The Overall Function of International Criminal Law: Striking the Right Balance Between the Rechtsgut and the Harm Principles

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Kai Ambos
• 关键词：International criminal law ; Rechtsgut ; theory ; Harm principle ; Overall function of international criminal law
• 刊名：Criminal Law and Philosophy
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：June 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：9
• 期：2
• 页码：301-329
• 全文大小：668 KB
• 参考文献：Alarefi, A. S. (2009). Overview of Islamic Law. International Criminal Law Review 9 (4), pp. 707-31.
  Al-Qaradawi, J. (1989). Verbotenes und Erlaubtes im Islam. Munich: SKD Bavaria Verlag & Handel.
  Ambos, K. (2002). On the Rationale of Punishment at the Domestic and International Level. In M. Henzelin & R. Roth (Eds.), Le droit pénale à l’épreuve de l’internationalisation (pp. 309-23). Paris, Bruxelles, Genève: L.G.D.J.
  Ambos, K. (2006). M?glichkeiten und Grenzen v?lkerrechtlichen Rechtsgüterschutzes. In F. Neubacher & A. Klein (Eds), Vom Recht der Macht zur Macht des Rechts? (pp. 111-16). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
  Ambos, K. (2007). Towards a Universal System of Crime: Comments on George Fletcher’s Grammar of Criminal Law. Cardozo Law Review, 28, pp. 2647-673.
  Ambos, K. (2009). Prosecuting Guantánamo in Europe: Can and Shall the Masterminds of the “Torture Memos-Be Held Criminally Responsible on the Basis of Universal Jurisdiction? Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 42, pp. 405-48.
  Ambos, K. (2010). The Crime of Aggression after Kampala. German Yearbook of Internationa Law, 52, pp. 463-09.
  Ambos, K. (2011). Crimes against Humanity and the International Criminal Court. In L. N. Sadat (Ed.), Forging a Convention for Crimes Against Humanity (pp. 279-04). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  Ambos, K. (2013a). Treatise on International Criminal Law (vol. I). Foundations and General Part. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  Ambos, K., (2013b). Punishment without a Sovereign? The ius puniendi issue of International Criminal Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 33, pp. 293-15.
  Ambos, K. (2014). Treatise on International Criminal Law (vol. II). Crimes and Sentencing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  Amelung, K. (1972). Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft-em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">Untersuchungen zum Inhalt und zum Anwendungsbereich eines Strafrechtsprinzips auf dogmengeschichtlicher Grundlage-em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der “Sozialsch?dlichkeit-des Verbrechens. Frankfurt am Main: Athen?um.
  Amelung, K. (2003). Der Begriff des Rechtsguts in der Lehre vom strafrechtlichen Rechtsgüterschutz. In R. Hefendehl, A. von Hirsch & W. Wohlers (Eds.), Die Rechtsgutstheorie (pp. 155-82). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
  Appel, I. (1998). Verfassung und Strafe. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
  Arnold, R. (2004). The ICC as a New Instrument for Repressing Terrorism. Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers.
  Ashworth, A. (2009). Principles of Criminal Law (6th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  Ayat, M. (2007). Justice pénale internationale pour la paix et la reconciliation. International Criminal Law Review, 7, pp. 391-23.
  Bagaric, M. & Morss, J. (2006). International Sentencing Law: In Search of a Justification and Coherent Framework. International Criminal Law Review, 6, pp. 191-55.
  Bielefeldt, H. (1998). Philosophie der Menschenrechte. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
  Binding, K. (1872). Die Normen und ihre übertretung (vol. I) (1st ed.). Leipzig: W. Engelmann.
  Birnbaum, J. (1834). Ueber das Erforderni? einer Rechtsverletzung zum Begriffe des Verbrechens. In J. Abegg et al. (Eds), Archiv des Criminalrechts, Neue Folge. Halle: C. A. Schwetschke.
  Bock, S. (2010). Das Opfer vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
  Boister, N. (2003). Transnational Criminal Law? EJIL 14, pp. 953-76.
  B?se, M. (2003). Grundrechte und Strafrecht als “Zwangsrecht- In R. Hefendehl, A. von Hirsch & W. Wohlers (Eds.), Die Rechtsgutstheorie (pp. 89-5). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
  Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court, ‘BVerfG- Decision 2 BvR 392/07, of 26 February 2008. Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (BVerfGE), 120, pp. 224-73. Available at http://?www.?bundesverfassung?sgericht.?de/?entscheidungen/?rs20080226_-bvr039207.?html (this version is quoted here).
  Bunzel, M. (2003). Die Potenz des verfassungrechtlichen Verh?ltnism??igkeitsprinzips als Grenze des Rechtsgüterschutzes in der Informationsgesellschaft. In R. Hefendehl, A. von Hirsch & W. Wohlers (Eds.), Die Rechtsgutstheorie (pp. 96-18). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
  Cornacchia, L. (2009). Funzione Della Pena Nello Statuto Della Corte Penale Internazionale. Milan: Giuffrè Editore.
  Cryer, R. (2005). Prosecuting International Crimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  Cryer, R. (2010). The Objectives of International Criminal Law. In R. Cryer et al., An Introduction to International Criminal Law (pp. 22-6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  Cryer, R. & Wilmshurst, E. (2010). Introduction. In R. Cryer et al., An Introduction to International Criminal Law (pp. 3-1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  Deguzman, M. (2012). How Serious are International Crimes? The Gravity Problem in ICL. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 51, pp. 18-8.
  Departmental Committee on Homos
• 作者单位：Kai Ambos (1)
  
  1. Georg-August Universit?t G?ttingen, G?ttingen, Germany
  
• 刊物主题：Theories of Law, Philosophy of Law, Legal History; Philosophy of Law; Criminal Law; Ethics; Philosophy;
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1871-9805

文摘

Current International Criminal Law (‘ICL- suffers from at least four theoretical shortcomings regarding its ‘concept and meaning- -em class="EmphasisTypeItalic">ius puniendi-(supranational right to punish), ‘overall function-and ‘purposes of punishment-(For clarification of these basic questions, see Ambos in Oxf J Legal Stud 33:293-15, 2013b. Of course, there are many possible conceptualisations of the basic questions facing any theory of criminal law see, for example, Murphy in Columbia Law Rev 87:509-32, 1987. Yet, taking the perspective of ICL, I would argue that these are the most important conceptual questions today.). These issues are intimately interrelated; in particular, any reflection upon the last two issues without having first clarified the ius puniendi would not make sense. As argued elsewhere (Ambos in Oxf J Legal Stud 33:293-15, 2013b), in an initial contribution towards a consistent theory of ICL, the ius puniendi can be inferred from a combination of the incipient supranationality of the value-based world order and the world citizens-fundamental human rights predicated upon a Kantian concept of human dignity. On this basis, it is now possible to examine the overall function of ICL. Given the fact that ICL has not yet achieved the status of an autonomous discipline, the inquiry must start with a discussion of national theories of criminalisation. The article focuses on the two most important theories of criminalisation, namely the theories of protection of Rechtsgüter (‘legal goods- and the prevention of harm (see infra second section). Next, it examines whether and how these national theories can be transferred to ICL (see infra third section).