units. The Victims Rights Working Group and the Open Society Justice Initiative in conjunction with the International Refugee Rights Initiative are prominent amongst civil society actors that are playing a key role in advocating for the protection of, and support for, intermediaries through guidelines. This article examines the emerging position of intermediaries in international criminal law. It argues that adopting guidelines will inculcate a semi-institutionalised status for intermediaries, which both reflects, and contributes to, ‘professionalization’ in international criminal law. However, ‘professionalization’ is problematic to the extent to which it creates obstacles for the involvement of counter-hegemonic voices in international criminal law. Moreover, whatever gains guidelines may bestow on the Court and intermediaries, it is unclear how they can or will mesh with the emerging judicial response to intermediaries at the ICC. Ultimately, the increased regulation of intermediaries is likely to have a profound impact on relations between the different ICC organs; and it is set to be a touchstone for civil society–ICC relations more generally.     

Reclaiming Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the Darfur Case

According to the authors, the Report of the UN Commission ofInquiry on Darfur and the Security Council referral of the situationin Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC) bring tolight two serious deficiencies of the ICC Statute and, moregenerally, international criminal law: (i) the systematic ambiguitybetween collective responsibility (i.e. the responsibility ofthe whole state) and criminal liability of individuals, on whichcurrent international criminal law is grounded, and (ii) thefailure of the ICC Statute fully to comply with the principleof legality. The first deficiency is illustrated by highlightingthe notions of genocide and genocidal intent, as well as thatof joint criminal enterprise. The second is exposed by drawingattention to the uncertainties and ambiguities surrounding suchnotions as recklessness and dolus eventualis, and in additionto the frequent reliance in both international case law andthe legal literature on customary international law and looseconcepts such as proportionality. The authors finally pointout that if the ICC tries to operate as a real criminal courtunder the rule of law and shows sensitivity to the rights andinterests of the accused, US fears of politicized prosecutionwill diminish.     

国际刑事法院管辖权的属性

自 1998年《国际刑事法院罗马规约》通过后 ,围绕管辖权属性问题的争辩始终没有休止。实际上 ,国际刑事法院管辖权的多维性体现了主权与人权国际保护的逻辑延伸。透视国际刑事法院管辖权内容上的多维性特征可见 ,《罗马规约》规定的国际刑事法院管辖权游弋于补充性和普遍性与强制性之间 ,体现了适用上的多角度、多层次和多维空间。这种多维特征之间既相互独立 ,又相辅相成 ,充分显示国际刑事法院的历史地位和重要性 ,当被控国际罪行的程序逐渐制度化时 ,国际刑事法院的运行机制也会更加公正、合理与完善     

非政府组织与国际刑事法院

近十年来,非政府组织在国际关系中取得的最大成绩就是在促成国际刑事法院的建立方面做出了巨大的努力和贡献。从建立国际刑事法院构想的提出,到《国际刑事法院规约》的起草、谈判,到《规约》的通过与生效,以"支持国际刑事法院的非政府组织联盟"(简称"国际刑事法院联盟")为核心的非政府组织都发挥了至关重要的作用。在国际刑事法院的诉讼程序中,非政府组织也可以发挥信息提供者、法庭之友、法院与受害人和证人之间桥梁、监督人等作用。国际刑事法院已正式认可了非政府组织的作用。非政府组织在国际刑事法院的建立和运行中所发挥的作用堪称国际市民社会参与国际关系的一个范例。