《联合国反腐败公约》中的引渡制度探析

<联合国反腐败公约>是目前反腐败方面最重要的国际法律文件,它筑起了一道强大的国际反腐法律强网.实现对腐败犯罪的引渡是国际反腐败的一种自然延伸.而<联合国反腐败公约>关于引渡的规定既是对缔约国的要求,也是各国进行国际合作的有效路径.为了实现对腐败犯罪的引渡,接受"死刑犯不引渡原则"则是我国的上上选择.     

2005年《选择法院协议公约》拒绝承认与执行外国判决的理由

2005年<选择法院协议公约>中的拒绝承认与执行规则是迄今为止最为详尽的关于间接管辖权的国际统一规则,其中的拒绝承认与执行的理由是间接管辖权规则的核心问题.起草者希望公约能与1958年纽约公约处理国际仲裁一样成功,新公约有可能成为国际民商事诉讼领域第一部全球性的多边条约.公约的间接管辖权规则虽然仅适用于协议管辖权依据,但是对于因其他管辖权依据引起的判决承认与执行,也具有非常重要的参考作用.     

论外逃赃款追缴制度的发展与完善

贪污腐败犯罪是全球的公害,在全球化的背景下,贪官携款外逃已成为腐败犯罪的一个新动向,也是当前跨国犯罪的突出问题。为惩治跨国腐败犯罪,国际社会加强了国际刑事司法合作,《联合国反腐败公约》的签订正是这一国际合作的法律体现。作为缔约国,中国应以《公约》为标准,对相关刑事法律进行修改与完善,以适应有效惩治腐败犯罪和追缴外逃赃款的现实需要以及进行国际刑事司法合作的条约法义务要求。     

International Hague Network of Judges: Significance in Implementation of the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Convention”) provides for the prompt return to the country of habitual residence of children taken by a parent from one country to another. It was created to address the threshold problem in such cases, that is, which court should determine the rights of the parties involved. In a case under the Convention, the court's concern is which country is the country of habitual residence and practical aspects of the return to ensure the safety of the child and the taking parent. This article will discuss the formation of the International Hague Network of Judges (IHNJ), why it is crucial in the advancement of the Convention's goals, and, specifically, what it does to educate judges and facilitate communication between judges, and how the IHNJ can facilitate the return, including providing information on services, procedures, and protections offered in the countries of return.     

Maintaining the Legal Status of People with Intellectual Disabilities as Parents: The ADA and the CRPD

People with intellectual disabilities face proceedings to terminate their parental rights with disturbing regularity, with protecting the interests of offspring the primary justification. Although protecting children from harm is surely critical, these termination proceedings involve problematic assumptions about how fitness to parent is understood, how parenting is legally constructed, and what nondiscrimination requires for parents with intellectual disabilities. Using Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a model, it suggests two alternatives to the all‐or‐nothing termination processes in place today that might better realize the enjoyment of legal capacity as parents on an equal basis with others for people with intellectual disabilities: limited terminations analogous to limited guardianships and supported parenting along the lines of supported decision making proposed in the CRPD.     

What the Trial Judge Needs to Know about the Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance

Since the 1950s, there have been several international multi‐lateral treaties for recognition and enforcement of child and spousal support orders. They operated, primarily, in civil law countries where “creditor‐based jurisdiction” allowed establishment of an order in the country of habitual residence of the child or the custodial parent. The United States, requiring “minimum contacts” with the debtor to establish personal jurisdiction, could not be a party to such agreements. For nearly fifty years the U.S., and a few states, sought to fill the need for international reciprocity by negotiating individual country‐to‐country or state‐to‐country arrangements. With ratification of the 2007 Family Maintenance Convention, the United States was finally able to join in a multi‐lateral treaty. The treaty took effect in the United States on January 1, 2017, establishing procedures for international recognition, enforcement and modification of family support orders with 35 other countries already party to the Convention (including the entire European Union). The grand bargain struck during the negotiations between 2003 and 2007 was that the U.S. would honor a foreign order if, under the facts presented, there were sufficient minimum contacts with the debtor that would have supported personal jurisdiction if the order had been entered in any state in the U.S. If unable to recognize a foreign order, the U.S. agreed to take steps to issue a new one. The treaty establishes administrative procedures that, in many respects, are nearly identical to interstate enforcement of domestic support orders in this country. But there are also aspects of the treaty that are entirely new and warrant explanation for family and juvenile court judges. This article focuses on several unique provisions of the treaty that judges and attorneys need to understand.     

The Trump Effect,Children, and the Value of Human Rights Education

Since launching his presidential campaign, Donald Trump's rhetoric has often been divisive as well as demeaning of selected groups. This article examines the impact of Trump's rhetoric on children and their communities and explores the role that human rights education can play in responding to Trump and forging broader support for human rights. The article reviews the research on human rights education and considers how human rights education can be embedded in broader efforts to educate children. Using children's literature as a case study, the article argues for the importance of mainstreaming human rights education and meeting children where they are, in order to foster greater recognition of and respect for the rights of all individuals.     

WHAT DOES ACCESS TO JUSTICE REQUIRE? — OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO INVOKE THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Persons with disabilities have a right to effective access to justice under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). This article provides insights on the parameters of that right, including a close examination of the history and text of Article 13, which directly addresses access to justice and other relevant UNCRPD provisions. In addition to the UNCRPD, this article discusses implementation guidance from the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including its guidelines for State Party reports and jurisprudence. The initial reports by eleven States Parties — Argentina, Azerbaijan, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Hungary, Mexico, Peru and Turkmenistan — are also considered. The Committee’s feedback regarding implementation of Article 13 by these eleven States parties is critiqued for being limited and inconsistent. This article then attempts to clarify what effective access to justice actually requires. It does so by focusing on the insights that can be drawn from implementation of Article 13 since the UNCRPD was adopted as well as implementation guidance from the Conference of States Parties, the International Disability Alliance, the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry and the National Center for Access to Justice. This article concludes with recommendations on how the Committee can improve its guidance on access to justice to help ensure that equal rights will not be illusory for persons with disabilities.     

A generalization of the obligation to prevent: From genocide convention to racial discrimination convention

The decision of the International Court of Justice in the case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide Convention”) highlights states’ obligations under the Convention, especially the obligation to prevent. When it comes to the case concerning the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“Racial Discrimination Convention”), the decision of the Court indicating provisional measures seemingly purported to generalize its jurisprudence in the Genocide Case. By elaborating this kind of new jurisprudence, the Court echoed to the responsibility to protect, as well as to Article 48 and Article 54 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles of State Responsibility”). It appears that each State Party should have an obligation to intervene in the coming genocide incidence, perhaps as well as in the coming racial discrimination cases. Nevertheless it is unclear in what manner a state could implement it effectively.