普遍管辖权在《灭种罪公约》下的实践与发展——以约基奇案为出发点
|
摘要
在《灭种罪公约》第6条的制定过程中,各国对是否赋予缔约国针对灭种罪的普遍管辖权存有争议,在最终文本中并没有写入任何有关普遍管辖权的内容,只是赋予了犯罪地国和国际法庭以相应的管辖权。但是,《灭种罪公约》也不禁止缔约国基于犯罪者国籍原则对发生在他国的灭种罪行使管辖权。约基奇案是德国针对灭种罪行使普遍管辖权的一个重要案件。冷战结束后,采取与德国类似做法的国家越来越多。国际刑事法庭和国际法院的相关实践与国家实践已经并将继续推动国家对灭种罪行使普遍管辖权规则的发展。
In the formulation process of Article 6 of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the issue of whether conferring universal jurisdiction over the crime of genocide was highly controversial among the parties. No provision relevant to universal jurisdiction was written into the final text of the Convention. The Convention only permits the competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed and/or international tribunals to exercise jurisdiction over persons who committed genocide. Notably, it does not prohibit states from establishing the jurisdiction over genocide occurring in other countries based upon the principle of nationality of offenders. The Jorgic case is an important practice that Germany exercised its universal jurisdiction over the crime of genocide. More states have similar practices after the Cold War. The relevant practices of the International Criminal Tribunals and the International Court of Justice, interwined with state practices, have already promoted and will further promote the rules for exercising universal jurisdiction over the crime of genocide.
In the formulation process of Article 6 of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the issue of whether conferring universal jurisdiction over the crime of genocide was highly controversial among the parties. No provision relevant to universal jurisdiction was written into the final text of the Convention. The Convention only permits the competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed and/or international tribunals to exercise jurisdiction over persons who committed genocide. Notably, it does not prohibit states from establishing the jurisdiction over genocide occurring in other countries based upon the principle of nationality of offenders. The Jorgic case is an important practice that Germany exercised its universal jurisdiction over the crime of genocide. More states have similar practices after the Cold War. The relevant practices of the International Criminal Tribunals and the International Court of Justice, interwined with state practices, have already promoted and will further promote the rules for exercising universal jurisdiction over the crime of genocide.
引文
(1)在《灭种罪公约》保留咨询意见案中,国际法院指出,“在这样的公约中,缔约国是没有自己的任何利益的,它们有且仅有一个共同利益(common interest),即实现这些崇高的目的,而这些目的正是公约存在的理由。因此,在这样的公约中,既不能论及它给国家自身所带来的利弊问题,也不能说在权利和义务之间维持完全的契约上的平衡”。See Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1951, p.23.
(2)灭种罪被称为“犯罪中的犯罪”(the crime of crimes),位列国际刑事法院管辖的四种严重国际犯罪之列。
(1)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No.746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 241-243(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(1)该条规定:“(发生在国外的危害国际保护法益的行为)对于发生在国外的下述行为,无论罪行发生地的法律是否适用,德国刑法应予以适用:(1)灭种(第220条a)……”
(2)此款规定了灭种罪的犯罪构成,具体规定同《灭种罪公约》第2条的规定保持了一致性。值得注意的是,第220条a是德国根据1954年8月9日关于加入《灭种罪公约》的法律(Act of 9 August 1954 on Germany’s Accession to the Genocide Convention)被并入到其刑法典之中的,并自1955年开始生效。2002年6月30日,德国新制定的《违反国际法罪行法典》(Code on Crimes against International Law)生效。根据该法典第1条的规定,对于像灭种这样的违反国际法的罪行,即使相关罪行发生在外国,同德国没有任何关系,该法典依然适用。
(3)该条规定:“凡被诉犯灭种罪或有第3条所列行为之一者,应交由行为发生地国家之主管法院,或缔约国接受其管辖权之国际刑事法庭审理之。”
(4)该条标题为“并行管辖权”,具体规定为:“1.国际法庭和国内法院对起诉自1991年1月1日以来,在前南斯拉夫境内犯有严重违反国际人道主义法行为的人有并行管辖权。2.国际法庭应优于国内法院。在诉讼程序的任何阶段,国际法庭可根据本规约及《国际法庭诉讼程序和证据规则》正式要求国内法院服从国际法庭的管辖。”
(5)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No.746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 243(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(6)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No.746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 242(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(1)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No. 746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 244(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(2)该条规定:“缔约国确认灭种行为,不论发生于平时或战时,均系国际法上之一种罪行,承允防止并惩治之。”
(3)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No. 746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 254(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(1)See Pinochet[Spain] 05/11/98(National Court, Criminal Division), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.119, 335-336(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(2)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No 746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 254-255(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(3)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No.746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 254-255(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(1)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No.746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 259(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(2)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No.746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 260(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(1)See UN, A/C.6/86.
(2)该规定的标题是:国内刑法的普遍性实施。具体案文为:“缔约国承诺在自身管辖的领土内对公约规定的犯罪行为进行惩治,而不考虑犯罪者的国籍,也不考虑犯罪行为是在何地实施。”See UN, E/447, pp.5-13.
(3)See UN, E/447, p.18.
(4)See UN, E/623, Art.Ⅴ.
(5)See UN, E/AC.25/7.
(6)See UN, E/623/Add.4.
(7)See UN, E/AC.25/8.
(8)这主要体现在中国代表团1948年4月16日递交的草案案文第3条中。该条规定:“灭种罪行的惩治,要么由罪行发生地国家的有关法院进行,要么由罪犯发现地国家有关法院进行,要么由设立的相关国际法庭进行。”See UN, E/AC.29/9.
(1)See UN, E/AC.25/9, PrincipleⅨ; UN, E/AC.25/SR.7, pp.3-4.
(2)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.7, pp.7-9.
(3)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.7. p.11.
(4)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.1, pp.4-8; UN,E/AC.25/SR.8, pp.3-6; UN, E/AC.25/SR.3, pp.3-5.
(5)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.20, p.3.
(6)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.20, p.15.
(7)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.18, p.10.
(8)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.20, p.2.
(9)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.24, p.10.
(10)See UN, A/C.6/218.
(1)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(2)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(3)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(4)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(5)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(6)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(7)伊朗建议在第六委员会进行表决的时候,只有6票赞成,有29票反对,10票弃权。
(8)See UN, A/C.6/SR.129.
(9)See UN, A/C.6/SR.130.
(10)See UN, A/C.6/SR.131.
(11)See UN, A/C.6/SR.131.
(12)See UN, A/C.6/SR.131.
(13)See UN, A/C.6/SR.132.
(1)See UN, A/C.6/SR.134.
(2)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(3)See Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.36, 15(Cambridge University Press 1968).
(1)See Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.36, 15(Cambridge University Press 1968).
(2)See Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.36, 15(Cambridge University Press 1968).
(3)See Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.36, 15(Cambridge University Press 1968).
(1)See UN, E/CN.4/Sub.2/416, para.197.
(2)See William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law:The Crime of Crimes,363(Cambridge University Press 2000).
(3)根据西班牙刑法典第607(2)条的规定,西班牙有权对反人道罪行使普遍管辖权。此外,由于西班牙于1987年10月21日批准了《禁止酷刑公约》,于1977年6月8日批准了1949年《日内瓦公约》,因此,根据这些已经对西班牙生效的国际条约,西班牙拥有对酷刑罪和严重违反《日内瓦公约》的犯罪的普遍管辖权。
(1)See Genocide Accountability Act of 2007, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-888,visited on 25 July 2018.
(2)See Luc Reydams, Belgium’s First Application of Universal Jurisdiction:The Butare Four Case, 43 Journal of International Criminal Justice 433(2003).
(3)See Angel Sánchez Legido, Spanish Practice in the Area of Universal Jurisdiction, 8 Spanish Yearbook of International Law 21-22(2004); Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Guatemala Genocide Case, 100 American Journal of International Law 207(2006).
(4)See UN, S/RES/808.
(1)See UN, S/RES/827.
(2)相关数据参见http://www.legal-tools.org/en/go-to-database/ltfolder/0_4277/#results,2018年7月20日访问。
(1)See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgement, ICJ Reports 2007, pp.181-187, paras.428-438.
(2)参见宋杰:《“保护的责任”:国际法院相关司法实践研究》,《法律科学》2009年第5期,第59-60页。
(3)See Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite(Belgium v.Senegal), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2012, p.451, para.74.
(2)灭种罪被称为“犯罪中的犯罪”(the crime of crimes),位列国际刑事法院管辖的四种严重国际犯罪之列。
(1)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No.746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 241-243(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(1)该条规定:“(发生在国外的危害国际保护法益的行为)对于发生在国外的下述行为,无论罪行发生地的法律是否适用,德国刑法应予以适用:(1)灭种(第220条a)……”
(2)此款规定了灭种罪的犯罪构成,具体规定同《灭种罪公约》第2条的规定保持了一致性。值得注意的是,第220条a是德国根据1954年8月9日关于加入《灭种罪公约》的法律(Act of 9 August 1954 on Germany’s Accession to the Genocide Convention)被并入到其刑法典之中的,并自1955年开始生效。2002年6月30日,德国新制定的《违反国际法罪行法典》(Code on Crimes against International Law)生效。根据该法典第1条的规定,对于像灭种这样的违反国际法的罪行,即使相关罪行发生在外国,同德国没有任何关系,该法典依然适用。
(3)该条规定:“凡被诉犯灭种罪或有第3条所列行为之一者,应交由行为发生地国家之主管法院,或缔约国接受其管辖权之国际刑事法庭审理之。”
(4)该条标题为“并行管辖权”,具体规定为:“1.国际法庭和国内法院对起诉自1991年1月1日以来,在前南斯拉夫境内犯有严重违反国际人道主义法行为的人有并行管辖权。2.国际法庭应优于国内法院。在诉讼程序的任何阶段,国际法庭可根据本规约及《国际法庭诉讼程序和证据规则》正式要求国内法院服从国际法庭的管辖。”
(5)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No.746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 243(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(6)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No.746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 242(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(1)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No. 746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 244(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(2)该条规定:“缔约国确认灭种行为,不论发生于平时或战时,均系国际法上之一种罪行,承允防止并惩治之。”
(3)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No. 746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 254(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(1)See Pinochet[Spain] 05/11/98(National Court, Criminal Division), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.119, 335-336(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(2)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No 746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 254-255(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(3)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No.746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 254-255(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(1)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No.746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 259(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(2)See ECHR, Jorgic v. Germany(Application No.746/3/01)(Fifth Section), in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.148, 260(Cambridge University Press 2012).
(1)See UN, A/C.6/86.
(2)该规定的标题是:国内刑法的普遍性实施。具体案文为:“缔约国承诺在自身管辖的领土内对公约规定的犯罪行为进行惩治,而不考虑犯罪者的国籍,也不考虑犯罪行为是在何地实施。”See UN, E/447, pp.5-13.
(3)See UN, E/447, p.18.
(4)See UN, E/623, Art.Ⅴ.
(5)See UN, E/AC.25/7.
(6)See UN, E/623/Add.4.
(7)See UN, E/AC.25/8.
(8)这主要体现在中国代表团1948年4月16日递交的草案案文第3条中。该条规定:“灭种罪行的惩治,要么由罪行发生地国家的有关法院进行,要么由罪犯发现地国家有关法院进行,要么由设立的相关国际法庭进行。”See UN, E/AC.29/9.
(1)See UN, E/AC.25/9, PrincipleⅨ; UN, E/AC.25/SR.7, pp.3-4.
(2)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.7, pp.7-9.
(3)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.7. p.11.
(4)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.1, pp.4-8; UN,E/AC.25/SR.8, pp.3-6; UN, E/AC.25/SR.3, pp.3-5.
(5)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.20, p.3.
(6)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.20, p.15.
(7)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.18, p.10.
(8)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.20, p.2.
(9)See UN, E/AC.25/SR.24, p.10.
(10)See UN, A/C.6/218.
(1)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(2)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(3)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(4)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(5)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(6)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(7)伊朗建议在第六委员会进行表决的时候,只有6票赞成,有29票反对,10票弃权。
(8)See UN, A/C.6/SR.129.
(9)See UN, A/C.6/SR.130.
(10)See UN, A/C.6/SR.131.
(11)See UN, A/C.6/SR.131.
(12)See UN, A/C.6/SR.131.
(13)See UN, A/C.6/SR.132.
(1)See UN, A/C.6/SR.134.
(2)See UN, A/C.6/SR.100.
(3)See Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.36, 15(Cambridge University Press 1968).
(1)See Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.36, 15(Cambridge University Press 1968).
(2)See Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.36, 15(Cambridge University Press 1968).
(3)See Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, in Elihu Lauterpacht&Christopher Greenwood(eds.), International Law Reports, Vol.36, 15(Cambridge University Press 1968).
(1)See UN, E/CN.4/Sub.2/416, para.197.
(2)See William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law:The Crime of Crimes,363(Cambridge University Press 2000).
(3)根据西班牙刑法典第607(2)条的规定,西班牙有权对反人道罪行使普遍管辖权。此外,由于西班牙于1987年10月21日批准了《禁止酷刑公约》,于1977年6月8日批准了1949年《日内瓦公约》,因此,根据这些已经对西班牙生效的国际条约,西班牙拥有对酷刑罪和严重违反《日内瓦公约》的犯罪的普遍管辖权。
(1)See Genocide Accountability Act of 2007, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-888,visited on 25 July 2018.
(2)See Luc Reydams, Belgium’s First Application of Universal Jurisdiction:The Butare Four Case, 43 Journal of International Criminal Justice 433(2003).
(3)See Angel Sánchez Legido, Spanish Practice in the Area of Universal Jurisdiction, 8 Spanish Yearbook of International Law 21-22(2004); Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Guatemala Genocide Case, 100 American Journal of International Law 207(2006).
(4)See UN, S/RES/808.
(1)See UN, S/RES/827.
(2)相关数据参见http://www.legal-tools.org/en/go-to-database/ltfolder/0_4277/#results,2018年7月20日访问。
(1)See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgement, ICJ Reports 2007, pp.181-187, paras.428-438.
(2)参见宋杰:《“保护的责任”:国际法院相关司法实践研究》,《法律科学》2009年第5期,第59-60页。
(3)See Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite(Belgium v.Senegal), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2012, p.451, para.74.