国际刑事法院管辖权研究
|
摘要
《国际刑事法院罗马规约》的通过和世界上第一个常设性国际刑事审判机构—国际刑事法院的诞生,给世界带来了很大影响。根据《罗马规约》的规定,国际刑事法院对国际社会关注的最严重犯罪,即灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪、战争罪和侵略罪等四类犯罪具有管辖权,旨在使这些最严重犯罪的罪犯不再逍遥法外,从而有助于预防这些犯罪。根据《罗马规约》关于国际刑事法院行使管辖权的先决条件的规定,如果犯罪地国或被告人国籍国是《罗马规约》缔约国或者声明接受国际刑事法院管辖权的国家,则国际刑事法院可以对上述犯罪行使补充管辖权。并且,即使犯罪地国和被告人国籍国都不是缔约国,但在安理会向国际刑事法院提交情势的情况下,国际刑事法院也可以行使管辖权。安理会提交情势不受先决条件的限制。据以上规定,国际刑事法院不但对关涉缔约国的案件具有管辖权,而且在特定情形下对关涉非缔约国的案件也具有管辖权。因此,《罗马规约》和国际刑事法院不但对缔约国有深远的影响,而且对非缔约国也有不可忽视的影响。
正因为《罗马规约》和国际刑事法院几乎对所有国家都有影响,所以,自《罗马规约》通过前后,尤其是国际刑事法院诞生以来,国际社会掀起了研究《罗马规约》的热潮。中国虽然暂时还不是《罗马规约》缔约国,但是中国政府积极参加了《罗马规约》谈判的全过程,提出了许多建设性建议,始终支持建立一个独立、公正、有效和具有普遍性的国际刑事法院。并且,中国政府在《罗马规约》通过后设立的建立国际刑事法院预备委员会中,表现出极大的灵活性和建设性,对其在罗马大会上严重关切的危害人类罪部分罪行要件,接受了协商一致;在联合国一些会议的表态中,对国际刑事法院的态度越来越缓和。由此可见,中国将来有加入国际刑事法院的可能。综上所述,中国无论是现在作为非缔约国,还是将来成为缔约国,进一步认识和理解国际刑事法院,都非常重要。
鉴于国际刑事法院的管辖权是国际刑事法院的生命线,本文以国际刑事法院的管辖权问题为中心,共分五章对相关问题展开论述。
第一章为“国际刑事法院的诞生”。该章主要论述了两大问题:一是纽伦堡国际军事法庭和远东国际军事法庭、前南斯拉夫国际刑事法庭和卢旺达国际刑事法庭、以及东帝汶重罪特别法庭、塞拉利昂特别法院和柬埔寨特别法庭等国际国内混合法庭的设立、管辖权和法律适用问题;二是《罗马规约》的酝酿、通过和国际刑事法院的组织结构。
第二章为“国际刑事法院遵循的刑法原则和适用的法律”。该章论述了两大问题:一是《罗马规约》明文规定的四项刑法原则,即罪刑法定原则、个人刑事责任原则、一事不再理原则和无罪推定原则;二是国际刑事法院可适用的法律。《罗马规约》为国际刑事法院规定了可适用的法律的层级体系。国际刑事法院可依次适用:首先是《罗马规约》、《犯罪要件》和该法院的《程序和证据规则》;其次是可适用的条约及国际法原则和规则;无法适用上述法律时,适用对该犯罪具有管辖权的国家的国内法中的一般法律原则,但这些原则不得违反《罗马规约》、国际法和国际承认的规范与标准。另外,该法院可以适用其以前的裁判所阐释的法律原则和规则。在任何情况下,该法院适用和解释法律,必须符合国际承认的人权,并且不得有任何歧视。
第三章为“国际刑事法院管辖的罪行”。该章论述了国际刑事法院管辖权范围内的灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪、战争罪和侵略罪的历史演变、定义和争议等问题。由于侵略罪的定义尚未界定,所以,《罗马规约》第5条第2款规定,在制定条款,界定侵略罪的定义,及制定国际刑事法院对这一犯罪行使管辖权的条件后,该法院即对侵略罪行使管辖权。这一条款应当符合《联合国宪章》的有关规定。
第四章为“国际刑事法院的管辖权”。该章论述了六个问题:第一,国际刑事管辖原则,即属地管辖原则、属人管辖原则、保护管辖原则和普遍管辖原则。其中,普遍管辖原则尚未得到国家的普遍承认,但已经受到了广泛关注。第二,国际刑事法院管辖权的补充性原则。补充性原则是国际刑事法院得以建立的基石之一。补充性原则意味着,对国际刑事法院管辖权内的犯罪,国家具有优先管辖权,只有在国家不愿意或不能够切实行使管辖权时,国际刑事法院才能行使补充管辖权,以便将实施严重国际犯罪的个人绳之以法,从而防止其逍遥法外。第三,国际刑事法院管辖权的效力范围。国际刑事法院管辖权的效力范围包括属时管辖、属地管辖、属人管辖和属物管辖四个方面。第四,国际刑事法院管辖权的先决条件。国际刑事法院管辖权的先决条件是国家的同意,即犯罪地国或被告人国籍国是《罗马规约》缔约国或者就有关犯罪声明接受该法院管辖权的非缔约国时,国际刑事法院才能行使补充管辖权。据此,如果非缔约国国民在缔约国境内或接受了法院管辖权的非缔约国境内实施犯罪,或者缔约国国民或接受了法院管辖权的非缔约国国民在非缔约国境内犯罪,则国际刑事法院对关涉非缔约国的该案件具有管辖权。前一种情形对非缔约国的影响更大。第五,国际刑事法院管辖权的启动机制。国际刑事法院的管辖权可由三种方式启动:《罗马规约》缔约国向国际刑事法院检察官提交显示一项或多项犯罪已经发生的情势;联合国安理会根据《联合国宪章》第七章行事,向国际刑事法院检察官提交显示一项或多项犯罪已经发生的情势;国际刑事法院检察官开始调查一项犯罪。在论述第二种启动方式时,对国际刑事法院与联合国安理会之间的关系作了重点论述。第六,国际刑事法院正在处理的相关案件。乌干达于2003年向国际刑事法院检察官提交了有关圣灵抵抗军的情势,成为自该法院成立以来提交情势的第一个缔约国。联合国安理会于2005年首次向国际刑事法院检察官提交了达尔富尔情势。本文对这两个案件作了介绍和分析。
第五章为“国家与国际刑事法院的司法合作及其前景”。该章主要论述了以下问题:第一,国际刑事司法机构司法合作体制的脆弱性。以前南国际刑庭的司法合作体制及司法合作状况为例,论述了国际刑事审判机构司法合作体制的脆弱性。第二,缔约国与国际刑事法院的司法合作义务。根据《罗马规约》的规定,缔约国在调查和起诉该法院管辖权内的犯罪方面有义务同该法院充分合作。缔约国有义务向该法院提供司法协助。第三,非缔约国与国际刑事法院的司法合作。对于非缔约国而言,除了在安理会依据《罗马规约》第13条第2款向法院提交情势的情况下必须履行合作义务之外,依据1969年《维也纳条约法公约》的规定,它不具有合作义务。但如果案件涉及非缔约国时,非缔约国的合作就非常重要。因此,《罗马规约》第87条第5款规定:1.本法院可以邀请任何非本规约缔约国的国家,根据特别安排、与该国达成的协议或任何其他适当的基础,按本编规定提供协助。2.如果非本规约缔约国的国家已同本法院达成特别安排或协议,但没有对根据任何这种安排或协议提出的请求给予合作,本法院可以通知缔约国大会,或在有关情势系由安全理事会提交本法院的情况下,通知安全理事会。除个别情形之外,《罗马规约》的效力只及于缔约国,并不扩及非缔约国。法院与非缔约国的合作只能建立在非缔约国自愿的基础上。这样,非缔约国就有可能拒绝与法院进行任何合作。第四,国际刑事法院与国家之间司法合作的障碍。《罗马规约》关于国际司法合作的规定充斥着大量的例外情形和限制性条件,对不合作的国家缺乏任何强有力的制约机制。第五,美国关于国际刑事法院的立场。其中论述了美国反对《罗马规约》的理由和美国对抗国际刑事法院的措施。第六,中国关于国际刑事法院的立场。其中论述了中国反对《罗马规约》的理由以及保护中国利益的措施。
The adoption of the Rome Statute and the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the first global permanent international criminal judicial institution, are of immense significance to the world. The Rome Statute prescribes that the ICC has jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely, the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The ICC is targeted to put an end to impunity from such crimes, thus to contribute to their prevention. According to the Rome Statute’s preconditions for the exercise of jurisdiction, the ICC may perform its complementary jurisdiction where the state on whose territory the crime has been committed or the state whose nationality the accused holds is a state party to the Rome Statute, or where a non-party state which has accepted by declaration the ICC jurisdiction. The ICC may also have jurisdiction where the Security Council refers a situation even though the state in question is not a state party. It is to be noted that the Security Council’s referral is not subject to the preconditions of the exercise of ICC jurisdiction. Therefore, the ICC has jurisdiction not only over the cases involving a state party to the Statute, but in certain circumstances also over the ones concerning a non-party state. The influence of the Rome Statute and the ICC upon a state party is naturally profound, and that upon a non-party state also cannot be ignored.
Because of the wide influence upon nearly all states, a surge of study on the Statute is on the rise all over the world before and after the adoption of the Statute, especially following the creation of the ICC. Despite the fact that China is still a non-party state, the Chinese government has played an active role in the whole process of the Statute’s negotiations. It has advanced many constructive suggestions in consistent support of the establishment of an ICC of independence, impartiality, effectiveness and universality. It has shown great flexibility and constructiveness in the Preparatory Commission for an ICC. It has accepted consensus with respect to parts of the elements of the crimes against humanity for which it expressed great concern at the Rome Conference. And its attitude towards the ICC grows increasingly mild in its statements at some of the UN sessions. It is clear to expect the possibility for China to accede to the ICC in the future. In light of that, it is of much more importance to further recognize and understand the ICC no matter whether it is a current non-party state or a future state party.
The lifeline of the ICC is jurisdiction, which is therefore the theme and focus of this thesis. Research on relevant issues is made in five chapters.
Chapter One: The Birth of the ICC. Two issues are discussed in this chapter. 1. The establishment, jurisdiction and law application of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg; those of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East; those of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda; and those of mixed national-international tribunals such as the East Timor’s Panels for Serious Crimes, Sierra Leone’s Special Court and Cambodian Extraordinary Chambers. 2. The deliberation and adoption of the Rome Statute, and the composition of the ICC.
Chapter Two: The General Criminal Principles and Applicable Law of the ICC. Two issues are dealt with in this chapter. 1. Four principles stated in the Rome Statute, which are respectively the principle of nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege, principle of individual criminal responsibility, principle of ne bis in idem and principle of presumption of innocence. 2. A hierarchy of the applicable law of the ICC is prescribed in the Rome Statute, which may be applied by the ICC in the following order: First, the Rome Statute, the Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICC. Second, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law. Third, failing that, general principles of national laws of states with jurisdiction over the crime, provided that these principles are consistent with the Statute, international law, and internationally recognized norms and standards. In addition, the ICC may apply principles and rules of law as interpreted in its previous rulings. In any case, the application and interpretation of the law by the ICC must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights, and without any discrimination.
Chapter Three: Crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC. The ICC has jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, whose evolution, definition and debates about the crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC are dealt with. Since the crime of aggression has not been defined yet, Article 5(2) of the Rome Statute stipulates that the ICC shall have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression provided that a provision is adopted defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the ICC shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to the crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the UN Charter.
Chapter Four: The jurisdiction of the ICC. Six issues are discussed in this chapter. 1. The international criminal jurisdiction principle, which comprises territory, nationality, protection, and universal jurisdictions. Though the universal jurisdiction has not yet received universal recognition, it is getting growing attention. 2.The complementarity principle, which means that while states have primary jurisdiction over the crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, the ICC may exercise the complementary jurisdiction where states lack the will or ability to genuinely perform their own jurisdiction, in order to bring perpetrators of the most serious international crimes to justice and without letting them go unpunished. 3. The sphere of validity of the ICC jurisdiction, which is composed of jurisdiction ratione temporis, jurisdiction ratione loci, jurisdiction ratione personae and jurisdiction rationae materiae. 4. The preconditions of the exercise of the ICC jurisdiction, which is states’consent. That is to say, the ICC may perform its complementary jurisdiction where the territorial state or the state of nationality of the accused is a state party or the state which has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to the crime in question. As for cases involving a non-party state, the ICC has jurisdiction on condition that, firstly, a national of a non-party state has committed a crime on the territory of a state party or on that of a state which has accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction, secondly, a national, either from a state party or a state which has accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction, has committed a crime on the territory of a non-party state. The first situation has more influence on a non-party state. 5. The triggering mechanism of the ICC jurisdiction, which is carried out in three ways. A situation in which one or more crimes appears to have been committed, may be referred to the Prosecutor of the ICC by a state party, or, acting under ChapterⅦof the UN Charter, by the UN Security Council, or the Prosecutor of the ICC has initiated an investigation in respect of a crime. When discussing the referral by the Security Council, the relationship between the ICC and the Security Council is stressed. 6. Some cases are being dealt with by the ICC, of which, two cases are discussed. The one case, concerning the Lord’s Resistance Army, is referred to the ICC Prosecutor by Uganda in 2003. It is the first referral to ICC since its birth by a state party. The other one, concerning Darfur, is referred by the Security Council in 2005, also a first referral by the UN institution.
Chapter Five: A Prospect for the Judicial Cooperation between states and the ICC. Six issues are dealt with in this chapter. 1. The frailty of the international criminal judicial cooperation institutions, which is illustrated by the situation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. 2. States parties’cooperative obligations with the ICC, which means that in accordance with the Rome Statute, states parties shall cooperate fully with the ICC in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, and provide judicial assistance to the ICC. 3. Non-parties states’judicial cooperation with the ICC, which means that while non-parties shall perform their cooperative duty where the Security Council refers a situation to the ICC under Article 13(2) of the Rome Statute, they shall, in other cases, have no duty to cooperate with the ICC according to Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Considering the importance of non-parties’cooperation when they are involved in cases, Article 87(5) of the Rome Statute prescribes: (a) The ICC may invite any non-party state to provide assistance under Part 9 on the basis of either an ad hoc arrangement or an agreement with such state, or any other appropriate basis. (b) Where a non-party state, which has entered into an ad hoc arrangement or an agreement with the Court, fails to cooperate with requests pursuant to any such arrangement or agreement, the Court may inform the Assembly of States Parties or, where the Security Council referred the matter to the Court, the Security Council. Except for particular occasions, the validity of the Rome Statute is only to states parties. For this reason, the non-parties’assistance to the ICC is based on their voluntary basis with the possibility of their refusal to cooperate with the ICC. 4. The obstacles in the cooperation between the ICC and states, which means that since the Statute’s provisions concerning international judicial cooperation are riddled with exceptions and qualifications, the Rome Statute is lacking in any powerful enforcement mechanism on states that failed to cooperate. 5. American position on the ICC. American objections and reasons to the Rome Statute and its measures taken to resist the ICC are approached. 6. Chinese position on the ICC. Chinese objections to the Rome Statute and measures taken to protect its interests are discussed.
正因为《罗马规约》和国际刑事法院几乎对所有国家都有影响,所以,自《罗马规约》通过前后,尤其是国际刑事法院诞生以来,国际社会掀起了研究《罗马规约》的热潮。中国虽然暂时还不是《罗马规约》缔约国,但是中国政府积极参加了《罗马规约》谈判的全过程,提出了许多建设性建议,始终支持建立一个独立、公正、有效和具有普遍性的国际刑事法院。并且,中国政府在《罗马规约》通过后设立的建立国际刑事法院预备委员会中,表现出极大的灵活性和建设性,对其在罗马大会上严重关切的危害人类罪部分罪行要件,接受了协商一致;在联合国一些会议的表态中,对国际刑事法院的态度越来越缓和。由此可见,中国将来有加入国际刑事法院的可能。综上所述,中国无论是现在作为非缔约国,还是将来成为缔约国,进一步认识和理解国际刑事法院,都非常重要。
鉴于国际刑事法院的管辖权是国际刑事法院的生命线,本文以国际刑事法院的管辖权问题为中心,共分五章对相关问题展开论述。
第一章为“国际刑事法院的诞生”。该章主要论述了两大问题:一是纽伦堡国际军事法庭和远东国际军事法庭、前南斯拉夫国际刑事法庭和卢旺达国际刑事法庭、以及东帝汶重罪特别法庭、塞拉利昂特别法院和柬埔寨特别法庭等国际国内混合法庭的设立、管辖权和法律适用问题;二是《罗马规约》的酝酿、通过和国际刑事法院的组织结构。
第二章为“国际刑事法院遵循的刑法原则和适用的法律”。该章论述了两大问题:一是《罗马规约》明文规定的四项刑法原则,即罪刑法定原则、个人刑事责任原则、一事不再理原则和无罪推定原则;二是国际刑事法院可适用的法律。《罗马规约》为国际刑事法院规定了可适用的法律的层级体系。国际刑事法院可依次适用:首先是《罗马规约》、《犯罪要件》和该法院的《程序和证据规则》;其次是可适用的条约及国际法原则和规则;无法适用上述法律时,适用对该犯罪具有管辖权的国家的国内法中的一般法律原则,但这些原则不得违反《罗马规约》、国际法和国际承认的规范与标准。另外,该法院可以适用其以前的裁判所阐释的法律原则和规则。在任何情况下,该法院适用和解释法律,必须符合国际承认的人权,并且不得有任何歧视。
第三章为“国际刑事法院管辖的罪行”。该章论述了国际刑事法院管辖权范围内的灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪、战争罪和侵略罪的历史演变、定义和争议等问题。由于侵略罪的定义尚未界定,所以,《罗马规约》第5条第2款规定,在制定条款,界定侵略罪的定义,及制定国际刑事法院对这一犯罪行使管辖权的条件后,该法院即对侵略罪行使管辖权。这一条款应当符合《联合国宪章》的有关规定。
第四章为“国际刑事法院的管辖权”。该章论述了六个问题:第一,国际刑事管辖原则,即属地管辖原则、属人管辖原则、保护管辖原则和普遍管辖原则。其中,普遍管辖原则尚未得到国家的普遍承认,但已经受到了广泛关注。第二,国际刑事法院管辖权的补充性原则。补充性原则是国际刑事法院得以建立的基石之一。补充性原则意味着,对国际刑事法院管辖权内的犯罪,国家具有优先管辖权,只有在国家不愿意或不能够切实行使管辖权时,国际刑事法院才能行使补充管辖权,以便将实施严重国际犯罪的个人绳之以法,从而防止其逍遥法外。第三,国际刑事法院管辖权的效力范围。国际刑事法院管辖权的效力范围包括属时管辖、属地管辖、属人管辖和属物管辖四个方面。第四,国际刑事法院管辖权的先决条件。国际刑事法院管辖权的先决条件是国家的同意,即犯罪地国或被告人国籍国是《罗马规约》缔约国或者就有关犯罪声明接受该法院管辖权的非缔约国时,国际刑事法院才能行使补充管辖权。据此,如果非缔约国国民在缔约国境内或接受了法院管辖权的非缔约国境内实施犯罪,或者缔约国国民或接受了法院管辖权的非缔约国国民在非缔约国境内犯罪,则国际刑事法院对关涉非缔约国的该案件具有管辖权。前一种情形对非缔约国的影响更大。第五,国际刑事法院管辖权的启动机制。国际刑事法院的管辖权可由三种方式启动:《罗马规约》缔约国向国际刑事法院检察官提交显示一项或多项犯罪已经发生的情势;联合国安理会根据《联合国宪章》第七章行事,向国际刑事法院检察官提交显示一项或多项犯罪已经发生的情势;国际刑事法院检察官开始调查一项犯罪。在论述第二种启动方式时,对国际刑事法院与联合国安理会之间的关系作了重点论述。第六,国际刑事法院正在处理的相关案件。乌干达于2003年向国际刑事法院检察官提交了有关圣灵抵抗军的情势,成为自该法院成立以来提交情势的第一个缔约国。联合国安理会于2005年首次向国际刑事法院检察官提交了达尔富尔情势。本文对这两个案件作了介绍和分析。
第五章为“国家与国际刑事法院的司法合作及其前景”。该章主要论述了以下问题:第一,国际刑事司法机构司法合作体制的脆弱性。以前南国际刑庭的司法合作体制及司法合作状况为例,论述了国际刑事审判机构司法合作体制的脆弱性。第二,缔约国与国际刑事法院的司法合作义务。根据《罗马规约》的规定,缔约国在调查和起诉该法院管辖权内的犯罪方面有义务同该法院充分合作。缔约国有义务向该法院提供司法协助。第三,非缔约国与国际刑事法院的司法合作。对于非缔约国而言,除了在安理会依据《罗马规约》第13条第2款向法院提交情势的情况下必须履行合作义务之外,依据1969年《维也纳条约法公约》的规定,它不具有合作义务。但如果案件涉及非缔约国时,非缔约国的合作就非常重要。因此,《罗马规约》第87条第5款规定:1.本法院可以邀请任何非本规约缔约国的国家,根据特别安排、与该国达成的协议或任何其他适当的基础,按本编规定提供协助。2.如果非本规约缔约国的国家已同本法院达成特别安排或协议,但没有对根据任何这种安排或协议提出的请求给予合作,本法院可以通知缔约国大会,或在有关情势系由安全理事会提交本法院的情况下,通知安全理事会。除个别情形之外,《罗马规约》的效力只及于缔约国,并不扩及非缔约国。法院与非缔约国的合作只能建立在非缔约国自愿的基础上。这样,非缔约国就有可能拒绝与法院进行任何合作。第四,国际刑事法院与国家之间司法合作的障碍。《罗马规约》关于国际司法合作的规定充斥着大量的例外情形和限制性条件,对不合作的国家缺乏任何强有力的制约机制。第五,美国关于国际刑事法院的立场。其中论述了美国反对《罗马规约》的理由和美国对抗国际刑事法院的措施。第六,中国关于国际刑事法院的立场。其中论述了中国反对《罗马规约》的理由以及保护中国利益的措施。
The adoption of the Rome Statute and the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the first global permanent international criminal judicial institution, are of immense significance to the world. The Rome Statute prescribes that the ICC has jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely, the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The ICC is targeted to put an end to impunity from such crimes, thus to contribute to their prevention. According to the Rome Statute’s preconditions for the exercise of jurisdiction, the ICC may perform its complementary jurisdiction where the state on whose territory the crime has been committed or the state whose nationality the accused holds is a state party to the Rome Statute, or where a non-party state which has accepted by declaration the ICC jurisdiction. The ICC may also have jurisdiction where the Security Council refers a situation even though the state in question is not a state party. It is to be noted that the Security Council’s referral is not subject to the preconditions of the exercise of ICC jurisdiction. Therefore, the ICC has jurisdiction not only over the cases involving a state party to the Statute, but in certain circumstances also over the ones concerning a non-party state. The influence of the Rome Statute and the ICC upon a state party is naturally profound, and that upon a non-party state also cannot be ignored.
Because of the wide influence upon nearly all states, a surge of study on the Statute is on the rise all over the world before and after the adoption of the Statute, especially following the creation of the ICC. Despite the fact that China is still a non-party state, the Chinese government has played an active role in the whole process of the Statute’s negotiations. It has advanced many constructive suggestions in consistent support of the establishment of an ICC of independence, impartiality, effectiveness and universality. It has shown great flexibility and constructiveness in the Preparatory Commission for an ICC. It has accepted consensus with respect to parts of the elements of the crimes against humanity for which it expressed great concern at the Rome Conference. And its attitude towards the ICC grows increasingly mild in its statements at some of the UN sessions. It is clear to expect the possibility for China to accede to the ICC in the future. In light of that, it is of much more importance to further recognize and understand the ICC no matter whether it is a current non-party state or a future state party.
The lifeline of the ICC is jurisdiction, which is therefore the theme and focus of this thesis. Research on relevant issues is made in five chapters.
Chapter One: The Birth of the ICC. Two issues are discussed in this chapter. 1. The establishment, jurisdiction and law application of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg; those of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East; those of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda; and those of mixed national-international tribunals such as the East Timor’s Panels for Serious Crimes, Sierra Leone’s Special Court and Cambodian Extraordinary Chambers. 2. The deliberation and adoption of the Rome Statute, and the composition of the ICC.
Chapter Two: The General Criminal Principles and Applicable Law of the ICC. Two issues are dealt with in this chapter. 1. Four principles stated in the Rome Statute, which are respectively the principle of nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege, principle of individual criminal responsibility, principle of ne bis in idem and principle of presumption of innocence. 2. A hierarchy of the applicable law of the ICC is prescribed in the Rome Statute, which may be applied by the ICC in the following order: First, the Rome Statute, the Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICC. Second, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law. Third, failing that, general principles of national laws of states with jurisdiction over the crime, provided that these principles are consistent with the Statute, international law, and internationally recognized norms and standards. In addition, the ICC may apply principles and rules of law as interpreted in its previous rulings. In any case, the application and interpretation of the law by the ICC must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights, and without any discrimination.
Chapter Three: Crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC. The ICC has jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, whose evolution, definition and debates about the crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC are dealt with. Since the crime of aggression has not been defined yet, Article 5(2) of the Rome Statute stipulates that the ICC shall have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression provided that a provision is adopted defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the ICC shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to the crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the UN Charter.
Chapter Four: The jurisdiction of the ICC. Six issues are discussed in this chapter. 1. The international criminal jurisdiction principle, which comprises territory, nationality, protection, and universal jurisdictions. Though the universal jurisdiction has not yet received universal recognition, it is getting growing attention. 2.The complementarity principle, which means that while states have primary jurisdiction over the crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, the ICC may exercise the complementary jurisdiction where states lack the will or ability to genuinely perform their own jurisdiction, in order to bring perpetrators of the most serious international crimes to justice and without letting them go unpunished. 3. The sphere of validity of the ICC jurisdiction, which is composed of jurisdiction ratione temporis, jurisdiction ratione loci, jurisdiction ratione personae and jurisdiction rationae materiae. 4. The preconditions of the exercise of the ICC jurisdiction, which is states’consent. That is to say, the ICC may perform its complementary jurisdiction where the territorial state or the state of nationality of the accused is a state party or the state which has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to the crime in question. As for cases involving a non-party state, the ICC has jurisdiction on condition that, firstly, a national of a non-party state has committed a crime on the territory of a state party or on that of a state which has accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction, secondly, a national, either from a state party or a state which has accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction, has committed a crime on the territory of a non-party state. The first situation has more influence on a non-party state. 5. The triggering mechanism of the ICC jurisdiction, which is carried out in three ways. A situation in which one or more crimes appears to have been committed, may be referred to the Prosecutor of the ICC by a state party, or, acting under ChapterⅦof the UN Charter, by the UN Security Council, or the Prosecutor of the ICC has initiated an investigation in respect of a crime. When discussing the referral by the Security Council, the relationship between the ICC and the Security Council is stressed. 6. Some cases are being dealt with by the ICC, of which, two cases are discussed. The one case, concerning the Lord’s Resistance Army, is referred to the ICC Prosecutor by Uganda in 2003. It is the first referral to ICC since its birth by a state party. The other one, concerning Darfur, is referred by the Security Council in 2005, also a first referral by the UN institution.
Chapter Five: A Prospect for the Judicial Cooperation between states and the ICC. Six issues are dealt with in this chapter. 1. The frailty of the international criminal judicial cooperation institutions, which is illustrated by the situation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. 2. States parties’cooperative obligations with the ICC, which means that in accordance with the Rome Statute, states parties shall cooperate fully with the ICC in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, and provide judicial assistance to the ICC. 3. Non-parties states’judicial cooperation with the ICC, which means that while non-parties shall perform their cooperative duty where the Security Council refers a situation to the ICC under Article 13(2) of the Rome Statute, they shall, in other cases, have no duty to cooperate with the ICC according to Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Considering the importance of non-parties’cooperation when they are involved in cases, Article 87(5) of the Rome Statute prescribes: (a) The ICC may invite any non-party state to provide assistance under Part 9 on the basis of either an ad hoc arrangement or an agreement with such state, or any other appropriate basis. (b) Where a non-party state, which has entered into an ad hoc arrangement or an agreement with the Court, fails to cooperate with requests pursuant to any such arrangement or agreement, the Court may inform the Assembly of States Parties or, where the Security Council referred the matter to the Court, the Security Council. Except for particular occasions, the validity of the Rome Statute is only to states parties. For this reason, the non-parties’assistance to the ICC is based on their voluntary basis with the possibility of their refusal to cooperate with the ICC. 4. The obstacles in the cooperation between the ICC and states, which means that since the Statute’s provisions concerning international judicial cooperation are riddled with exceptions and qualifications, the Rome Statute is lacking in any powerful enforcement mechanism on states that failed to cooperate. 5. American position on the ICC. American objections and reasons to the Rome Statute and its measures taken to resist the ICC are approached. 6. Chinese position on the ICC. Chinese objections to the Rome Statute and measures taken to protect its interests are discussed.
引文
1邵沙平、余敏友主编:《国际法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2002年版,第34页。
2 Cheryl K. Moralez, Establishing an International Criminal Court: Will it Work? 4 DePaul International Law Journal (Winter 2000), p. 141.
3 Kofi Annan, Opening Remarks: Advocating for an International Criminal Court, 21 Fordham International Law Journal (December 1997), pp. 364-365.
1 Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 326.
2日本国际法学会编:《国际法辞典》,世界知识出版社1985年版,第423页。
3 Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 326.
4日本国际法学会编:《国际法辞典》,世界知识出版社1985年版,第423页。
5 Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 326.
6 M. Cherif Bassiouni, From Versailles to Rwanda in Seventy-five Years: The Need to Establish a Permanent International Criminal court, Harvard Human Rights Journal, Volume Ten, Spring 1997.转引自赵秉志主编:《国际区际刑法问题探索》,法律出版社2003年版,第410页。
2 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 32-33.
3 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 15-16.
1 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 18.
2 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 19.
3 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 20.
4 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 20-21.
5 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 23.
2 IMT judgment, Quoted in Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 328.
3 IMT judgment, Quoted in Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 328.
5王秀梅:《国际刑事法院研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版,第23页。
2王秀梅:《国际刑事法院研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版,第22页。
3 Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 331.
2 IMT judgment, Quoted in Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 332.
3 [德]P. A.施泰尼格尔编,王昭仁等译:《纽伦堡审判》(上卷),商务印书馆1985年版,第226页。转引自赵秉志:《比较刑法暨国际刑法专论》,法律出版社2004年版,第397页。
1 Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 333.
2《纽伦堡宪章》第2条和第14条。
4 Matthew D. Peter, The Proposed International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Legal and Political Debates Regarding Jurisdiction That Threaten the Establishment of an Effective Court, 24 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce (1997), p. 183.
5 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (London: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 22.该隐系亚当与夏娃之长子,杀其弟亚伯,见基督教《圣经·创世纪》。
6林维:《前南国际刑事法庭成立研究》,载赵秉志等主编:《国际刑法评论》(第1卷),中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第326—328页。
9赵永琛编:《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第83—84页。
5赵秉志主编:《国际区际刑法问题探索》,法律出版社2003年版,第415页。
1 Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 249.
2梅汝璈:《远东国际军事法庭》,法律出版社2005年版,第95—96页。
1 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 20.
2梅汝璈:《远东国际军事法庭》,法律出版社2005年版,导读部分第7页。
1凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第23页。
2凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第24页。
3凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第25—26页。
4《前南刑庭规约》第11条。
5《前南刑庭规约》第12条。
6《前南刑庭规约》第13条。
7《前南刑庭规约》第14条。
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijihoff Publishers, 2005), p. 74.
2《前南刑庭规约》第16条。
3 Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 53.
4林维:《前南国际刑事法庭成立研究》,载赵秉志、卢建平主编:《国际刑法评论》(第1卷),中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第335页。
1 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (IT-94-1), Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction (Trial Chamber) (1995), Quoted in Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004), p. 16.
2 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (IT-94-1), Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction (Trial Chamber) (1995), Quoted in Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004), p. 16.
3 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (IT-94-1), Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction (Trial Chamber) (1995), Quoted in Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004), p. 16.
4 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (IT-94-1), Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction (Trial Chamber) (1995), paras. 26 and 27, Quoted in Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004), p. 17.
5 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (IT-94-1), Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction (Trial Chamber) (1995), para. 28, Quoted in Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004), p. 17.
6 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (IT-94-1), Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction (Trial Chamber) (1995),para. 22, Quoted in Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004), p. 17.
1凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第35页。
2林维:《前南国际刑事法庭成立研究》,载赵秉志、卢建平主编:《国际刑法评论》(第1卷),中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第342页。
3凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第36页。
1《前南刑庭规约》第1条。
2《前南刑庭规约》第2—5条。
3《前南刑庭规约》第9—10条。
4《前南刑庭规约》第9条第2款。
5 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 197.
1 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 162.
2《国际法庭诉讼程序和证据规则》第8条。
1 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 162.
2凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第192页。
3凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第67—68页。
4 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: MartinusNijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 88.
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 88.
2 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 89.
1 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), pp. 201-202.
2凌岩:《卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭的成就和经验》,载《国际法与比较法论坛》,中国法制出版社2006年版,第140页。
3 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 202.
4 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 202.
5凌岩:《卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭的成就和经验》,载《国际法与比较法论坛》,中国法制出版社2006年版,第140—141页。
1 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 203.
2 US Committee for Refugees,‘Life after Death’, Quoted in Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), pp. 93-94.
3 U.N. Doc. S/RES/935 (1994).
1 U.N. Doc. S/1994/1125 (1994).
2 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers Inc. 2003), p. 205.
3 U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (1994).
4《卢旺达刑庭规约》第10条。
5《卢旺达刑庭规约》第11条。
6《卢旺达刑庭规约》第12条和第15条。
7《卢旺达刑庭规约》第8条。该条和《前南刑庭规约》第9条的规定极为相似。
1《卢旺达刑庭规约》第1、7、8条。
2《卢旺达刑庭规约》第7条。
1 Ramesh Thakur and Peter Malcontent (eds.), From Sovereign Impunity to International Accountability: The Search for Justice in a World of States (Tokyo/New York/Paris: United Nations University Press, 2004), pp. 208-210; Philippe Sands (ed.), From Nuremberg to The Hague: the Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 168-173.
1 [美] M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼著,赵秉志等译:《国际刑法导论》,法律出版社2006年版,第476页; Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 139.
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 114.
2 Laurence Juma, The Human Rights Approach to Peace in Sierra Leone: the analysis of the Peace Process and Human Rights Enforcement in a Civil War Situation, 30 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (Summer 2002), p. 363.
3 U.N. Doc. S/RES/1315 (2000).
4《特别法院规约》第11—13条。
1《特别法院规约》第8条。
2《特别法院规约》第1条。
3《特别法院规约》第1条。
4《特别法院规约》第1条。
5卢有学:《塞拉利昂特别法庭及其对泰勒的审判》,载于《山东警察学院学报》2007年第3期,第55页。
1中国日报网2006年3月30日:《塞拉利昂特别法庭要求在荷兰审判泰勒,http://www.chniadaily.com.cn/hqkx/2006-03/30/content-556664.htm(2007年9月30日访问)。
3人民网2007年6月4日:《利比里亚前总统泰勒在联合国特别法庭受审》,http://world.people.com.cn/GB/10129/5820359.html(2007年9月30日访问)。
4《国际法庭开审泰勒拒绝出庭》,http://society.news.mop.com/sj/p/2007/0606/0230308077.shtml(2007年9月30日访问)
5 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 136.
6 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 136.
1陈强:《国际刑事司法机构实践》,载朱利江主编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第2卷第2辑),北京大学出版社2003年版,第247页。
2 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), pp. 131-132.
1 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 2; Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 151.
1 Philippe Kirsch and Q.C. Valerie Oosterveld, Negotiating an Institution for the Twenty-First Century: Multilateral Diplomacy and the International Criminal Court, 46 McGill Law Journal (August 2001), p. 1144.
2 Philippe Kirsch and Q.C. Valerie Oosterveld, Negotiating an Institution for the Twenty-First Century: Multilateral Diplomacy and the International Criminal Court, 46 McGill Law Journal (August 2001), p. 1144.
3 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 9.
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 152.
2 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 15-16.
1《罗马规约》第34条。
1《罗马规约》第38条。
2《罗马规约》第38条。
3《罗马规约》第36条。
4《罗马规约》第39条。
5《罗马规约》第41条。
6《罗马规约》第44条。
7《罗马规约》第48条。
8《罗马规约》第61条。
9《罗马规约》第38条。
1《罗马规约》第39条。
2《罗马规约》第42条。
3《罗马规约》第43条。
1《罗马规约》第44条。
2《罗马规约》第45条。
1 [意]贝卡利亚:《论犯罪与刑罚》,中国大百科全书出版社1993年版,第11页。
1 Per Saland, International Criminal Law Principles, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp. 194-195.
1 Per Saland, International Criminal Law Principles, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 194, p. 196.
2 Per Saland, International Criminal Law Principles, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 197.
3 M.C. Bassiouni, A Theoretical Framework, in M. Cherif Bassiouni ed., International Criminal Law, 2nd ed. Vol. 1, Transnational Publishers, 1999, p. 21.转引自余民才主编:《国际法专论》,中信出版社2003年版,第314页。
1《前南刑庭规约》第7条和第23条;《卢旺达刑庭规约》第6条和第22条。
1谢里夫·巴西奥尼著,王秀梅译:《国际刑法的渊源与内涵—理论体系》,法律出版社2003年版,第28—29页。
2高铭暄、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,北京大学出版社2000年版,第173页。
1高铭暄、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,北京大学出版社2000年版,第175页。
1 Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, 7th ed., Hersh Lauterpacht ed., Longmans, 1963, pp. 572-573.转引自余民才主编:《国际法专论》,中信出版社2003年版,第322—323页。
1 Per Saland, International Criminal Law Principles, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp. 200-201.
1 Arrest Warrant Case, p. 20, para. 54. Quoted inYitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 113.
1 Kai Ambos, General Principles of Criminal Law in the Rome Statute, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 171.
2 Kai Ambos, General Principles of Criminal Law in the Rome Statute, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 172.
2 Kai Ambos, General Principles of Criminal Law in the Rome Statute, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 175.
1 International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, vol. 22, 1947, p. 466.转引自余民才主编:《国际法专论》,中信出版社2003年版,第321页。
1 Kai Ambos, General Principles of Criminal Law in the Rome Statute, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), pp. 176-177.
1《前南刑庭规约》第10条和《卢旺达刑庭规约》第9条。
2刘大群:《“一罪不二审”原则及其在国际刑法中的适用》,载《法律适用》2004年第10期,第47页。
3刘大群:《“一罪不二审”原则及其在国际刑法中的适用》,载《法律适用》2004年第10期,第47页。
1 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), pp. 935-936.
1刘大群:《“一罪不二审”原则及其在国际刑法中的适用》,载《法律适用》2004年第10期,第44页。
2 [意]贝卡利亚:《论犯罪与刑罚》,中国大百科全书出版社1993年版,第31页。
1 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 67.
2 David Charter, War Crimes: Confronting Atrocity in the Modern World (Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003), p. 81.
3 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 29.
4 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 67.
5联合国大会决议第96号(1946)。转引自罗海珊:《灭绝种族罪的学理分析》,载赵秉志、卢建平主编:《国际刑法评论》(第1卷),中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第95页。
6 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 30.
1《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》序言。
2《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》于1951年生效,迄今为止有130多个签署国。
3《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》第1条。
4 I.C.J. Reports (1951), at 15, Quoted in Herman von Hebel and Darryl Robinson, Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 89.
1 Herman von Hebel and Darryl Robinson, Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 89.
2 Herman von Hebel and Darryl Robinson, Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 89.
1 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 85.
2 [美] M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼著,赵秉志、王文华等译:《国际刑法导论》,法律出版社2006年版,第336—337页;Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 248.
3在伦敦会议上,尽管代表们对规定违反人道罪几乎没有争议,但对其定义颇有分歧。一些代表担忧违反人道罪适用于和平时期,杰克逊提出,违反人道罪应与法院管辖的其他犯罪(战争罪或破坏和平罪)存在关联,从而消除了这种担忧。这样做的原因倒不是担忧会遭到以“法无明文规定不为罪”为理由的指控,只是担忧会遭到“你也一样(tu quoque)”的指控。Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 248.
1 36 ILR 31. Quoted in Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 87.
1赵永琛编:《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第79—80页;刘大群:《论危害人类罪》,载于武汉大学国际法研究所:《武大国际法评论》(第四卷),武汉大学出版社2006年版,第5页。
1 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4–T,1998年9月2日判决书第850段。转引自李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编:《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》(上册),北京大学出版社2006年版,第78页。
2 Tadic Judgment, paras. 626, 641-3; Akayesu, paras. 574 -6, 582; Tadic Appeals Judgment, paras. 636-43; Rutaganda, para. 70; Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisic, Case No. IT-95-10, ICTY T. Ch.Ⅰ, 14 Dec. 1999, para. 54; Musema, para. 207; Blaskic, paras. 208-10, 214. Quoted in Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 95.
3 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 97.
1 Herman von Hebel and Darryl Robinson, Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp. 92-93.
2 Philippe Kirsch and John T. Holmes, The Birth of the International Criminal Court: The 1998 Rome Conference, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 15.
3 Herman von Hebel and Darryl Robinson, Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 100; William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 38.
1 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 115.
2赵秉志、王秀梅:《论国际刑事法院管辖的战争罪》,载赵秉志主编:《国际刑事法院专论》,人民法院出版社2003年版,第234页。
1凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第133—138页。
2 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-AR 72, App. Ch. of the ICTY, Decision of 2 Oct. 1995 on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction. Quoted in Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 131.
1 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 133.
2 Herman von Hebel and Darryl Robinson, Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 105; Philippe Kirsch and John T. Holmes,The Birth of the International Criminal Court: The 1998 Rome Conference, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (ed.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 9.
3 Philippe Kirsch and John T. Holmes, The Birth of the International Criminal Court: The 1998 Rome Conference, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (ed.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 24.
1 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 49.
2 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 49-50.
3王铁崖主编:《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版,第450页。
4 Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999), p. 154.
2 Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999), p. 154.
1 Records of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, League of Nations Series D, Vol. 2, at 237 (1933). Quoted in Nikos Passas (ed.), International Crimes (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2003), p. 191.
2 Report of the Committee on Security Questions,ⅡConference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, League of Nations Conference Documents 679, Conf. D./C.G. 108 (1933). Quoted in Nikos Passas (ed.), International Crimes (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2003), p. 191.
3 Nikos Passas (ed.), International Crimes (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2003), p. 191.
1 Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999), p. 161.
2 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 215.
4 Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999), p.161.
5 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 217-218.
6 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 219.
1 Nikos Passas (ed.), International Crimes (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2003), p. 191.
2 Nikos Passas (ed.), International Crimes (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2003), p. 191.
1 The Press Releases are accessible from the website http:/www.un.org/icc/pressrel/lrom. The Press Releases are from No. L./ROM/6. R1 of 15 June 1998 onwards. Quoted in Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 208-209.
1 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 225.
2 Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999), p. 174.
3 Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999), p. 175.
1马呈元:《国际犯罪与责任》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第264页。转引自赵秉志、王秀梅主编:《国际刑事法院专论》人民法院出版社2003年版,第218页。
2赵秉志、王秀梅主编:《国际刑事法院专论》人民法院出版社2003年版,第219页。
1《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》第4条、第1条、第6条。
2《日内瓦第一公约》第49条;《日内瓦第二公约》第50条;《日内瓦第三公约》第129条;《日内瓦第四公约》第146条。
3《日内瓦公约第一附加议定书》第85、86、88条。
1《罗马规约》序言第4、5、6段。
2参见武玉挺:《“刚果诉比利时案”及普遍管辖权初论—国际法院判决与比利时国内实践分析》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第1辑),第165—181页;刘大群:《论国际刑法中的普遍管辖权》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第4卷第2辑),第23—24页;朱文奇:《国际法追究个人刑事责任与管辖豁免问题》,载中国人民大学书报资料中心:《国际法学》2007年第1期,第6—8页;高健军:《对国际罪行的普遍管辖与豁免》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第2辑),第115—134页。
2 Arrest Warrant, para. 51-53.
1 Arrest Warrant, para. 54-55.
2刘大群:《论国际刑法中的普遍管辖权》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第4卷第2辑),第23页。
3 See Alexander Orakhelashvili,‘International Decision: Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000’in The American Journal Int’l Law, July, 2002, p. 681.转引自武玉挺:《“刚果诉比利时案”及普遍管辖权初论—国际法院判决与比利时国内实践分析》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第1辑),第176—177页。
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 53.
2刘大群:《论国际刑法中的普遍管辖权》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第4卷第2辑),第27页。
3武玉挺:《“刚果诉比利时案”及普遍管辖权初论—国际法院判决与比利时国内实践分析》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第1辑),第179页。
2刘大群:《论国际刑法中的普遍管辖权》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第4卷第2辑),第28页。
3 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 54.
1 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), pp. 899-900.
2 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 900.
1 John T. Holmes, Complementarity: National Courts Versus the ICC, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 267.
2 John T. Holmes, Complementarity: National Courts Versus the ICC, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 267.
3 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), pp. 900-901.
1《罗马规约》第17条第2款。
2 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 902.
1 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 972.
2 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 944.
3 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 972.
4《罗马规约》序言第4段和第5段。
1《罗马规约》第53条第1款。
2《罗马规约》第15条第3款。
3《罗马规约》第15条第4款。
4《罗马规约》第15条第5款。
5《罗马规约》第15条第6款。
2李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编:《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》(上册),北京大学出版社2006年版,第224页。
3《罗马规约》第18条第1款。
4《罗马规约》第18条第4款和第82条。
5《罗马规约》第18条第1款。
6《罗马规约》第18条第3款。
1《罗马规约》第61条第11款和《程序与证据规则》第60条。
3《罗马规约》第19条第4款、第17条第1款第3项、第20条第3款。
1《罗马规约》第4条第2款和第12条第2款。
1《罗马规约》第12条第1款。
2 William A. Schabas, International Criminal Court: The Secret of Its Success, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 72.
3 Philippe Kirsch and John T. Holmes, The Birth of the International Criminal Court: The 1998 Rome Conference, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 27.
1 Philippe Kirsch and John T. Holmes, The Birth of the International Criminal Court: The 1998 Rome Conference, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 32.
1《罗马规约》第12条第2款。
2《罗马规约》第12条第2款。
3《罗马规约》第12条第3款。
4《罗马规约》第13条第2款。
1 Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statutes: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 128.
2 Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statutes: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 130.
1 Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statutes: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 132.
1《罗马规约》第87条第7款。
2《罗马规约》第87条第5款第2项。
1 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articles 13(b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 144.
4赵秉志主编:《国际刑事法院专论》,人民法院出版社2003年版,第326页。
2 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articles 13 (b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 146.
3 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articles 13 (b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statutes: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp. 146-147.
1 Morten Bergsmo, Occasional Remarks on Certain States Concerns about the Jurisdictional Reach of the International Criminal Court, and Their Possible Implications for the Relationship between the Court and the Security Council, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 365.
2 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articals13 (b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statutes: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 147.
3 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articals13 (b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statutes: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 148.
1 Morten Bergsmo, Occasional Remarks on Certain State Concerns about the Jurisdictional Reach of the International Criminal Court, and Their Possible Implications for the Relationship between the Court and the Security Council, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), the International Criminal Court (Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 383.
2 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articles 13 (b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p .150.
3 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articles 13 (b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 151.
4 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 963.
1 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 963.
1 Allison Marston Danner, Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court, 97 American Journal of International Law (2003), p. 512.
1 Peggy E. Rancilio, From Nuremberg to Rome: Establishing an International Criminal Court and the Need for U.S. Participation, 78 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review (2001), p. 281.
2 Allison Marston Danner, Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court, 97 American Journal of international Law (2003), p. 513.
3 Silvia A. Fernandez de Gurmendi, The Role of International Prosecutor, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: the Making of the Rome Statute: Issues Negotiations Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp. 176-177.
4 Silvia A. Fernandez de Gurmendi, The Role of International Prosecutor, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: the Making of the Rome Statute: Issues Negotiations Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 177.
5 Allison Marston Danner, Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court, 97 American Journal of International Law (2003), p. 514.
6 Silvia A. Fernandez de Gurmendi, The Role of International Prosecutor, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: the Making of the Rome Statute: Issues Negotiations Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 177.
7 Antonio Cassese, The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections, in OlympiaBekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/ Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 58.
1 Allison Marston Danner, Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court, 97 American Journal of International Law (2003), p. 514.
2 Antonio Cassese, The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/ Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 58.
3 Antonio Cassese, The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 58.
1 Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004) (Introduction), p. 18.
2 Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 17.
1《罗马规约》第53条第3款。
1 The Office of the Prosecutor, Update on Communications Received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/opt/OPT_Update_on_Communications_10_February_2006.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
2 The Office of the Prosecutor, Update on Communications Received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/opt/OPT_Update_on_Communications_10_February_2006.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
4 The Office of the Prosecutor, Update on Communications Received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/opt/OPT_Update_on_Communications_10_February_2006.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 174.
2华夏经纬网2003年6月27日:《“血雨腥风”笼罩乌干达》,http://www.huaxia.com/200373/00035853.htm/(2007年10月31日访问)。
3 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 174.
4 Background information on the situation in Uganda (14 October 2005), http://www.icc-cpi.int/libruary/cases/ICC-20051410-056-1_English.pdf (visited on 1November 2007).
5新华网2007年4月17日:《乌干达“圣灵抵抗军”要求国际刑事法庭撤销控告》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2007-04/17/content_5985540.htm(2007年10月24日访问)。
6 Background information on the situation in Uganda (14 October 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/libruary/cases/ICC-20051410-056-1_English.pdf (visited on 1 November 2007).
1 Office of the Prosecutor, Statement by the Chief Prosecutor on Uganda Arrest Warrants (The Hague, 14 October 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/libruary/organs/opt/speeches/LMO_200510.14_English.pdf (visited on 1 November 2007).
2 Office of the Prosecutor, Statement by the Chief Prosecutor on Uganda Arrest Warrants (The Hague, 14 October 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/libruary/organs/opt/speeches/LMO_200510.14_English.pdf (visited on 1 November 2007).
3联合国电台2006年6月1日:《国际刑警组织发出首批红色通缉令》,http://www.un.org/radio/ch/print_all.asp?NewDate=6/1/2006(2007年11月1日访问)。
4中国网2006年7月4日:《乌干达“非洲屠夫”将被特赦》,http://www.china.com.cn/chinese/junshi/1267289.htm(2007年10月31日访问)。
5浙江在线新闻网2006年7月12日:《绑架数万儿童自称能通灵非洲屠夫拒绝政府特赦》,http://ent.zjol.com.cn/05/world/system/2006/07/12/007735110.stml(2007年10月31日访问)。
1联合国网站新闻中心2006年8月14日:《国际刑事法院就圣灵抵抗军一被告之死发表声明》,http://www.un.org/chinese/News/fullstorynews.asp?newsID=1(2007年10月31日访问)。
2新华网2007年4月17日:《乌干达“圣灵抵抗军”要求国际刑事法庭撤销控告》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2007-04/17/content_5985540.htm(2007年10月24日访问)。
3 The Case of the Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo, Rask Lukwiya, Dominic Ongwen, No. ICC-02/04-01/05, Pre-Trial ChamberⅡ, Decision to Terminate the Proceedings Against Raska Lukwiya (11 July 2007), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-04-01-05-248_English.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).
4云南日报网2007年9月9日:《乌“圣灵抵抗军”要求国际刑事法庭撤消对其首领指控》,http://www.yndaily.com/htm/20070909/news_95_123487.html(2007年10月31日访问)。
1《罗马规约》第17条第2款。
2《罗马规约》第17条第3款。
1 Warrant of Arrest for Joseph Kony Issued on 8 July 2005 as Amended on 27 September 2005 (27 September 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-04-01-05-53_English.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
1 Warrant of Arrest for Joseph Kony Issued on 8 July 2005 as Amended on 27 September 2005 (27 September 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-04-01-05-53_English.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
2《达尔富尔问题国际调查委员会给秘书长的报告》,S/2005/60,第40段。
1摘自《达尔富尔问题国际调查委员会给秘书长的报告》,S/2005/60,第44段和第45段。
2摘自《达尔富尔问题国际调查委员会给秘书长的报告》,S/2005/60,第50段。
3摘自《达尔富尔问题国际调查委员会给秘书长的报告》,S/2005/60,第51段。
4刘仁文、周振杰:《达尔富尔案件的由来、进展及意义》(2007年10月3日),http://blog.china.cn/spl/liurenwen/07261786769.shtml(2007年9月28日访问)。
5刘仁文、周振杰:《达尔富尔案件的由来、进展及意义》,http://blog.china.cn/spl/liurenwen/07261786769.shtml(2007年9月28日访问)。
1 http://en wikipedia org/wiki/Darfur_Conflict,转引自杨力军:《安理会向国际刑事法院移交达尔富尔情势的法律问题》,载于《环球法律评论》2006年第4期,第458页。
3 http://www.hndaily.com.cn/new/php/20050405/51049.php.
4邵杰:《苏丹政府正式宣布拒绝安理会第1593号决议》,中国法院网2005年4月4日,http://www.chinacourt.org/html/article/200504/04/156838.shtml(2007年10月25日访问)。
1联合国电台2007年5月2日:《国际刑事法院向两名达尔富尔杀戮平民肇事者发出逮捕令》,http://www.un.org/radio/ch/story.asp?NewsID=3517(2007年10月23日访问)。
2新华网2007年5月3日:《苏丹拒绝国际刑事法院逮捕令》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2007/05/03/content-6054649.htm(2007年9月29日访问)。
3联合国电台2007年6月7日:《国际刑事法院呼吁苏丹立即逮捕被诉达尔富尔肇事者》,http://www.un.org/radio/ch/print_all.asp?NewsDate=6/7/2007(2007年10月25日访问)。
1摘自《达尔富尔问题国际调查委员会给秘书长的报告》摘要部分,S/2005/60。
2杨力军:《安理会向国际刑事法院移交达尔富尔情势的法律问题》,载于《环球法律评论》2006年第4期,第463页。
1 Warrant of Arrest for Ahmad Harun (27 April 2007), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-05-01-07-2_English.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).
2 Warrant of Arrest for Ahmad Harun (27 April 2007), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-05-01-07-2_English.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).
2 SC Res 827, UNSCOR, 48th Sess, Res & Dec, UN Doc S/INF/49 (1993) at 93. Quoted in Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 165.
4 SC Res 827, UNSCOR, 48th Sess, Res & Dec, UN Doc S/INF/49 (1993) at 93.
1 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 166.
2 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 166.
3 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 166.
5凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第235页。
6凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第235—237页。
1凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第237页。
2 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), pp. 181-183.
3凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第243页。
4凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第244页。
5凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第244页。
6 Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 138.
7 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 166.
1 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 263.
2《罗马规约》第43条第6款。
3《罗马规约》第79条。
2 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), pp. 251-252.
3 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 252.
1 Michael D. Mysak, Judging the Giant: An Examination of American Opposition to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 63 Saskatchewan Law Review (2000), p. 279.
1 Johan D. van der Vyver, International Human Rights: American Exceptionalism: Human Rights, International Criminal Justice, and National Self-Righteousness, 50 Emory Law Journal (Summer 2001), p. 798.
2 Diane F. Orentlicher, Unilateral Multilateralism: United States Policy toward the International Criminal Court, 36 Cornell International Law Journal (2004), p. 419.
3 Diane F. Orentlicher, Unilateral Multilateralism: United States Policy toward the International Criminal Court, 36 Cornell International Law Journal (2004), p. 419.
4 Diane F. Orentlicher, Unilateral Multilateralism: United States Policy toward the International Criminal Court, 36 Cornell International Law Journal (2004), p. 419.
2 Sarah B. Sewall and Carl Kaysen (eds.), The United States and the International Criminal Court (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000), p. 221.
4 Michael D. Mysak, Judging the Giant: An Examination of American Opposition to the Rome Statute of theInternational Criminal Court, 63 Saskatchewan Law Review (2000), p. 279.
1 Michael D. Mysak, Judging the Giant: An Examination of American Opposition to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 63 Saskatchewan Law Review (2000), p. 279.
2 Michael D. Mysak, Judging the Giant: An Examination of American Opposition to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 63 Saskatchewan Law Review (2000), p. 280.
3 Michael D. Mysak, Judging the Giant: An Examination of American Opposition to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 63 Saskatchewan Law Review (2000), p. 279.
4《罗马规约》第1条和第5条。
5《罗马规约》第17条第1款第1项和第2项。
1《罗马规约》第17条第1款第2项。
2 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 166.
3 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 166.
4 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 167.
6 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 167.
7 Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Remarks at the“Conflicts and War Crimes: Challenges for Coverage”Seminar for Editors Sponsored by The Crimes of War Project and The Freedom Forum (May 5, 2000). Quoted in Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 167.
8 Ibid. Quoted in Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 167.
1 Press Statement, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Spokesman, U.S. Initiative on the International Criminal Court (June 13, 2000). Quoted in Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 167.
2 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 167. 3 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 168.国际刑事法院预备委员会在2001年9月的第八次会议上通过了法院和联合国之间的关系协定草案。《罗马规约》缔约国大会于2002年9月3日至10日在美国纽约联合国总部举行,本次缔约国大会审议并通过了由预备委员会准备的国际刑事法院和联合国之间的关系协定。
4 Bruce Broomhall, International Justice and the International Criminal Court: between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 173.
5 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 169.
1 Statement by the President, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Signature of the International Criminal Court Treaty (Dec. 31, 2000), Robert T. Alter, International Criminal Law: A Bittersweet Year for Supporters and Critics of the International Criminal Court, 37 The International Lawyer (Summer 2003), p. 541.
2 Ibid. Robert T. Alter, International Criminal Law: A Bittersweet Year for Supporters and Critics of the International Criminal Court, 37 The International Lawyer (Summer 2003), p. 541.
3 See Ibid. Robert T. Alter, International Criminal Law: A Bittersweet Year for Supporters and Critics of the International Criminal Court, 37 The International Lawyer (Summer 2003), p. 541.
4 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 191.
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 191.
2 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), pp. 191-192.
3 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 169.
1朱文奇:《国际刑事法院启动机制及美国的应策》,载《河南社会科学》2003年第5期,第66页;喻贵英:《析美国反对常设国际刑事法院的理由和举措》,载《法律科学》2006年第4期,第127页。
2屈学武、周振杰:《<罗马规约>在亚洲的批准与实施探究》,http://www.iolaw.org.cn/showarticle.asp?id=2107(2007年9月28日访问)。
1 Memorandum from Amnesty International on the International Criminal Court, Quoted in Alisha D. Telci, The International Criminal Court: Is The United States Overlooking an Easier Way to Hold Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden Accountable for Their Actions? 38 New England Law Review (Winter 2004), p. 478.
2 Alisha D. Telci, The International Criminal Court: Is The United States Overlooking an Easier Way to Hold Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden Accountable for Their Actions? 38 New England Law Review (Winter 2004), p. 478.
3 Alisha D. Telci, The International Criminal Court: Is The United States Overlooking an Easier Way to Hold Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden Accountable for Their Actions? 38 New England Law Review (Winter 2004), p. 478.
1《罗马规约》序言第4、5段。
2朱文奇:《国际刑事法院启动机制及美国的应策》,载《河南社会科学》2003年第5期,第65页。
11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 203.
5 The ICC and Security Council: Res. 1422 Legal and Policy Analysis, Human Rights Watch (May, 2003). Quoted in Kerstin Pastujova, Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 202.
1 The ICC and Security Council: Res. 1422 Legal and Policy Analysis, Human Rights Watch (May 2003).Quoted in Kerstin Pastujova, Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 206.
2 Kerstin Pastujova, Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 205.
3 U.N. SCOR, 58th Sess., 4772nd mtg., U.N. Doc. S/PV. 4772 (2003).
4 Kerstin Pastujova, Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 207.
5安理会第1497(2003)号决议,S/RES/1497 (2003)。
3 Kerstin Pastujova, Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 196.
1 Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State Spokesman, Press Briefing (June 23, 2004). Quoted in Kerstin Pastujova, Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 196.
1李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编:《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》(上册),北京大学出版社2006年版,前言部分第2页。
2谭世贵:《中国与国际刑事法院关系初探》,载赵秉志主编:《国际刑事法院专论》,人民法院出版社2003年版,第65—68页。按照该文的分析,中国拒绝加入国际刑事法院的主要问题为:非国际性武装冲突中的战争罪与台湾问题;和平时期的危害人类罪与中国西藏问题及法轮功问题。
1外交部:《中国关于联合国改革问题的立场文件》,载高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《国际刑事法院:中国面临的抉择》,中国人民公安大学出版社2005年版,第187页。
2参见《中国代表曲文胜在联大第六委员会关于“设立国际刑事法院”专题的发言》(2000年10月18日),载中国国际法学会:《中国国际法年刊》(2000/2001),法律出版社2005年版,第561页。
1.梅汝璈著:《远东国际军事法庭》,法律出版社2005年版。
2.王秀梅著:《国际刑事法院研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版。
3.林欣、李琼英著:《国际刑法新论》,中国人民公安大学出版社2005年版。
4.赵秉志著:《比较刑法暨国际刑法专论》,法律出版社2004年版。
5.凌岩著:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版。
6.马呈元著:《国际犯罪与责任》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
7.高燕平著:《国际刑事法院》,世界知识出版社1999年版。
8.梁西著:《国际组织法》(总论),武汉大学出版社2002年版。
9.李浩培著:《条约法概论》,法律出版社1987年版。
10.余先予、何勤华、蔡东丽著:《东京审判》,中国方正出版社2005年版。
11.陈体强著:《国际法论文集》,法律出版社1985年版。
12.邵沙平著:《国际刑法学—经济全球化与国际犯罪的法律控制》,武汉大学出版社2005年版。
13.赵永琛著:《国际刑法与司法协助》,法律出版社1994年版。
14.刘超等著:《国际法专论》,知识产权出版社2004年版。
15.贾宇著:《国际刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
16.邵沙平著:《现代国际刑法教程》,武汉大学出版社1993年版。
17.王作堂著:《国际法学》,中国法制出版社2002年版。
18.黄肇炯著:《国际刑法概论》,四川大学出版社1992年版。
19.李广辉、李红等著:《当代国际法热点问题研究》,中国法制出版社2005年版。
20.马进保著:《国际犯罪与国际刑事司法协助》,法律出版社1999年版。
21. M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼著,王秀梅译:《国际刑法的渊源与内涵—理论体系》,法律出版社2003年版。
22. [英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》(第一卷第一分册),中国大百科全书出版社1995年版。
23. [英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》(第一卷第二分册),中国大百科全书出版社1998年版。
24. [美] M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼著,赵秉志、王文华等译:《国际刑法导论》,法律出版社2006年版。
1.邵沙平、余敏友主编:《国际法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
2.余民才主编:《国际法专论》,中信出版社2003年版。
3.曹建明、周洪钧、王虎华主编:《国际公法学》,法律出版社1998年版。
4.高铭暄、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,北京大学出版社2000年版。
5.丁伟、朱榄叶主编:《当代国际法学理论与实践研究文集—国际公法卷》,中国法制出版社2002年版。
6.王虎华主编:《国际公法学》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
7.赵秉志、卢建平主编:《国际刑法评论》(第1卷),中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版。
8.日本国际法学会编:《国际法辞典》,世界知识出版社1985年版。
9.赵永琛编:《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版。
10.李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编:《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》(上下册),北京大学出版社2006年版。
11.赵秉志主编:《国际刑事法院专论》,法律出版社2003年版。
12.王铁崖主编:《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版。
13.赵秉志主编:《国际区际刑法问题探索》,法律出版社2003年版。
14.张旭主编:《国际刑法—现状与展望》,清华大学出版社2005年版。
15.黄进主编:《武大国际法评论》(第四卷),武汉大学出版社2006年版。
16.黄进主编:《武大国际法评论》(第三卷),武汉大学出版社2005年版。
17.高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《国际刑事法院:中国面临的抉择》,中国人民公安大学出版社2005年版。
18.王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版。
19.赵秉志、陈弘毅主编:《国际刑法与国际犯罪专题探索》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版。
20.王虎华、丁成耀主编:《当代国际法论丛》(第5卷),北京大学出版社2005年版。
21.中国人民大学刑事法律科学研究中心组织编写:《现代刑事法治问题探索》(第三卷),法律出版社2004年版。
22.梁西主编:《国际法》,武汉大学出版社1993年版。
23.王铁崖主编:《国际法》,法律出版社1981年版。
24.北京大学法学院编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第4卷第2辑),北京大学出版社2006年版。
25.高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《当代国际刑法的理论与实践》,吉林人民出版社2001年版。
26.周忠海主编:《国际法》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
27.北京大学法学院编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第1辑),北京大学出版社2004年版。
28.朱晓青主编:《国际法》,社会科学文献出版社2005年版。
29.赵秉志主编:《新编国际刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社2004年版。
30.周忠海主编:《皮诺切特案析》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
31.王绳祖主编:《国际关系史资料选编》(上册第二分册),武汉大学出版社1983年版。
32.程味秋、[加]杨诚、杨宇冠主编:《公民权利和政治权利国际公约培训手册—公正审判的国际标准和中国规则》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
33.林欣主编:《国际刑法问题研究》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版。
34.中国国际法学会:《中国国际法年刊》(2000/2001),法律出版社2005年版。
1.卢有学:《塞拉利昂特别法庭及其对泰勒的审判》,载《山东警察学院学报》2007年第3期。
2.刘大群:《“一罪不二审”原则及其在国际刑法中的适用》,载《法律适用》2004年第10期。
3.梁西:《国际困境:联合国安理会的改革问题—从日、德、印、巴争当常任理事国说起》,载《法学评论》2005年第1期。
4.杨力军:《安理会向国际刑事法院移交达尔富尔情势的法律问题》,载《环球法学评论》2006年第4期。
5.朱文奇:《国际刑事法院启动机制及美国的应策》,载《河南社会科学》2003年第5期。
6.喻贵英:《析美国反对常设国际刑事法院的理由和举措》,载《法律科学》2006年第4期。
7.卢有学:《美国对国际刑事法院的政策转变》,载《山东公安专科学校学报》2004年第4期。
8.刘健:《论国际刑事法院管辖权与国家主权》,载《法律科学》2004年第5期。
9.王秀梅:《前南国际刑事法庭的创立及原则》,载《现代法学》2002年第3期。
10.杨力军:《评国际刑事法院的管辖权》,载《法学评论》2001年第4期。
11.关晶:《试析国际刑事法院管辖权与第三国的关系》,载《中国刑事法杂志》2004年第5期。
12.王怡:《论国际刑事法院与联合国安理会的关系》,载《海南大学学报》(人文社会科学版)2005年第2期。
13.朱文奇:《国际法追究个人刑事责任与管辖豁免问题》,载《法学》2006年第4期。
14.黄涧秋:《论国际刑事法院管辖权与国家主权的关系》,载《现代国际关系》2004年第7期。
15.贾海龙、贾海涛:《初探塞拉利昂特别法庭》,载《河北法学》2004年第12期。
16.马呈元:《非缔约国对国际刑事法院对本国国民管辖权的规避》,载《人民检察》2005. 9(上)。
17.孙应征、赵慧:《论国际刑事法院检察官的自行调查权》,载《中国检察官》2006年第5期。
18.许楚敬:《论国际刑事法院管辖权与联合国安理会职权的关系》,载《华南师范大学学报》(社会科学版)2004年第2期。
19.周振杰、屈学武:《“美国98条协定”的国际法效力评析—基于<罗马规约>和<条约法>的精神与要义分析》,载《中国刑事法杂志》2003年第6期。
20.宋志勇:《论东京审判的几个问题》,载《中共党史研究》2005年第5期。
21.李艳军:《前南斯拉夫国际刑事法庭的几个法律问题的探讨》,载《三峡大学学报》(人文社会科学版)2004年第4期。
22.许楚敬:《关于国际刑事法院管辖权的几个具体问题—兼评中国政府的立场》,载《比较法研究》2004年第6期。
23.高铭暄、王秀梅:《论建立国际刑事法院的法律意义》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》2004年第3期。
24.郑维维、何艳:《普遍管辖原则与国家主权》,载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2003年第5A期。
25.许楚敬:《设立前南斯拉夫问题国际法庭的法理依据》,载《政法论丛》2002年第4期。
26.彭锡华、王孔祥:《论国际刑事法院的管辖权》,载《武汉大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2006年第4期。
27.廖敏文:《国家与国际刑事法院的国际合作与司法协助义务述评》,载《现代法学》2003年第6期。
28.卢有学、李新安:《论国际刑事法院与其他国际机构的关系》,载《山东警察学院学报》2005年第5期。
29.李雪平:《<罗马规约>与国际刑事法院面临的法律问题》,载《法学评论》2002年第6期。
30.高铭暄、王秀梅:《当代国际刑法的发展与基本原则》,载《人民检察》2005年第10(上)期。
31.赵秉志、王秀梅:《论战争罪之内涵及其刑事责任主体》,载《河北法学》2001年第2期。
32.张旭:《国际犯罪刑事责任再探》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》2001年第2期。
33.张晓芝:《试论战争犯罪及其法律责任》,载《西北大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2005年第5期。
34.陈丹英:《国际刑事法院的管辖权》,载《榆林学院学报》2005年第1期。
35.高铭暄、王俊平:《中国关注的国际刑事法院问题》,载《人民检察》2007年第7期。
36.赵秉志、赵晨光:《略论国际刑事法院的量刑制度》,载《河北法学》2007年第5期。
37.马军卫、董蕾红:《国际刑事法院对我国的法律影响以及我国的应有立场》,载《中共济南市委党校学报》2005年第3期。
38.高铭暄、王秀梅:《国际刑法的历史发展与基本问题研究》,载《中国刑事法杂志》2001年第1期。
39.高铭暄、王秀梅:《国际刑法渊源合法性论要》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》2002年第5期。
1.刘大群:《论危害人类罪》,载黄进主编:《武大国际法评论》(第四卷),武汉大学出版社2006年版。
2.刘大群:《论侵略罪》,载黄进主编:《武大国际法评论》(第三卷),武汉大学出版社2005年版。
3.武玉挺:《“刚果诉比利时案”及普遍管辖权初论—国际法院判决与比利时国内实践分析》,载北京大学法学院编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第1辑),北京大学出版社2004年版。
4.刘大群:《论国际刑法中的普遍管辖权》,载北京大学法学院编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第4卷第2辑),北京大学出版社2006年版。
5.高健军:《对国际罪行的普遍管辖与豁免—2002年国际法院“逮捕令”案述评》,载北京大学法学院编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第2辑),北京大学出版社2005年版。
6.赵永琛:《从<国际刑事法院规约>看国际刑法的新发展》,载高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《当代国际刑法的理论与实践》,吉林人民出版社2001年版。
1.黄建中:《国际法庭管辖权研究》,中国政法大学2005年博士论文。
1.《塞拉利昂特别法庭要求在荷兰审判泰勒( 2006-03-30 ),http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hqkx/2006-03/30/content-556664.htm(2007年9月30日访问)。
2.《利比里亚前总统泰勒在联合国特别法庭受审》(2007-06-04),http://world. People.com.cn/GB/10129/5820359.html(2007年9月30日访问)。
3.《国际刑事法院逮捕了第一名嫌疑犯》(2006年3月17日),http://www.un.org/radio/ch/story.asp?NewsID=806(2007年10月31日访问)。
4.《“血雨腥风”笼罩乌干达》( 2003年6月27日),http://www.huaxia.com/200373/00035853,htm(2007年10月31日访问)。
5.《乌“圣灵抵抗军”要求国际刑事法庭撤消对其首领指控》(2007年9月9日),http://www.yndaily.com/htm/20070909/news_95_123487.html(2007年10月31日访问)。
6.《国际刑警组织发出首批红色通缉令》(2006年6月01日),http://www.un.org/radio/ch/print_all.asp?NewDate=6/1/2006 (2007年11月1日访问)。
7.《乌干达“非洲屠夫”将被特赦》(2006年7月6日),http://www.china.com.cn/chinese/junshi/1267289.htm(2007年10月31日访问)。
8.《绑架数万儿童自称能通灵非洲屠夫拒绝政府特赦》,http://ent.zjol.com.cn/05/world/system/2006/07/12/007735110.stm(l2007年10月31日访问)。
9.《国际刑事法院就圣灵抵抗军一被告之死发表声明》(2006年8月14日),http://www.un.org/chinese/News/fullstorynews.asp?newsID=1(2007年10月31日访问)。
10.《达尔富尔问题国际调查委员会给秘书长的报告》,S/2005/60,http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/9463078.html (2007年10月25日访问)。
11.周振杰、刘仁文:《论国际刑事法院的管辖权》,http://www.iccchina.org/infoview/Artical_113.html(2007年11月1日访问)。
12.屈学武、周振杰:《<罗马规约>在亚洲的批准与实施探究》,http://www.iolaw.org.cn/showartical.asp?id=2107(2007年9月28日访问)。
13.黄芳:《评中国对<国际刑事法院规约>投反对票的五点理由》,http://www.iolaw.org.cn/showartical.asp?id=1694(2007年10月24日访问)。
14.朱文奇:《国际刑事法庭与国际法在法庭中的具体运用》,http://www.iccchina.org/infoview/Artical_115.html(2007年11月1日访问)。
15.《2005年国际刑事法院状况》(2006/02/27),http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cebe/chn/dtxw/t237166.htm(2007年9月28日访问)。
16.《国际刑事法院首次开庭审理》(2006年3月21日),http://gb.cri.cn/1321/2006/03/21/542@956362_1.htm (2007年11月1日访问)。
17.《乌干达叛军袭击难民营》,http://www.xawb.com/gb/wbpaper/2004-02/24/content_144124.htm(2007年10月31日访问)。
18.《国际刑事法庭发言人称对科尼等人逮捕令仍有效》(2006年7月6日),http://news.sohu.com/20060706/n244117303.shtml (2007年10月31日访问)。
19.《苏丹政府正式宣布拒绝安理会第1593号决议》(2005-04-04), http://www.chinacourt.org/html/artical/200504/04/156838.shtm(l2007年10月25日访问)。
20.《国际刑事法院检察官启动对达尔富尔地区的调查》(2005年6月6日),http://www.iccchina.org/infoview/Artical_248.html (2007年11月1日访问)。
21.《国际刑事法院向两名达尔富尔杀戮平民肇事者发出逮捕令》(2007年5月2日),http://www.un.org/radio/ch/story.asp?NewsID=3517(2007年10月25日访问)。
22.《苏丹拒绝国际刑事法院逮捕令》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2007/05/03/content-6054649.htm(2007年9月30日访问)。
23.《国际刑事法院呼吁苏丹立即逮捕被诉达尔富尔肇事者》(2007年6月7日),http://www.un.org/radio/ch/print_all.asp?NewsDate=6/7/2007(2007年10月25日访问)。1
24.《书记官处确认科特迪瓦已接受国际刑事法院管辖》,http://www.iccchina.org/cn/infoview/Artical_214.html(2007年11月1日访问)。
25.联合国安理会第1422(2002)号决议,S/RES/1422 (2002),http://www.un.org/chinese/aboutun/prinorgs/sc/sres/02/s1422.htm(2007年10月25日访问)。
26.联合国安理会第1487(2003)号决议,S/RES/1487 (2003),http://www.un.org/chinese/aboutun/prinorgs/sc/sres/03/s1487.htm(2007年10月25日访问)。
27.联合国安理会第1497(2003)号决议,S/RES/1497 (2003), http://www.un.org/chinese/aboutun/prinorgs/sc/sres/03/s1497.htm(2007年10月24日访问)。
28.联合国安理会第1593(2005)号决议,S/RES/1593 (2005),http://www.un.org/chinese/aboutun/prinorgs/sc/sres/05/s1593.htm(2007年10月24日访问)。
29.《国际刑事法院特权和豁免协定》,http://baike.baidu.com/view/642859.htm(2007年9月29日访问)。
1. David Chuter, War Crimes: Confronting Atrocity in the Modern World (Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2003).
2. Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003).
3. Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Immunity: Progress and New Challenge (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005).
4. Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003).
5. William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
6. Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004).
7. Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
8. Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
9. Bruce Broomhall, International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
10. Mark W. Janis and John E. Noyes, Cases and Commentary on International Law (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1997).
11. Karine Lescure and Florence Trintignac, International Justice for Former Yugoslavia: The Working of the International Criminal Tribunal of The Hague (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996).
12. Sienho Yee, Towards International Law of Co-progressiveness (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004).
13. Claire de Than and Edwin Shorts, International Criminal Law and Human Rights (London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited, 2003).
1. Philippe Sands (ed.), From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
2. Ramesh Thakur and Peter Malcontent (ed.), From Sovereign Immunity to International Accountability: The Search for Justice in a World of States (Tokyo/ New York/Paris: United Nations University Press, 2004).
3. Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statute-Issues, Negotiations, Results (the Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999).
4. Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (ed.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004).
5. Nikos Passas (ed.), International Crimes (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2003).
6. Sarah B. Sewall and Carl Kaysen (ed.), The United States and the International Criminal Court (New York/Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000).
1. Chery K. Moralez, Establishing an International Criminal Court: Will It Work? 4 DePaul International Law Journal (Winter 2000).
2. Kofi Annan, Opening Remarks: Advocating for an International Criminal Court, 21 Fordham International Law Journal (December 1997).
3. Mathew D. Peter, Note: The Proposed International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Legal and Political Debates Regarding Jurisdiction That Threaten The Establishment of an Effective Court, 24 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce (Fall 1997).
4. Laurence Juma, The Human Rights Approach to Peace in Sierra Leone: The Analysis of the Peace Process and Human Rights Enforcement in a Civil Situation, 30 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (Summer 2002).
5. Philippe Kirsch, Q.C., Valerie Oosterveld, Section-1: McGill Law Journal Alumni Lecture Series/ Conferences Des Anciens De La Revue De Droit De McGill: Negotiating an Institution for the Twenty-First Century: Multilateral Diplomacy and the International Criminal Court, 46 McGill Law Journal (August 2001).
6. Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (Summer 2002).
7. Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999).
8. Peggy E. Rancilio, Note: From Nuremberg to Rome: Establishing an International Criminal Court and the Need for U.S. Participation, 78 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review (Winter 2001).
9. Daniel A. Blumenthal, Recent Development: The Politics of Justice: Why Israel Signed the International Criminal Court Statute and What the Signature Means, 30 the Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law (Spring 2002).
10. Allison Marston Danner, Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court, 97 American Journal of International Law (July 2003).
11. Michael D. Mysak, Judging the Giant: An Examination of American Opposition to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 63 Saskatchewan Law Review (2000).
12. Johan D. van der Vyver, International Human Rights: American Exceptionalism: Human Rights, International Criminal Justice, and National Self-Righteousness, 50 Emory Law Journal (Summer 2001).
13. Diane F. Orentlicher, Unilateral Multilateralism: United States Policy toward the International Criminal Court, 36 Cornell International Law Journal (2004).
14. Roseann M. Latore, Note: Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002).
15. Robert T. Alter, International Law: A Bittersweet Year for Supporters and Critics of the International Criminal Court, 37 The International Lawyer (Summer 2003).
16. Alisha D. Telci, The International Criminal Court: Is the United States Overlooking an Easier Way to Hold Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden Accountable for Their Actions? 38 New England Law Review (Winter 2004).
17. Kerstin Pastujova, Note & Comment: Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004).
18. Lieutenant Colonel Michael A. Newton, Comparative Complementarity: Domestic Jurisdiction Consistent with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 167 (20) Military Law Review (March 2001).
19. Dr. Goran Sluiter, The Surrender of War Criminals to the InternationalCriminal Court, 25 Loyola of Los Angeles International &Comparative Law Review (Summer 2003).
20. Ademola Abass, The Competence of the Security Council to Terminate the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, 40 Texas International Law Journal (Winter 2005).
21. John Seguin, Denouncing the International Criminal Court: An Examination of U.S. Objections to the Rome Statute, 18 Boston University International Law Journal (Spring 2000).
22. Todd M. Sailer, Notes & Comments: The International Criminal Court: An Argument to Extend Its Jurisdiction to Terrorism and a Dismissal of U.S. Objections, 13 Temple International and Comparative Law Journal (Fall 1999).
23. Grant M. Dawson, Defining Substantive Crimes within the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court: What Is the Crime of Aggression? 19 New York Law Journal of International & Comparative Law (2000).
24. Theodor Meron, Defining Aggression for the International Criminal Court,
25 Suffolk Transnational Law Review (Winter 2001).
25. Young Sok Kim, The Cooperation of a State to Establish an Effective Permanent International Criminal Court, 6 Detroit College of Law Journal of International Law and Practice (Spring 1997).
26. Mark A. Summers, A Fresh Look at the Jurisdictional Provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court: The Case for Scrapping the Treaty, 20 Wisconsin International Law Journal (Winter 2001).
27. Payam, Akhavan, Developments at the International Criminal Court: the Lord’s Resistance Army Case: Uganda’s Submission of the First State Referral to the International Criminal Court, 99 American Journal of International Law (April 2005).
28. Patricia A. Mckeon, Note: An International Criminal Court: Balancing the Principle of Sovereignty against the Demands for International Justice, 12 St. John’s Journal of Legal Commentary (Spring 1997).
29. Jerry Fowler, Not Fade Away: The International Criminal Court and the State of Sovereignty, 2 San Diego International Law Journal (2001).
30. Hans-Peter Kaul, Developments at the International Criminal Court: Construction Site for More Justice: the International Criminal Court after Two Years, 99 American Journal of International Law (April 2005).
31. Tonya J. Boller, The International Criminal Court: Better than Nuremberg? 14 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review (2003).
32. Theodor Meron, Editorial Comment: War Crimes Law Comes of Age, 92 American Journal of International Law (July 1998).
33. David Stoelting, Status Report on the International Criminal Court, 3 Hofstra Law & Policy Symposium (1999).
34. Paul D. Marquardt, Law Without Borders: The Constitutionality of an International Criminal Court, 33 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (1995).
35. Hans Corell, Nuremberg and the Development of an International Criminal Court, 149 Military Law Review (Summers 1995).
36. Mahnoush H. Arsanjani, Developments in International Criminal Law: the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 93 American Journal of International Law (January 1999).
37. M. Cherif Bassiouni, Establishing an International Criminal Court: Historical Survey, 149 Military Law Review (Summer 1995).
38. Matthew A. Barrett, Note: Ratify or Reject: Examining the United States’Opposition to the International Criminal Court, 28 The Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law (Fall 1999).
39. Sandra L. Jamison, Leonard v. B. Sutton Award Paper: A Permanent International Criminal Court: A Proposal that Overcomes Past Objections, 23 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (Spring 1995).
40. David J. Schaffer, Developments in International Criminal Law: The United States and the International Criminal Court, 93 American Journal of International Law (January 1999).
41. Kenneth S. Gallant, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate and Jurisdiction to Prescribe in International Criminal Courts, 48 Villanova Law Review (2003).
42. Anna N. Astvatsaturova and Tracy M. Proietti and George S. Yacoubian, Jr.,The Case for Prosecuting Iraqi Nationals in the International Criminal Court, 10 International Legal Theory (Fall 2004).
43. Christopher Keith Hall, Current Development: The First Two Sessions of the UN Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 91 American Journal of International Law (January 1997).
44. Dapo Akande, International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court, 98 American Journal of International Law (July 2004).
45. Thoedor Meron, Editorial Comment: Judicial Independence and Impartiality in International Criminal Tribunals, 99 American Journal of International Law (April 2005).
46. Anne K. Heindel, International Human Rights & U.S. Foreign Policy: The Counterproductive Bush Administration Policy toward the International Criminal Court, 2 Seattle Journal for Social Justice (Spring/Summer 2004).
47. Sheryl Grant, Note: The International Criminal Court: The Nations of the World Must Not Give in to All of the United States Demands if the Court Is to Be Strong, Independent, International Organ, 25 Suffolk Transnational Law Review (Winter 1999).
48. Leila Sadat Wexler, The Proposed Permanent International Criminal Court: An Appraisal, 29 Cornell International Law Journal (1996).
49. Jacob Katz Cogan, International Criminal Courts and Fair Trials: Difficulties and Prospects, 27 The Yale Journal of International Law (Winter 2002).
50. Leila Nadya Sadat, Summer in Rome, Spring in The Hague, Winter in Washington? U.S. Policy towards the International Criminal Court, 21 Winconsin International Law Journal (Fall 2003).
51. Steven W. Krohne, The United States and the World Need an International Criminal Court as an Ally in the War against Terrorism, 8 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review (1997).
52. Nsongurua J. Udombana, Pay Back Time in Sudan? Darfur in the International Criminal Court, 13 Tulsa Journal of Comparative & International Law (Fall 2005).
53. Par Nicolaos Strapatsas, Commentaire: The European Union and its Contribution to the Development of the International Criminal Court, 33 Revue de Droit Universite de Sherbrooke (2002/2003).
54. Thomas Hethe Clark, Note: The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Amnesties, and the“Interests of Justice”: Striking a Delicate Balance, 4 Washington University Global Studies Law Review (2005).
55. Ruti Teitel, The International Criminal Court: Contemporary Perspectives and Prospects for Ratification, 16 New York Law School Journal of Human Rights (Spring 2000).
56. A. Diane Holcombe, Comment: The United States Becomes a Signatory to the Rome Treaty Establishing the International Criminal Court: Why Are So Many Concerned by This Action? 62 Montana Law Review (Summer 2001).
57. Sharon A. Williams, The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court: From 1947-2000 and Beyond, 38 Osgoode Hall Law Journal (Summer 2000).
58. Lori Sinanyan, Note: The International Criminal Court: Why the United States Should Sign the Statute (but Perhaps Wait to Ratify), 73 Southern California Law Review (July 2000).
59. Roy S. Lee, How the World Will Relate to the Court: an Assessment of the ICC Statute, 25 Fordham International Law Journal (March 2002).
60. Remigius Chibueze, United States Objection to the International Criminal Court: a Paradox of“Operation Enduring Freedom”, 9 Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law (Spring 2003).
61. John Washburn, Assessments of the United States Position: the International Criminal Court Arrives-the U.S. Position: Status and Prospects, 25 Fordham International Law Journal (March 2002).
62. Farah Hussain, Note: A Functional Response to International Crime: an International Justice Commission, 70 St. John’s Law Review (Fall 1996).
63. Jelena Pejic, The United States and the International Criminal Court: One Loophole Too Many, 78 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review (Winter 2001).
64. William N. Gianaris, The New Order and the Need for an InternationalCriminal Court, 16 Fordham International Law Journal (1992/1993).
65. James Crawford, Current Development: the ILC Adopts a Statute for an International Criminal Court, 89 American Journal of International Law (April 1995).
66. Chandra Lekha Sriram, Revolutions in Accountability: New Approaches to Past Abuses, 19 American University International Law Review (2003).
67. Christopher Keith Hall, Current Development: The First Five Sessions of the UN Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, 94 American Journal of International Law (October 2000).
68. Fiona Mckay, U.S. Unilateralism and International Crimes: The International Criminal Court and Terrorism, 36 Cornell International law Journal (2004).
69. David A. Nill, Book Review: National Sovereignty: Must it be Sacrificed to the International Criminal Court? 14 BYU Journal of Public Law (1999).
70. Douglas E. Edlin, The Anxiety of Sovereignty: Britain, the United States and the International Criminal Court, 29 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2006).
71. Carsten Stahn, Mohamed M. El Zeidy, and Hector Olasolo, Developments at the International Criminal Court: the International Criminal Court’s Ad Hoc Jurisdiction Revisited, 99 American Journal of International Law (April 2005).
72. Carsten Stahn, Current Development: Accommodating Individual Criminal Responsibility and National Reconciliation: The UN Truth Commission for East Timor, 95 American Journal of International Law (October 2001).
1. The Office of the Prosecutor, Update on Communications Received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, available at http://www.icc-cpi-int/library/organs/otp/OTP_Update_on_Communications_10_February_2006.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
2. Background information on the situation in Uganda (14 October 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-20051410-056-1_English.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
3. Statement by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/0tp/speeches/LMO_200510.14_English. pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
4. Pre-Trial ChamberⅡ, Warrant of Arrest for Joseph Kony Issued on 8 July 2005 as Amended on 27 September 2005 (27 September 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi,int/library/cases/ICC-02-04-01-05-53_English.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
5. Pre-TrialⅠ, Decision on the Prosecution Application under Article 58(7) of the Statute (27 April 2007), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-05-01-07-1-C0rr_English.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).
6. Warrant of Arrest for Ahmad Harun, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-05-01-07-2_English.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).
7. Communications received between July2002 and 8 July 2003, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/press/mediaaleit/160703Press_conf_presentation.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).
8. Facts and Procedure Regarding the Situation in Uganda, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-20051410-056-1_English.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
9. The Prosecutor of the ICC opens investigation in Darfur, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/pressrelease_details&id=107&1=en.html (visited on 4 November 2007).
10. Pre-Trial ChamberⅡ, Decision to Terminate the Proceedings against Raska Lukwiya (11 July 2007), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC_02_04_01_05_248_English.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).
2 Cheryl K. Moralez, Establishing an International Criminal Court: Will it Work? 4 DePaul International Law Journal (Winter 2000), p. 141.
3 Kofi Annan, Opening Remarks: Advocating for an International Criminal Court, 21 Fordham International Law Journal (December 1997), pp. 364-365.
1 Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 326.
2日本国际法学会编:《国际法辞典》,世界知识出版社1985年版,第423页。
3 Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 326.
4日本国际法学会编:《国际法辞典》,世界知识出版社1985年版,第423页。
5 Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 326.
6 M. Cherif Bassiouni, From Versailles to Rwanda in Seventy-five Years: The Need to Establish a Permanent International Criminal court, Harvard Human Rights Journal, Volume Ten, Spring 1997.转引自赵秉志主编:《国际区际刑法问题探索》,法律出版社2003年版,第410页。
2 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 32-33.
3 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 15-16.
1 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 18.
2 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 19.
3 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 20.
4 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 20-21.
5 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 23.
2 IMT judgment, Quoted in Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 328.
3 IMT judgment, Quoted in Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 328.
5王秀梅:《国际刑事法院研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版,第23页。
2王秀梅:《国际刑事法院研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版,第22页。
3 Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 331.
2 IMT judgment, Quoted in Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 332.
3 [德]P. A.施泰尼格尔编,王昭仁等译:《纽伦堡审判》(上卷),商务印书馆1985年版,第226页。转引自赵秉志:《比较刑法暨国际刑法专论》,法律出版社2004年版,第397页。
1 Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003), p. 333.
2《纽伦堡宪章》第2条和第14条。
4 Matthew D. Peter, The Proposed International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Legal and Political Debates Regarding Jurisdiction That Threaten the Establishment of an Effective Court, 24 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce (1997), p. 183.
5 Philippe Sands, From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (London: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 22.该隐系亚当与夏娃之长子,杀其弟亚伯,见基督教《圣经·创世纪》。
6林维:《前南国际刑事法庭成立研究》,载赵秉志等主编:《国际刑法评论》(第1卷),中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第326—328页。
9赵永琛编:《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第83—84页。
5赵秉志主编:《国际区际刑法问题探索》,法律出版社2003年版,第415页。
1 Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 249.
2梅汝璈:《远东国际军事法庭》,法律出版社2005年版,第95—96页。
1 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 20.
2梅汝璈:《远东国际军事法庭》,法律出版社2005年版,导读部分第7页。
1凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第23页。
2凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第24页。
3凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第25—26页。
4《前南刑庭规约》第11条。
5《前南刑庭规约》第12条。
6《前南刑庭规约》第13条。
7《前南刑庭规约》第14条。
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijihoff Publishers, 2005), p. 74.
2《前南刑庭规约》第16条。
3 Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 53.
4林维:《前南国际刑事法庭成立研究》,载赵秉志、卢建平主编:《国际刑法评论》(第1卷),中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第335页。
1 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (IT-94-1), Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction (Trial Chamber) (1995), Quoted in Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004), p. 16.
2 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (IT-94-1), Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction (Trial Chamber) (1995), Quoted in Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004), p. 16.
3 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (IT-94-1), Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction (Trial Chamber) (1995), Quoted in Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004), p. 16.
4 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (IT-94-1), Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction (Trial Chamber) (1995), paras. 26 and 27, Quoted in Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004), p. 17.
5 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (IT-94-1), Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction (Trial Chamber) (1995), para. 28, Quoted in Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004), p. 17.
6 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (IT-94-1), Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction (Trial Chamber) (1995),para. 22, Quoted in Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004), p. 17.
1凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第35页。
2林维:《前南国际刑事法庭成立研究》,载赵秉志、卢建平主编:《国际刑法评论》(第1卷),中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第342页。
3凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第36页。
1《前南刑庭规约》第1条。
2《前南刑庭规约》第2—5条。
3《前南刑庭规约》第9—10条。
4《前南刑庭规约》第9条第2款。
5 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 197.
1 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 162.
2《国际法庭诉讼程序和证据规则》第8条。
1 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 162.
2凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第192页。
3凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第67—68页。
4 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: MartinusNijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 88.
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 88.
2 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 89.
1 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), pp. 201-202.
2凌岩:《卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭的成就和经验》,载《国际法与比较法论坛》,中国法制出版社2006年版,第140页。
3 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 202.
4 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 202.
5凌岩:《卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭的成就和经验》,载《国际法与比较法论坛》,中国法制出版社2006年版,第140—141页。
1 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 203.
2 US Committee for Refugees,‘Life after Death’, Quoted in Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), pp. 93-94.
3 U.N. Doc. S/RES/935 (1994).
1 U.N. Doc. S/1994/1125 (1994).
2 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers Inc. 2003), p. 205.
3 U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (1994).
4《卢旺达刑庭规约》第10条。
5《卢旺达刑庭规约》第11条。
6《卢旺达刑庭规约》第12条和第15条。
7《卢旺达刑庭规约》第8条。该条和《前南刑庭规约》第9条的规定极为相似。
1《卢旺达刑庭规约》第1、7、8条。
2《卢旺达刑庭规约》第7条。
1 Ramesh Thakur and Peter Malcontent (eds.), From Sovereign Impunity to International Accountability: The Search for Justice in a World of States (Tokyo/New York/Paris: United Nations University Press, 2004), pp. 208-210; Philippe Sands (ed.), From Nuremberg to The Hague: the Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 168-173.
1 [美] M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼著,赵秉志等译:《国际刑法导论》,法律出版社2006年版,第476页; Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 139.
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 114.
2 Laurence Juma, The Human Rights Approach to Peace in Sierra Leone: the analysis of the Peace Process and Human Rights Enforcement in a Civil War Situation, 30 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (Summer 2002), p. 363.
3 U.N. Doc. S/RES/1315 (2000).
4《特别法院规约》第11—13条。
1《特别法院规约》第8条。
2《特别法院规约》第1条。
3《特别法院规约》第1条。
4《特别法院规约》第1条。
5卢有学:《塞拉利昂特别法庭及其对泰勒的审判》,载于《山东警察学院学报》2007年第3期,第55页。
1中国日报网2006年3月30日:《塞拉利昂特别法庭要求在荷兰审判泰勒,http://www.chniadaily.com.cn/hqkx/2006-03/30/content-556664.htm(2007年9月30日访问)。
3人民网2007年6月4日:《利比里亚前总统泰勒在联合国特别法庭受审》,http://world.people.com.cn/GB/10129/5820359.html(2007年9月30日访问)。
4《国际法庭开审泰勒拒绝出庭》,http://society.news.mop.com/sj/p/2007/0606/0230308077.shtml(2007年9月30日访问)
5 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 136.
6 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 136.
1陈强:《国际刑事司法机构实践》,载朱利江主编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第2卷第2辑),北京大学出版社2003年版,第247页。
2 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), pp. 131-132.
1 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 2; Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 151.
1 Philippe Kirsch and Q.C. Valerie Oosterveld, Negotiating an Institution for the Twenty-First Century: Multilateral Diplomacy and the International Criminal Court, 46 McGill Law Journal (August 2001), p. 1144.
2 Philippe Kirsch and Q.C. Valerie Oosterveld, Negotiating an Institution for the Twenty-First Century: Multilateral Diplomacy and the International Criminal Court, 46 McGill Law Journal (August 2001), p. 1144.
3 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 9.
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 152.
2 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 15-16.
1《罗马规约》第34条。
1《罗马规约》第38条。
2《罗马规约》第38条。
3《罗马规约》第36条。
4《罗马规约》第39条。
5《罗马规约》第41条。
6《罗马规约》第44条。
7《罗马规约》第48条。
8《罗马规约》第61条。
9《罗马规约》第38条。
1《罗马规约》第39条。
2《罗马规约》第42条。
3《罗马规约》第43条。
1《罗马规约》第44条。
2《罗马规约》第45条。
1 [意]贝卡利亚:《论犯罪与刑罚》,中国大百科全书出版社1993年版,第11页。
1 Per Saland, International Criminal Law Principles, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp. 194-195.
1 Per Saland, International Criminal Law Principles, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 194, p. 196.
2 Per Saland, International Criminal Law Principles, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 197.
3 M.C. Bassiouni, A Theoretical Framework, in M. Cherif Bassiouni ed., International Criminal Law, 2nd ed. Vol. 1, Transnational Publishers, 1999, p. 21.转引自余民才主编:《国际法专论》,中信出版社2003年版,第314页。
1《前南刑庭规约》第7条和第23条;《卢旺达刑庭规约》第6条和第22条。
1谢里夫·巴西奥尼著,王秀梅译:《国际刑法的渊源与内涵—理论体系》,法律出版社2003年版,第28—29页。
2高铭暄、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,北京大学出版社2000年版,第173页。
1高铭暄、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,北京大学出版社2000年版,第175页。
1 Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, 7th ed., Hersh Lauterpacht ed., Longmans, 1963, pp. 572-573.转引自余民才主编:《国际法专论》,中信出版社2003年版,第322—323页。
1 Per Saland, International Criminal Law Principles, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp. 200-201.
1 Arrest Warrant Case, p. 20, para. 54. Quoted inYitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 113.
1 Kai Ambos, General Principles of Criminal Law in the Rome Statute, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 171.
2 Kai Ambos, General Principles of Criminal Law in the Rome Statute, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 172.
2 Kai Ambos, General Principles of Criminal Law in the Rome Statute, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 175.
1 International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, vol. 22, 1947, p. 466.转引自余民才主编:《国际法专论》,中信出版社2003年版,第321页。
1 Kai Ambos, General Principles of Criminal Law in the Rome Statute, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), pp. 176-177.
1《前南刑庭规约》第10条和《卢旺达刑庭规约》第9条。
2刘大群:《“一罪不二审”原则及其在国际刑法中的适用》,载《法律适用》2004年第10期,第47页。
3刘大群:《“一罪不二审”原则及其在国际刑法中的适用》,载《法律适用》2004年第10期,第47页。
1 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), pp. 935-936.
1刘大群:《“一罪不二审”原则及其在国际刑法中的适用》,载《法律适用》2004年第10期,第44页。
2 [意]贝卡利亚:《论犯罪与刑罚》,中国大百科全书出版社1993年版,第31页。
1 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 67.
2 David Charter, War Crimes: Confronting Atrocity in the Modern World (Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003), p. 81.
3 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 29.
4 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 67.
5联合国大会决议第96号(1946)。转引自罗海珊:《灭绝种族罪的学理分析》,载赵秉志、卢建平主编:《国际刑法评论》(第1卷),中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第95页。
6 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 30.
1《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》序言。
2《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》于1951年生效,迄今为止有130多个签署国。
3《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》第1条。
4 I.C.J. Reports (1951), at 15, Quoted in Herman von Hebel and Darryl Robinson, Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 89.
1 Herman von Hebel and Darryl Robinson, Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 89.
2 Herman von Hebel and Darryl Robinson, Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 89.
1 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 85.
2 [美] M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼著,赵秉志、王文华等译:《国际刑法导论》,法律出版社2006年版,第336—337页;Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 248.
3在伦敦会议上,尽管代表们对规定违反人道罪几乎没有争议,但对其定义颇有分歧。一些代表担忧违反人道罪适用于和平时期,杰克逊提出,违反人道罪应与法院管辖的其他犯罪(战争罪或破坏和平罪)存在关联,从而消除了这种担忧。这样做的原因倒不是担忧会遭到以“法无明文规定不为罪”为理由的指控,只是担忧会遭到“你也一样(tu quoque)”的指控。Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 248.
1 36 ILR 31. Quoted in Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 87.
1赵永琛编:《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第79—80页;刘大群:《论危害人类罪》,载于武汉大学国际法研究所:《武大国际法评论》(第四卷),武汉大学出版社2006年版,第5页。
1 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4–T,1998年9月2日判决书第850段。转引自李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编:《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》(上册),北京大学出版社2006年版,第78页。
2 Tadic Judgment, paras. 626, 641-3; Akayesu, paras. 574 -6, 582; Tadic Appeals Judgment, paras. 636-43; Rutaganda, para. 70; Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisic, Case No. IT-95-10, ICTY T. Ch.Ⅰ, 14 Dec. 1999, para. 54; Musema, para. 207; Blaskic, paras. 208-10, 214. Quoted in Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 95.
3 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 97.
1 Herman von Hebel and Darryl Robinson, Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp. 92-93.
2 Philippe Kirsch and John T. Holmes, The Birth of the International Criminal Court: The 1998 Rome Conference, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 15.
3 Herman von Hebel and Darryl Robinson, Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 100; William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 38.
1 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 115.
2赵秉志、王秀梅:《论国际刑事法院管辖的战争罪》,载赵秉志主编:《国际刑事法院专论》,人民法院出版社2003年版,第234页。
1凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第133—138页。
2 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-AR 72, App. Ch. of the ICTY, Decision of 2 Oct. 1995 on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction. Quoted in Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 131.
1 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 133.
2 Herman von Hebel and Darryl Robinson, Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 105; Philippe Kirsch and John T. Holmes,The Birth of the International Criminal Court: The 1998 Rome Conference, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (ed.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 9.
3 Philippe Kirsch and John T. Holmes, The Birth of the International Criminal Court: The 1998 Rome Conference, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (ed.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 24.
1 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 49.
2 William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 49-50.
3王铁崖主编:《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版,第450页。
4 Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999), p. 154.
2 Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999), p. 154.
1 Records of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, League of Nations Series D, Vol. 2, at 237 (1933). Quoted in Nikos Passas (ed.), International Crimes (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2003), p. 191.
2 Report of the Committee on Security Questions,ⅡConference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, League of Nations Conference Documents 679, Conf. D./C.G. 108 (1933). Quoted in Nikos Passas (ed.), International Crimes (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2003), p. 191.
3 Nikos Passas (ed.), International Crimes (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2003), p. 191.
1 Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999), p. 161.
2 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 215.
4 Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999), p.161.
5 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 217-218.
6 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 219.
1 Nikos Passas (ed.), International Crimes (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2003), p. 191.
2 Nikos Passas (ed.), International Crimes (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2003), p. 191.
1 The Press Releases are accessible from the website http:/www.un.org/icc/pressrel/lrom. The Press Releases are from No. L./ROM/6. R1 of 15 June 1998 onwards. Quoted in Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 208-209.
1 Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 225.
2 Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999), p. 174.
3 Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999), p. 175.
1马呈元:《国际犯罪与责任》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第264页。转引自赵秉志、王秀梅主编:《国际刑事法院专论》人民法院出版社2003年版,第218页。
2赵秉志、王秀梅主编:《国际刑事法院专论》人民法院出版社2003年版,第219页。
1《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》第4条、第1条、第6条。
2《日内瓦第一公约》第49条;《日内瓦第二公约》第50条;《日内瓦第三公约》第129条;《日内瓦第四公约》第146条。
3《日内瓦公约第一附加议定书》第85、86、88条。
1《罗马规约》序言第4、5、6段。
2参见武玉挺:《“刚果诉比利时案”及普遍管辖权初论—国际法院判决与比利时国内实践分析》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第1辑),第165—181页;刘大群:《论国际刑法中的普遍管辖权》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第4卷第2辑),第23—24页;朱文奇:《国际法追究个人刑事责任与管辖豁免问题》,载中国人民大学书报资料中心:《国际法学》2007年第1期,第6—8页;高健军:《对国际罪行的普遍管辖与豁免》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第2辑),第115—134页。
2 Arrest Warrant, para. 51-53.
1 Arrest Warrant, para. 54-55.
2刘大群:《论国际刑法中的普遍管辖权》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第4卷第2辑),第23页。
3 See Alexander Orakhelashvili,‘International Decision: Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000’in The American Journal Int’l Law, July, 2002, p. 681.转引自武玉挺:《“刚果诉比利时案”及普遍管辖权初论—国际法院判决与比利时国内实践分析》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第1辑),第176—177页。
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 53.
2刘大群:《论国际刑法中的普遍管辖权》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第4卷第2辑),第27页。
3武玉挺:《“刚果诉比利时案”及普遍管辖权初论—国际法院判决与比利时国内实践分析》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第1辑),第179页。
2刘大群:《论国际刑法中的普遍管辖权》,载《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第4卷第2辑),第28页。
3 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 54.
1 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), pp. 899-900.
2 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 900.
1 John T. Holmes, Complementarity: National Courts Versus the ICC, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 267.
2 John T. Holmes, Complementarity: National Courts Versus the ICC, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 267.
3 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), pp. 900-901.
1《罗马规约》第17条第2款。
2 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 902.
1 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 972.
2 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 944.
3 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 972.
4《罗马规约》序言第4段和第5段。
1《罗马规约》第53条第1款。
2《罗马规约》第15条第3款。
3《罗马规约》第15条第4款。
4《罗马规约》第15条第5款。
5《罗马规约》第15条第6款。
2李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编:《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》(上册),北京大学出版社2006年版,第224页。
3《罗马规约》第18条第1款。
4《罗马规约》第18条第4款和第82条。
5《罗马规约》第18条第1款。
6《罗马规约》第18条第3款。
1《罗马规约》第61条第11款和《程序与证据规则》第60条。
3《罗马规约》第19条第4款、第17条第1款第3项、第20条第3款。
1《罗马规约》第4条第2款和第12条第2款。
1《罗马规约》第12条第1款。
2 William A. Schabas, International Criminal Court: The Secret of Its Success, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 72.
3 Philippe Kirsch and John T. Holmes, The Birth of the International Criminal Court: The 1998 Rome Conference, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 27.
1 Philippe Kirsch and John T. Holmes, The Birth of the International Criminal Court: The 1998 Rome Conference, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Dartmouth/Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), p. 32.
1《罗马规约》第12条第2款。
2《罗马规约》第12条第2款。
3《罗马规约》第12条第3款。
4《罗马规约》第13条第2款。
1 Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statutes: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 128.
2 Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statutes: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 130.
1 Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Jurisdiction of the Court, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statutes: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 132.
1《罗马规约》第87条第7款。
2《罗马规约》第87条第5款第2项。
1 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articles 13(b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 144.
4赵秉志主编:《国际刑事法院专论》,人民法院出版社2003年版,第326页。
2 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articles 13 (b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 146.
3 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articles 13 (b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statutes: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp. 146-147.
1 Morten Bergsmo, Occasional Remarks on Certain States Concerns about the Jurisdictional Reach of the International Criminal Court, and Their Possible Implications for the Relationship between the Court and the Security Council, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 365.
2 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articals13 (b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statutes: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 147.
3 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articals13 (b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statutes: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 148.
1 Morten Bergsmo, Occasional Remarks on Certain State Concerns about the Jurisdictional Reach of the International Criminal Court, and Their Possible Implications for the Relationship between the Court and the Security Council, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), the International Criminal Court (Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 383.
2 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articles 13 (b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p .150.
3 Lionel Yee, The International Criminal Court and The Security Council: Articles 13 (b) and 16, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 151.
4 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 963.
1 Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (2002), p. 963.
1 Allison Marston Danner, Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court, 97 American Journal of International Law (2003), p. 512.
1 Peggy E. Rancilio, From Nuremberg to Rome: Establishing an International Criminal Court and the Need for U.S. Participation, 78 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review (2001), p. 281.
2 Allison Marston Danner, Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court, 97 American Journal of international Law (2003), p. 513.
3 Silvia A. Fernandez de Gurmendi, The Role of International Prosecutor, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: the Making of the Rome Statute: Issues Negotiations Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp. 176-177.
4 Silvia A. Fernandez de Gurmendi, The Role of International Prosecutor, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: the Making of the Rome Statute: Issues Negotiations Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 177.
5 Allison Marston Danner, Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court, 97 American Journal of International Law (2003), p. 514.
6 Silvia A. Fernandez de Gurmendi, The Role of International Prosecutor, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: the Making of the Rome Statute: Issues Negotiations Results (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 177.
7 Antonio Cassese, The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections, in OlympiaBekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/ Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 58.
1 Allison Marston Danner, Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court, 97 American Journal of International Law (2003), p. 514.
2 Antonio Cassese, The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/ Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 58.
3 Antonio Cassese, The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections, in Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004), p. 58.
1 Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (eds.), The International Criminal Court (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004) (Introduction), p. 18.
2 Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 17.
1《罗马规约》第53条第3款。
1 The Office of the Prosecutor, Update on Communications Received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/opt/OPT_Update_on_Communications_10_February_2006.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
2 The Office of the Prosecutor, Update on Communications Received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/opt/OPT_Update_on_Communications_10_February_2006.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
4 The Office of the Prosecutor, Update on Communications Received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/opt/OPT_Update_on_Communications_10_February_2006.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 174.
2华夏经纬网2003年6月27日:《“血雨腥风”笼罩乌干达》,http://www.huaxia.com/200373/00035853.htm/(2007年10月31日访问)。
3 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 174.
4 Background information on the situation in Uganda (14 October 2005), http://www.icc-cpi.int/libruary/cases/ICC-20051410-056-1_English.pdf (visited on 1November 2007).
5新华网2007年4月17日:《乌干达“圣灵抵抗军”要求国际刑事法庭撤销控告》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2007-04/17/content_5985540.htm(2007年10月24日访问)。
6 Background information on the situation in Uganda (14 October 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/libruary/cases/ICC-20051410-056-1_English.pdf (visited on 1 November 2007).
1 Office of the Prosecutor, Statement by the Chief Prosecutor on Uganda Arrest Warrants (The Hague, 14 October 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/libruary/organs/opt/speeches/LMO_200510.14_English.pdf (visited on 1 November 2007).
2 Office of the Prosecutor, Statement by the Chief Prosecutor on Uganda Arrest Warrants (The Hague, 14 October 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/libruary/organs/opt/speeches/LMO_200510.14_English.pdf (visited on 1 November 2007).
3联合国电台2006年6月1日:《国际刑警组织发出首批红色通缉令》,http://www.un.org/radio/ch/print_all.asp?NewDate=6/1/2006(2007年11月1日访问)。
4中国网2006年7月4日:《乌干达“非洲屠夫”将被特赦》,http://www.china.com.cn/chinese/junshi/1267289.htm(2007年10月31日访问)。
5浙江在线新闻网2006年7月12日:《绑架数万儿童自称能通灵非洲屠夫拒绝政府特赦》,http://ent.zjol.com.cn/05/world/system/2006/07/12/007735110.stml(2007年10月31日访问)。
1联合国网站新闻中心2006年8月14日:《国际刑事法院就圣灵抵抗军一被告之死发表声明》,http://www.un.org/chinese/News/fullstorynews.asp?newsID=1(2007年10月31日访问)。
2新华网2007年4月17日:《乌干达“圣灵抵抗军”要求国际刑事法庭撤销控告》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2007-04/17/content_5985540.htm(2007年10月24日访问)。
3 The Case of the Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo, Rask Lukwiya, Dominic Ongwen, No. ICC-02/04-01/05, Pre-Trial ChamberⅡ, Decision to Terminate the Proceedings Against Raska Lukwiya (11 July 2007), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-04-01-05-248_English.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).
4云南日报网2007年9月9日:《乌“圣灵抵抗军”要求国际刑事法庭撤消对其首领指控》,http://www.yndaily.com/htm/20070909/news_95_123487.html(2007年10月31日访问)。
1《罗马规约》第17条第2款。
2《罗马规约》第17条第3款。
1 Warrant of Arrest for Joseph Kony Issued on 8 July 2005 as Amended on 27 September 2005 (27 September 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-04-01-05-53_English.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
1 Warrant of Arrest for Joseph Kony Issued on 8 July 2005 as Amended on 27 September 2005 (27 September 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-04-01-05-53_English.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
2《达尔富尔问题国际调查委员会给秘书长的报告》,S/2005/60,第40段。
1摘自《达尔富尔问题国际调查委员会给秘书长的报告》,S/2005/60,第44段和第45段。
2摘自《达尔富尔问题国际调查委员会给秘书长的报告》,S/2005/60,第50段。
3摘自《达尔富尔问题国际调查委员会给秘书长的报告》,S/2005/60,第51段。
4刘仁文、周振杰:《达尔富尔案件的由来、进展及意义》(2007年10月3日),http://blog.china.cn/spl/liurenwen/07261786769.shtml(2007年9月28日访问)。
5刘仁文、周振杰:《达尔富尔案件的由来、进展及意义》,http://blog.china.cn/spl/liurenwen/07261786769.shtml(2007年9月28日访问)。
1 http://en wikipedia org/wiki/Darfur_Conflict,转引自杨力军:《安理会向国际刑事法院移交达尔富尔情势的法律问题》,载于《环球法律评论》2006年第4期,第458页。
3 http://www.hndaily.com.cn/new/php/20050405/51049.php.
4邵杰:《苏丹政府正式宣布拒绝安理会第1593号决议》,中国法院网2005年4月4日,http://www.chinacourt.org/html/article/200504/04/156838.shtml(2007年10月25日访问)。
1联合国电台2007年5月2日:《国际刑事法院向两名达尔富尔杀戮平民肇事者发出逮捕令》,http://www.un.org/radio/ch/story.asp?NewsID=3517(2007年10月23日访问)。
2新华网2007年5月3日:《苏丹拒绝国际刑事法院逮捕令》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2007/05/03/content-6054649.htm(2007年9月29日访问)。
3联合国电台2007年6月7日:《国际刑事法院呼吁苏丹立即逮捕被诉达尔富尔肇事者》,http://www.un.org/radio/ch/print_all.asp?NewsDate=6/7/2007(2007年10月25日访问)。
1摘自《达尔富尔问题国际调查委员会给秘书长的报告》摘要部分,S/2005/60。
2杨力军:《安理会向国际刑事法院移交达尔富尔情势的法律问题》,载于《环球法律评论》2006年第4期,第463页。
1 Warrant of Arrest for Ahmad Harun (27 April 2007), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-05-01-07-2_English.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).
2 Warrant of Arrest for Ahmad Harun (27 April 2007), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-05-01-07-2_English.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).
2 SC Res 827, UNSCOR, 48th Sess, Res & Dec, UN Doc S/INF/49 (1993) at 93. Quoted in Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 165.
4 SC Res 827, UNSCOR, 48th Sess, Res & Dec, UN Doc S/INF/49 (1993) at 93.
1 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 166.
2 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 166.
3 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 166.
5凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第235页。
6凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第235—237页。
1凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第237页。
2 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), pp. 181-183.
3凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第243页。
4凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第244页。
5凌岩:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版,第244页。
6 Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 138.
7 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 166.
1 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 263.
2《罗马规约》第43条第6款。
3《罗马规约》第79条。
2 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), pp. 251-252.
3 Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003), p. 252.
1 Michael D. Mysak, Judging the Giant: An Examination of American Opposition to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 63 Saskatchewan Law Review (2000), p. 279.
1 Johan D. van der Vyver, International Human Rights: American Exceptionalism: Human Rights, International Criminal Justice, and National Self-Righteousness, 50 Emory Law Journal (Summer 2001), p. 798.
2 Diane F. Orentlicher, Unilateral Multilateralism: United States Policy toward the International Criminal Court, 36 Cornell International Law Journal (2004), p. 419.
3 Diane F. Orentlicher, Unilateral Multilateralism: United States Policy toward the International Criminal Court, 36 Cornell International Law Journal (2004), p. 419.
4 Diane F. Orentlicher, Unilateral Multilateralism: United States Policy toward the International Criminal Court, 36 Cornell International Law Journal (2004), p. 419.
2 Sarah B. Sewall and Carl Kaysen (eds.), The United States and the International Criminal Court (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000), p. 221.
4 Michael D. Mysak, Judging the Giant: An Examination of American Opposition to the Rome Statute of theInternational Criminal Court, 63 Saskatchewan Law Review (2000), p. 279.
1 Michael D. Mysak, Judging the Giant: An Examination of American Opposition to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 63 Saskatchewan Law Review (2000), p. 279.
2 Michael D. Mysak, Judging the Giant: An Examination of American Opposition to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 63 Saskatchewan Law Review (2000), p. 280.
3 Michael D. Mysak, Judging the Giant: An Examination of American Opposition to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 63 Saskatchewan Law Review (2000), p. 279.
4《罗马规约》第1条和第5条。
5《罗马规约》第17条第1款第1项和第2项。
1《罗马规约》第17条第1款第2项。
2 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 166.
3 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 166.
4 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 167.
6 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 167.
7 Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Remarks at the“Conflicts and War Crimes: Challenges for Coverage”Seminar for Editors Sponsored by The Crimes of War Project and The Freedom Forum (May 5, 2000). Quoted in Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 167.
8 Ibid. Quoted in Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 167.
1 Press Statement, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Spokesman, U.S. Initiative on the International Criminal Court (June 13, 2000). Quoted in Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 167.
2 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 167. 3 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 168.国际刑事法院预备委员会在2001年9月的第八次会议上通过了法院和联合国之间的关系协定草案。《罗马规约》缔约国大会于2002年9月3日至10日在美国纽约联合国总部举行,本次缔约国大会审议并通过了由预备委员会准备的国际刑事法院和联合国之间的关系协定。
4 Bruce Broomhall, International Justice and the International Criminal Court: between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 173.
5 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 169.
1 Statement by the President, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Signature of the International Criminal Court Treaty (Dec. 31, 2000), Robert T. Alter, International Criminal Law: A Bittersweet Year for Supporters and Critics of the International Criminal Court, 37 The International Lawyer (Summer 2003), p. 541.
2 Ibid. Robert T. Alter, International Criminal Law: A Bittersweet Year for Supporters and Critics of the International Criminal Court, 37 The International Lawyer (Summer 2003), p. 541.
3 See Ibid. Robert T. Alter, International Criminal Law: A Bittersweet Year for Supporters and Critics of the International Criminal Court, 37 The International Lawyer (Summer 2003), p. 541.
4 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 191.
1 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), p. 191.
2 Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005), pp. 191-192.
3 Roseann M. Latore, Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002), p. 169.
1朱文奇:《国际刑事法院启动机制及美国的应策》,载《河南社会科学》2003年第5期,第66页;喻贵英:《析美国反对常设国际刑事法院的理由和举措》,载《法律科学》2006年第4期,第127页。
2屈学武、周振杰:《<罗马规约>在亚洲的批准与实施探究》,http://www.iolaw.org.cn/showarticle.asp?id=2107(2007年9月28日访问)。
1 Memorandum from Amnesty International on the International Criminal Court, Quoted in Alisha D. Telci, The International Criminal Court: Is The United States Overlooking an Easier Way to Hold Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden Accountable for Their Actions? 38 New England Law Review (Winter 2004), p. 478.
2 Alisha D. Telci, The International Criminal Court: Is The United States Overlooking an Easier Way to Hold Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden Accountable for Their Actions? 38 New England Law Review (Winter 2004), p. 478.
3 Alisha D. Telci, The International Criminal Court: Is The United States Overlooking an Easier Way to Hold Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden Accountable for Their Actions? 38 New England Law Review (Winter 2004), p. 478.
1《罗马规约》序言第4、5段。
2朱文奇:《国际刑事法院启动机制及美国的应策》,载《河南社会科学》2003年第5期,第65页。
11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 203.
5 The ICC and Security Council: Res. 1422 Legal and Policy Analysis, Human Rights Watch (May, 2003). Quoted in Kerstin Pastujova, Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 202.
1 The ICC and Security Council: Res. 1422 Legal and Policy Analysis, Human Rights Watch (May 2003).Quoted in Kerstin Pastujova, Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 206.
2 Kerstin Pastujova, Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 205.
3 U.N. SCOR, 58th Sess., 4772nd mtg., U.N. Doc. S/PV. 4772 (2003).
4 Kerstin Pastujova, Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 207.
5安理会第1497(2003)号决议,S/RES/1497 (2003)。
3 Kerstin Pastujova, Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 196.
1 Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State Spokesman, Press Briefing (June 23, 2004). Quoted in Kerstin Pastujova, Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004), p. 196.
1李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编:《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》(上册),北京大学出版社2006年版,前言部分第2页。
2谭世贵:《中国与国际刑事法院关系初探》,载赵秉志主编:《国际刑事法院专论》,人民法院出版社2003年版,第65—68页。按照该文的分析,中国拒绝加入国际刑事法院的主要问题为:非国际性武装冲突中的战争罪与台湾问题;和平时期的危害人类罪与中国西藏问题及法轮功问题。
1外交部:《中国关于联合国改革问题的立场文件》,载高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《国际刑事法院:中国面临的抉择》,中国人民公安大学出版社2005年版,第187页。
2参见《中国代表曲文胜在联大第六委员会关于“设立国际刑事法院”专题的发言》(2000年10月18日),载中国国际法学会:《中国国际法年刊》(2000/2001),法律出版社2005年版,第561页。
1.梅汝璈著:《远东国际军事法庭》,法律出版社2005年版。
2.王秀梅著:《国际刑事法院研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版。
3.林欣、李琼英著:《国际刑法新论》,中国人民公安大学出版社2005年版。
4.赵秉志著:《比较刑法暨国际刑法专论》,法律出版社2004年版。
5.凌岩著:《跨世纪的海牙审判—记联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,法律出版社2002年版。
6.马呈元著:《国际犯罪与责任》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
7.高燕平著:《国际刑事法院》,世界知识出版社1999年版。
8.梁西著:《国际组织法》(总论),武汉大学出版社2002年版。
9.李浩培著:《条约法概论》,法律出版社1987年版。
10.余先予、何勤华、蔡东丽著:《东京审判》,中国方正出版社2005年版。
11.陈体强著:《国际法论文集》,法律出版社1985年版。
12.邵沙平著:《国际刑法学—经济全球化与国际犯罪的法律控制》,武汉大学出版社2005年版。
13.赵永琛著:《国际刑法与司法协助》,法律出版社1994年版。
14.刘超等著:《国际法专论》,知识产权出版社2004年版。
15.贾宇著:《国际刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
16.邵沙平著:《现代国际刑法教程》,武汉大学出版社1993年版。
17.王作堂著:《国际法学》,中国法制出版社2002年版。
18.黄肇炯著:《国际刑法概论》,四川大学出版社1992年版。
19.李广辉、李红等著:《当代国际法热点问题研究》,中国法制出版社2005年版。
20.马进保著:《国际犯罪与国际刑事司法协助》,法律出版社1999年版。
21. M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼著,王秀梅译:《国际刑法的渊源与内涵—理论体系》,法律出版社2003年版。
22. [英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》(第一卷第一分册),中国大百科全书出版社1995年版。
23. [英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》(第一卷第二分册),中国大百科全书出版社1998年版。
24. [美] M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼著,赵秉志、王文华等译:《国际刑法导论》,法律出版社2006年版。
1.邵沙平、余敏友主编:《国际法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
2.余民才主编:《国际法专论》,中信出版社2003年版。
3.曹建明、周洪钧、王虎华主编:《国际公法学》,法律出版社1998年版。
4.高铭暄、马克昌主编:《刑法学》,北京大学出版社2000年版。
5.丁伟、朱榄叶主编:《当代国际法学理论与实践研究文集—国际公法卷》,中国法制出版社2002年版。
6.王虎华主编:《国际公法学》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
7.赵秉志、卢建平主编:《国际刑法评论》(第1卷),中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版。
8.日本国际法学会编:《国际法辞典》,世界知识出版社1985年版。
9.赵永琛编:《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版。
10.李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编:《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》(上下册),北京大学出版社2006年版。
11.赵秉志主编:《国际刑事法院专论》,法律出版社2003年版。
12.王铁崖主编:《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版。
13.赵秉志主编:《国际区际刑法问题探索》,法律出版社2003年版。
14.张旭主编:《国际刑法—现状与展望》,清华大学出版社2005年版。
15.黄进主编:《武大国际法评论》(第四卷),武汉大学出版社2006年版。
16.黄进主编:《武大国际法评论》(第三卷),武汉大学出版社2005年版。
17.高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《国际刑事法院:中国面临的抉择》,中国人民公安大学出版社2005年版。
18.王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版。
19.赵秉志、陈弘毅主编:《国际刑法与国际犯罪专题探索》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版。
20.王虎华、丁成耀主编:《当代国际法论丛》(第5卷),北京大学出版社2005年版。
21.中国人民大学刑事法律科学研究中心组织编写:《现代刑事法治问题探索》(第三卷),法律出版社2004年版。
22.梁西主编:《国际法》,武汉大学出版社1993年版。
23.王铁崖主编:《国际法》,法律出版社1981年版。
24.北京大学法学院编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第4卷第2辑),北京大学出版社2006年版。
25.高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《当代国际刑法的理论与实践》,吉林人民出版社2001年版。
26.周忠海主编:《国际法》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
27.北京大学法学院编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第1辑),北京大学出版社2004年版。
28.朱晓青主编:《国际法》,社会科学文献出版社2005年版。
29.赵秉志主编:《新编国际刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社2004年版。
30.周忠海主编:《皮诺切特案析》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
31.王绳祖主编:《国际关系史资料选编》(上册第二分册),武汉大学出版社1983年版。
32.程味秋、[加]杨诚、杨宇冠主编:《公民权利和政治权利国际公约培训手册—公正审判的国际标准和中国规则》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
33.林欣主编:《国际刑法问题研究》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版。
34.中国国际法学会:《中国国际法年刊》(2000/2001),法律出版社2005年版。
1.卢有学:《塞拉利昂特别法庭及其对泰勒的审判》,载《山东警察学院学报》2007年第3期。
2.刘大群:《“一罪不二审”原则及其在国际刑法中的适用》,载《法律适用》2004年第10期。
3.梁西:《国际困境:联合国安理会的改革问题—从日、德、印、巴争当常任理事国说起》,载《法学评论》2005年第1期。
4.杨力军:《安理会向国际刑事法院移交达尔富尔情势的法律问题》,载《环球法学评论》2006年第4期。
5.朱文奇:《国际刑事法院启动机制及美国的应策》,载《河南社会科学》2003年第5期。
6.喻贵英:《析美国反对常设国际刑事法院的理由和举措》,载《法律科学》2006年第4期。
7.卢有学:《美国对国际刑事法院的政策转变》,载《山东公安专科学校学报》2004年第4期。
8.刘健:《论国际刑事法院管辖权与国家主权》,载《法律科学》2004年第5期。
9.王秀梅:《前南国际刑事法庭的创立及原则》,载《现代法学》2002年第3期。
10.杨力军:《评国际刑事法院的管辖权》,载《法学评论》2001年第4期。
11.关晶:《试析国际刑事法院管辖权与第三国的关系》,载《中国刑事法杂志》2004年第5期。
12.王怡:《论国际刑事法院与联合国安理会的关系》,载《海南大学学报》(人文社会科学版)2005年第2期。
13.朱文奇:《国际法追究个人刑事责任与管辖豁免问题》,载《法学》2006年第4期。
14.黄涧秋:《论国际刑事法院管辖权与国家主权的关系》,载《现代国际关系》2004年第7期。
15.贾海龙、贾海涛:《初探塞拉利昂特别法庭》,载《河北法学》2004年第12期。
16.马呈元:《非缔约国对国际刑事法院对本国国民管辖权的规避》,载《人民检察》2005. 9(上)。
17.孙应征、赵慧:《论国际刑事法院检察官的自行调查权》,载《中国检察官》2006年第5期。
18.许楚敬:《论国际刑事法院管辖权与联合国安理会职权的关系》,载《华南师范大学学报》(社会科学版)2004年第2期。
19.周振杰、屈学武:《“美国98条协定”的国际法效力评析—基于<罗马规约>和<条约法>的精神与要义分析》,载《中国刑事法杂志》2003年第6期。
20.宋志勇:《论东京审判的几个问题》,载《中共党史研究》2005年第5期。
21.李艳军:《前南斯拉夫国际刑事法庭的几个法律问题的探讨》,载《三峡大学学报》(人文社会科学版)2004年第4期。
22.许楚敬:《关于国际刑事法院管辖权的几个具体问题—兼评中国政府的立场》,载《比较法研究》2004年第6期。
23.高铭暄、王秀梅:《论建立国际刑事法院的法律意义》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》2004年第3期。
24.郑维维、何艳:《普遍管辖原则与国家主权》,载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2003年第5A期。
25.许楚敬:《设立前南斯拉夫问题国际法庭的法理依据》,载《政法论丛》2002年第4期。
26.彭锡华、王孔祥:《论国际刑事法院的管辖权》,载《武汉大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2006年第4期。
27.廖敏文:《国家与国际刑事法院的国际合作与司法协助义务述评》,载《现代法学》2003年第6期。
28.卢有学、李新安:《论国际刑事法院与其他国际机构的关系》,载《山东警察学院学报》2005年第5期。
29.李雪平:《<罗马规约>与国际刑事法院面临的法律问题》,载《法学评论》2002年第6期。
30.高铭暄、王秀梅:《当代国际刑法的发展与基本原则》,载《人民检察》2005年第10(上)期。
31.赵秉志、王秀梅:《论战争罪之内涵及其刑事责任主体》,载《河北法学》2001年第2期。
32.张旭:《国际犯罪刑事责任再探》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》2001年第2期。
33.张晓芝:《试论战争犯罪及其法律责任》,载《西北大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2005年第5期。
34.陈丹英:《国际刑事法院的管辖权》,载《榆林学院学报》2005年第1期。
35.高铭暄、王俊平:《中国关注的国际刑事法院问题》,载《人民检察》2007年第7期。
36.赵秉志、赵晨光:《略论国际刑事法院的量刑制度》,载《河北法学》2007年第5期。
37.马军卫、董蕾红:《国际刑事法院对我国的法律影响以及我国的应有立场》,载《中共济南市委党校学报》2005年第3期。
38.高铭暄、王秀梅:《国际刑法的历史发展与基本问题研究》,载《中国刑事法杂志》2001年第1期。
39.高铭暄、王秀梅:《国际刑法渊源合法性论要》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》2002年第5期。
1.刘大群:《论危害人类罪》,载黄进主编:《武大国际法评论》(第四卷),武汉大学出版社2006年版。
2.刘大群:《论侵略罪》,载黄进主编:《武大国际法评论》(第三卷),武汉大学出版社2005年版。
3.武玉挺:《“刚果诉比利时案”及普遍管辖权初论—国际法院判决与比利时国内实践分析》,载北京大学法学院编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第1辑),北京大学出版社2004年版。
4.刘大群:《论国际刑法中的普遍管辖权》,载北京大学法学院编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第4卷第2辑),北京大学出版社2006年版。
5.高健军:《对国际罪行的普遍管辖与豁免—2002年国际法院“逮捕令”案述评》,载北京大学法学院编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》(第3卷第2辑),北京大学出版社2005年版。
6.赵永琛:《从<国际刑事法院规约>看国际刑法的新发展》,载高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《当代国际刑法的理论与实践》,吉林人民出版社2001年版。
1.黄建中:《国际法庭管辖权研究》,中国政法大学2005年博士论文。
1.《塞拉利昂特别法庭要求在荷兰审判泰勒( 2006-03-30 ),http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hqkx/2006-03/30/content-556664.htm(2007年9月30日访问)。
2.《利比里亚前总统泰勒在联合国特别法庭受审》(2007-06-04),http://world. People.com.cn/GB/10129/5820359.html(2007年9月30日访问)。
3.《国际刑事法院逮捕了第一名嫌疑犯》(2006年3月17日),http://www.un.org/radio/ch/story.asp?NewsID=806(2007年10月31日访问)。
4.《“血雨腥风”笼罩乌干达》( 2003年6月27日),http://www.huaxia.com/200373/00035853,htm(2007年10月31日访问)。
5.《乌“圣灵抵抗军”要求国际刑事法庭撤消对其首领指控》(2007年9月9日),http://www.yndaily.com/htm/20070909/news_95_123487.html(2007年10月31日访问)。
6.《国际刑警组织发出首批红色通缉令》(2006年6月01日),http://www.un.org/radio/ch/print_all.asp?NewDate=6/1/2006 (2007年11月1日访问)。
7.《乌干达“非洲屠夫”将被特赦》(2006年7月6日),http://www.china.com.cn/chinese/junshi/1267289.htm(2007年10月31日访问)。
8.《绑架数万儿童自称能通灵非洲屠夫拒绝政府特赦》,http://ent.zjol.com.cn/05/world/system/2006/07/12/007735110.stm(l2007年10月31日访问)。
9.《国际刑事法院就圣灵抵抗军一被告之死发表声明》(2006年8月14日),http://www.un.org/chinese/News/fullstorynews.asp?newsID=1(2007年10月31日访问)。
10.《达尔富尔问题国际调查委员会给秘书长的报告》,S/2005/60,http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/9463078.html (2007年10月25日访问)。
11.周振杰、刘仁文:《论国际刑事法院的管辖权》,http://www.iccchina.org/infoview/Artical_113.html(2007年11月1日访问)。
12.屈学武、周振杰:《<罗马规约>在亚洲的批准与实施探究》,http://www.iolaw.org.cn/showartical.asp?id=2107(2007年9月28日访问)。
13.黄芳:《评中国对<国际刑事法院规约>投反对票的五点理由》,http://www.iolaw.org.cn/showartical.asp?id=1694(2007年10月24日访问)。
14.朱文奇:《国际刑事法庭与国际法在法庭中的具体运用》,http://www.iccchina.org/infoview/Artical_115.html(2007年11月1日访问)。
15.《2005年国际刑事法院状况》(2006/02/27),http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cebe/chn/dtxw/t237166.htm(2007年9月28日访问)。
16.《国际刑事法院首次开庭审理》(2006年3月21日),http://gb.cri.cn/1321/2006/03/21/542@956362_1.htm (2007年11月1日访问)。
17.《乌干达叛军袭击难民营》,http://www.xawb.com/gb/wbpaper/2004-02/24/content_144124.htm(2007年10月31日访问)。
18.《国际刑事法庭发言人称对科尼等人逮捕令仍有效》(2006年7月6日),http://news.sohu.com/20060706/n244117303.shtml (2007年10月31日访问)。
19.《苏丹政府正式宣布拒绝安理会第1593号决议》(2005-04-04), http://www.chinacourt.org/html/artical/200504/04/156838.shtm(l2007年10月25日访问)。
20.《国际刑事法院检察官启动对达尔富尔地区的调查》(2005年6月6日),http://www.iccchina.org/infoview/Artical_248.html (2007年11月1日访问)。
21.《国际刑事法院向两名达尔富尔杀戮平民肇事者发出逮捕令》(2007年5月2日),http://www.un.org/radio/ch/story.asp?NewsID=3517(2007年10月25日访问)。
22.《苏丹拒绝国际刑事法院逮捕令》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2007/05/03/content-6054649.htm(2007年9月30日访问)。
23.《国际刑事法院呼吁苏丹立即逮捕被诉达尔富尔肇事者》(2007年6月7日),http://www.un.org/radio/ch/print_all.asp?NewsDate=6/7/2007(2007年10月25日访问)。1
24.《书记官处确认科特迪瓦已接受国际刑事法院管辖》,http://www.iccchina.org/cn/infoview/Artical_214.html(2007年11月1日访问)。
25.联合国安理会第1422(2002)号决议,S/RES/1422 (2002),http://www.un.org/chinese/aboutun/prinorgs/sc/sres/02/s1422.htm(2007年10月25日访问)。
26.联合国安理会第1487(2003)号决议,S/RES/1487 (2003),http://www.un.org/chinese/aboutun/prinorgs/sc/sres/03/s1487.htm(2007年10月25日访问)。
27.联合国安理会第1497(2003)号决议,S/RES/1497 (2003), http://www.un.org/chinese/aboutun/prinorgs/sc/sres/03/s1497.htm(2007年10月24日访问)。
28.联合国安理会第1593(2005)号决议,S/RES/1593 (2005),http://www.un.org/chinese/aboutun/prinorgs/sc/sres/05/s1593.htm(2007年10月24日访问)。
29.《国际刑事法院特权和豁免协定》,http://baike.baidu.com/view/642859.htm(2007年9月29日访问)。
1. David Chuter, War Crimes: Confronting Atrocity in the Modern World (Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2003).
2. Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2003).
3. Yves Beigbeder, International Justice against Immunity: Progress and New Challenge (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005).
4. Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law: Versailles to Rome (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2003).
5. William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
6. Yitiha Simbeye, Immunity and International Criminal Law (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004).
7. Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
8. Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
9. Bruce Broomhall, International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
10. Mark W. Janis and John E. Noyes, Cases and Commentary on International Law (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1997).
11. Karine Lescure and Florence Trintignac, International Justice for Former Yugoslavia: The Working of the International Criminal Tribunal of The Hague (The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996).
12. Sienho Yee, Towards International Law of Co-progressiveness (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004).
13. Claire de Than and Edwin Shorts, International Criminal Law and Human Rights (London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited, 2003).
1. Philippe Sands (ed.), From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
2. Ramesh Thakur and Peter Malcontent (ed.), From Sovereign Immunity to International Accountability: The Search for Justice in a World of States (Tokyo/ New York/Paris: United Nations University Press, 2004).
3. Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of Rome Statute-Issues, Negotiations, Results (the Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999).
4. Olympia Bekou and Robert Cryer (ed.), The International Criminal Court (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2004).
5. Nikos Passas (ed.), International Crimes (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate/Dartmouth Publishing Company, 2003).
6. Sarah B. Sewall and Carl Kaysen (ed.), The United States and the International Criminal Court (New York/Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000).
1. Chery K. Moralez, Establishing an International Criminal Court: Will It Work? 4 DePaul International Law Journal (Winter 2000).
2. Kofi Annan, Opening Remarks: Advocating for an International Criminal Court, 21 Fordham International Law Journal (December 1997).
3. Mathew D. Peter, Note: The Proposed International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Legal and Political Debates Regarding Jurisdiction That Threaten The Establishment of an Effective Court, 24 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce (Fall 1997).
4. Laurence Juma, The Human Rights Approach to Peace in Sierra Leone: The Analysis of the Peace Process and Human Rights Enforcement in a Civil Situation, 30 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (Summer 2002).
5. Philippe Kirsch, Q.C., Valerie Oosterveld, Section-1: McGill Law Journal Alumni Lecture Series/ Conferences Des Anciens De La Revue De Droit De McGill: Negotiating an Institution for the Twenty-First Century: Multilateral Diplomacy and the International Criminal Court, 46 McGill Law Journal (August 2001).
6. Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law, 23 Michigan Journal of International Law (Summer 2002).
7. Linda Jane Springrose, Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court, Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal (1999).
8. Peggy E. Rancilio, Note: From Nuremberg to Rome: Establishing an International Criminal Court and the Need for U.S. Participation, 78 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review (Winter 2001).
9. Daniel A. Blumenthal, Recent Development: The Politics of Justice: Why Israel Signed the International Criminal Court Statute and What the Signature Means, 30 the Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law (Spring 2002).
10. Allison Marston Danner, Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court, 97 American Journal of International Law (July 2003).
11. Michael D. Mysak, Judging the Giant: An Examination of American Opposition to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 63 Saskatchewan Law Review (2000).
12. Johan D. van der Vyver, International Human Rights: American Exceptionalism: Human Rights, International Criminal Justice, and National Self-Righteousness, 50 Emory Law Journal (Summer 2001).
13. Diane F. Orentlicher, Unilateral Multilateralism: United States Policy toward the International Criminal Court, 36 Cornell International Law Journal (2004).
14. Roseann M. Latore, Note: Escape out the Back Door or Charge in the Front Door: U.S. Reactions to the International Criminal Court, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2002).
15. Robert T. Alter, International Law: A Bittersweet Year for Supporters and Critics of the International Criminal Court, 37 The International Lawyer (Summer 2003).
16. Alisha D. Telci, The International Criminal Court: Is the United States Overlooking an Easier Way to Hold Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden Accountable for Their Actions? 38 New England Law Review (Winter 2004).
17. Kerstin Pastujova, Note & Comment: Was the United States Justified in Renewing Resolution 1487 in Light of the Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Scandal? 11 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (Fall 2004).
18. Lieutenant Colonel Michael A. Newton, Comparative Complementarity: Domestic Jurisdiction Consistent with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 167 (20) Military Law Review (March 2001).
19. Dr. Goran Sluiter, The Surrender of War Criminals to the InternationalCriminal Court, 25 Loyola of Los Angeles International &Comparative Law Review (Summer 2003).
20. Ademola Abass, The Competence of the Security Council to Terminate the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, 40 Texas International Law Journal (Winter 2005).
21. John Seguin, Denouncing the International Criminal Court: An Examination of U.S. Objections to the Rome Statute, 18 Boston University International Law Journal (Spring 2000).
22. Todd M. Sailer, Notes & Comments: The International Criminal Court: An Argument to Extend Its Jurisdiction to Terrorism and a Dismissal of U.S. Objections, 13 Temple International and Comparative Law Journal (Fall 1999).
23. Grant M. Dawson, Defining Substantive Crimes within the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court: What Is the Crime of Aggression? 19 New York Law Journal of International & Comparative Law (2000).
24. Theodor Meron, Defining Aggression for the International Criminal Court,
25 Suffolk Transnational Law Review (Winter 2001).
25. Young Sok Kim, The Cooperation of a State to Establish an Effective Permanent International Criminal Court, 6 Detroit College of Law Journal of International Law and Practice (Spring 1997).
26. Mark A. Summers, A Fresh Look at the Jurisdictional Provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court: The Case for Scrapping the Treaty, 20 Wisconsin International Law Journal (Winter 2001).
27. Payam, Akhavan, Developments at the International Criminal Court: the Lord’s Resistance Army Case: Uganda’s Submission of the First State Referral to the International Criminal Court, 99 American Journal of International Law (April 2005).
28. Patricia A. Mckeon, Note: An International Criminal Court: Balancing the Principle of Sovereignty against the Demands for International Justice, 12 St. John’s Journal of Legal Commentary (Spring 1997).
29. Jerry Fowler, Not Fade Away: The International Criminal Court and the State of Sovereignty, 2 San Diego International Law Journal (2001).
30. Hans-Peter Kaul, Developments at the International Criminal Court: Construction Site for More Justice: the International Criminal Court after Two Years, 99 American Journal of International Law (April 2005).
31. Tonya J. Boller, The International Criminal Court: Better than Nuremberg? 14 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review (2003).
32. Theodor Meron, Editorial Comment: War Crimes Law Comes of Age, 92 American Journal of International Law (July 1998).
33. David Stoelting, Status Report on the International Criminal Court, 3 Hofstra Law & Policy Symposium (1999).
34. Paul D. Marquardt, Law Without Borders: The Constitutionality of an International Criminal Court, 33 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (1995).
35. Hans Corell, Nuremberg and the Development of an International Criminal Court, 149 Military Law Review (Summers 1995).
36. Mahnoush H. Arsanjani, Developments in International Criminal Law: the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 93 American Journal of International Law (January 1999).
37. M. Cherif Bassiouni, Establishing an International Criminal Court: Historical Survey, 149 Military Law Review (Summer 1995).
38. Matthew A. Barrett, Note: Ratify or Reject: Examining the United States’Opposition to the International Criminal Court, 28 The Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law (Fall 1999).
39. Sandra L. Jamison, Leonard v. B. Sutton Award Paper: A Permanent International Criminal Court: A Proposal that Overcomes Past Objections, 23 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (Spring 1995).
40. David J. Schaffer, Developments in International Criminal Law: The United States and the International Criminal Court, 93 American Journal of International Law (January 1999).
41. Kenneth S. Gallant, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate and Jurisdiction to Prescribe in International Criminal Courts, 48 Villanova Law Review (2003).
42. Anna N. Astvatsaturova and Tracy M. Proietti and George S. Yacoubian, Jr.,The Case for Prosecuting Iraqi Nationals in the International Criminal Court, 10 International Legal Theory (Fall 2004).
43. Christopher Keith Hall, Current Development: The First Two Sessions of the UN Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 91 American Journal of International Law (January 1997).
44. Dapo Akande, International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court, 98 American Journal of International Law (July 2004).
45. Thoedor Meron, Editorial Comment: Judicial Independence and Impartiality in International Criminal Tribunals, 99 American Journal of International Law (April 2005).
46. Anne K. Heindel, International Human Rights & U.S. Foreign Policy: The Counterproductive Bush Administration Policy toward the International Criminal Court, 2 Seattle Journal for Social Justice (Spring/Summer 2004).
47. Sheryl Grant, Note: The International Criminal Court: The Nations of the World Must Not Give in to All of the United States Demands if the Court Is to Be Strong, Independent, International Organ, 25 Suffolk Transnational Law Review (Winter 1999).
48. Leila Sadat Wexler, The Proposed Permanent International Criminal Court: An Appraisal, 29 Cornell International Law Journal (1996).
49. Jacob Katz Cogan, International Criminal Courts and Fair Trials: Difficulties and Prospects, 27 The Yale Journal of International Law (Winter 2002).
50. Leila Nadya Sadat, Summer in Rome, Spring in The Hague, Winter in Washington? U.S. Policy towards the International Criminal Court, 21 Winconsin International Law Journal (Fall 2003).
51. Steven W. Krohne, The United States and the World Need an International Criminal Court as an Ally in the War against Terrorism, 8 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review (1997).
52. Nsongurua J. Udombana, Pay Back Time in Sudan? Darfur in the International Criminal Court, 13 Tulsa Journal of Comparative & International Law (Fall 2005).
53. Par Nicolaos Strapatsas, Commentaire: The European Union and its Contribution to the Development of the International Criminal Court, 33 Revue de Droit Universite de Sherbrooke (2002/2003).
54. Thomas Hethe Clark, Note: The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Amnesties, and the“Interests of Justice”: Striking a Delicate Balance, 4 Washington University Global Studies Law Review (2005).
55. Ruti Teitel, The International Criminal Court: Contemporary Perspectives and Prospects for Ratification, 16 New York Law School Journal of Human Rights (Spring 2000).
56. A. Diane Holcombe, Comment: The United States Becomes a Signatory to the Rome Treaty Establishing the International Criminal Court: Why Are So Many Concerned by This Action? 62 Montana Law Review (Summer 2001).
57. Sharon A. Williams, The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court: From 1947-2000 and Beyond, 38 Osgoode Hall Law Journal (Summer 2000).
58. Lori Sinanyan, Note: The International Criminal Court: Why the United States Should Sign the Statute (but Perhaps Wait to Ratify), 73 Southern California Law Review (July 2000).
59. Roy S. Lee, How the World Will Relate to the Court: an Assessment of the ICC Statute, 25 Fordham International Law Journal (March 2002).
60. Remigius Chibueze, United States Objection to the International Criminal Court: a Paradox of“Operation Enduring Freedom”, 9 Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law (Spring 2003).
61. John Washburn, Assessments of the United States Position: the International Criminal Court Arrives-the U.S. Position: Status and Prospects, 25 Fordham International Law Journal (March 2002).
62. Farah Hussain, Note: A Functional Response to International Crime: an International Justice Commission, 70 St. John’s Law Review (Fall 1996).
63. Jelena Pejic, The United States and the International Criminal Court: One Loophole Too Many, 78 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review (Winter 2001).
64. William N. Gianaris, The New Order and the Need for an InternationalCriminal Court, 16 Fordham International Law Journal (1992/1993).
65. James Crawford, Current Development: the ILC Adopts a Statute for an International Criminal Court, 89 American Journal of International Law (April 1995).
66. Chandra Lekha Sriram, Revolutions in Accountability: New Approaches to Past Abuses, 19 American University International Law Review (2003).
67. Christopher Keith Hall, Current Development: The First Five Sessions of the UN Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, 94 American Journal of International Law (October 2000).
68. Fiona Mckay, U.S. Unilateralism and International Crimes: The International Criminal Court and Terrorism, 36 Cornell International law Journal (2004).
69. David A. Nill, Book Review: National Sovereignty: Must it be Sacrificed to the International Criminal Court? 14 BYU Journal of Public Law (1999).
70. Douglas E. Edlin, The Anxiety of Sovereignty: Britain, the United States and the International Criminal Court, 29 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (Winter 2006).
71. Carsten Stahn, Mohamed M. El Zeidy, and Hector Olasolo, Developments at the International Criminal Court: the International Criminal Court’s Ad Hoc Jurisdiction Revisited, 99 American Journal of International Law (April 2005).
72. Carsten Stahn, Current Development: Accommodating Individual Criminal Responsibility and National Reconciliation: The UN Truth Commission for East Timor, 95 American Journal of International Law (October 2001).
1. The Office of the Prosecutor, Update on Communications Received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, available at http://www.icc-cpi-int/library/organs/otp/OTP_Update_on_Communications_10_February_2006.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
2. Background information on the situation in Uganda (14 October 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-20051410-056-1_English.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
3. Statement by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/0tp/speeches/LMO_200510.14_English. pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
4. Pre-Trial ChamberⅡ, Warrant of Arrest for Joseph Kony Issued on 8 July 2005 as Amended on 27 September 2005 (27 September 2005), available at http://www.icc-cpi,int/library/cases/ICC-02-04-01-05-53_English.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
5. Pre-TrialⅠ, Decision on the Prosecution Application under Article 58(7) of the Statute (27 April 2007), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-05-01-07-1-C0rr_English.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).
6. Warrant of Arrest for Ahmad Harun, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-05-01-07-2_English.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).
7. Communications received between July2002 and 8 July 2003, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/press/mediaaleit/160703Press_conf_presentation.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).
8. Facts and Procedure Regarding the Situation in Uganda, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-20051410-056-1_English.pdf (visited on 5 November 2007).
9. The Prosecutor of the ICC opens investigation in Darfur, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/pressrelease_details&id=107&1=en.html (visited on 4 November 2007).
10. Pre-Trial ChamberⅡ, Decision to Terminate the Proceedings against Raska Lukwiya (11 July 2007), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC_02_04_01_05_248_English.pdf (visited on 4 November 2007).