违反国际人道法犯罪的个人刑事责任研究
|
摘要
国际人道法是为处于武装冲突中的人们提供最低限度人权保障的法律,对于维护人类的和平与安全具有重要作用。但是国际人道法被违反、被破坏的例子屡见不鲜,由此造成的人道主义灾难震僳了人们的良知。为惩治这些背离人类基本道德、破坏国际社会基础价值的暴行,国际法不仅将严重违反国际人道法的行为认定为犯罪,而且确立了追究犯罪人个人刑事责任的原则。但是违反国际人道法犯罪的集合性与刑事责任的个人化之间存在某种程度的冲突,要将犯罪所产生的后果恰当地归责于每个罪行参与人,并非易事。论文以联合国特设国际刑事法庭和国际刑事法院的理论与实践为研究视角,探讨了违反国际人道法犯罪的个人刑事责任问题,包括个人刑事责任的实质、正犯与共犯的区分标准、各种具体责任形式的要件以及个人刑事责任的排除理由等,以期为解决违反国际人道法犯罪的归责问题提供若干启示。
论文共分五章。
第一章为违反国际人道法的犯罪与个人刑事责任。
国际法关于战争或武装冲突的规定包含两个部分,其一是有关国家诉诸战争权力的规定,其二是对作战方式和手段的规定。国际人道法属于后者,是指在武装冲突中保护战争受难者,并对作战的手段和方法加以限制的规则。它围绕“尊重和保护人权”、“限制作战方式”、“区分军事与民事目标”等原则构建规则体系,是在武装冲突中保护最基本人权的最后屏障。
严重违反国际人道法的行为对全人类的和平与安全造成极大破坏。为了与这些行为作斗争,国际法发展出了两大“有力武器”。一是将这些行为犯罪化；二是建立了个人刑事责任原则。
依据现行国际刑法,违反国际人道法的犯罪不仅是国际犯罪,而且属于“整个国际社会关注的最严重犯罪”和“国际核心罪行”的范畴。违反国际人道法的犯罪主要包括战争罪,以及在武装冲突中发生的危害人类罪与灭绝种族罪。
依据个人刑事责任原则,实施或参与违反国际人道法的犯罪,应负个人刑事责任。违反国际人道法犯罪的个人刑事责任的实质与个人意思自治相关。它是指具有相对意志自由的行为人,在具备适法行为选择可能性时,选择了违反国际人道法的行为,因而被国际刑法规范施加的非难可能性。在国际刑法中,罪行的成立与责任的成立并非同步。罪行的成立仅为责任提供了依据,责任的成立尚需满足积极的责任要件,并考察是否存在消极的责任排除理由。由于违反国际人道法犯罪的集体、广泛与系统犯罪的特点,此种罪行中个人刑事责任的确定成为了一个困难却至关重要的问题。为恰当处理归责问题,国际刑法建立了违反国际人道法犯罪的个人刑事责任等级体系,将责任分为正犯责任、共犯责任和不作为犯责任这三类责任程度依次递减的责任类别,每一类责任中均包含若干种具体的责任形式,而每一种责任形式均有其不同的要件。
第二章为违反国际人道法犯罪的正犯责任。
违反国际人道法犯罪的正犯责任是最严重的责任形式。
在特设国际刑事法庭中,正犯责任是“实施犯罪”的责任,包括直接实行与团伙共同犯罪两种具体的责任形式。虽然团伙共同犯罪并未在法庭的规约中出现,但是法庭的案例法认为此种责任形式包含在规约规定的“实施犯罪”的涵义之内,也存在于习惯国际法中。团伙共同犯罪责任是一种基于“共同目的”的责任：只要证明犯罪参与人有促成共同犯罪目的的故意,则不必考察他对该罪所起的确切作用,即可认定他对该罪承担正犯责任。团伙共同犯罪责任的运用,表明特设国际刑事法庭采纳主观标准来区分正犯与共犯。团伙共同犯罪包括基本型、系统型和扩展型三种。基本型团伙犯罪是指一伙人基于共同的犯罪故意,共同执行一项共同犯罪计划；系统型团伙共同犯罪是指一伙人明知拘留所或集中营的存在或性质,仍基于促进该组织犯罪目的的故意,在该组织内执行共同计划内的犯罪；扩展型团伙共同犯罪是指一伙人达成一项共同犯罪计划,其中一些人犯下的罪行虽然在共同犯罪目的之外,但属执行共同犯罪计划自然和可以预见的结果。
在国际刑事法院中,确定正犯责任的方法与特设国际刑事法庭不同。国际刑事法院采用了兼具客观因素与主观因素的控制标准来区分正犯与共犯,将控制了罪行的实施,并且知道自己拥有这种控制的人认定为正犯。根据《国际刑事法院规约》第25条第3款第1项的规定和国际刑事法院的案例法,正犯责任包括直接实行、间接实行、共同实行和间接共同实行责任。直接实行是指行为人实际实行了罪行的物质要件；间接实行是指行为人控制了实际实行了罪行物质要件的人的意志,从而控制了犯罪的实施；共同实行是指行为人通过完成分派给他的核心任务,与其他人一起控制罪行；间接共同实行是指行为人利用他人完成分派给他的核心任务,从而与其他人一起控制罪行。根据国际刑事法院的案例法,间接实行还包括行为人通过控制组织实施犯罪的形式。以上这些责任形式均要求行为人满足了所诉罪行的所有心理要件,且知道自己对犯罪拥有控制或共同控制。
第三章为违反国际人道法犯罪的共犯责任。
违反国际人道法犯罪的共犯责任轻于正犯责任。
在特设国际刑事法庭中,共犯责任包括计划、命令、唆使以及帮助与教唆的责任。计划犯罪是指行为人策划了一项行为,且他的行为实质性地促进了犯罪。唆使犯罪是指行为人促使他人执行一项行为,且他的行为实质上促进了罪行的实施。命令犯罪是指行为人向他人发出了执行一项行为的权威性指令,且他的行为直接和实质性地促进了罪行的实施。计划、唆使、命令责任均要求行为人有使罪行得到实施的直接故意或间接故意。帮助与教唆犯罪是指行为人知道实际实行人犯罪意图,却故意向实际实行人提供了实际的协助、鼓励或道德支持,且他的行为对实际实行人实施犯罪产生了实质影响。
在国际刑事法院中,共犯责任共有三个等级,分别规定于规约第25条第3款第2项至第4项,其责任程度逐级递减,体现出良好的体系性。
第一等级的共犯责任规定在规约第25条第3款第2项,包括命令、唆使、引诱犯罪的责任。命令犯罪是指行为人向他人发出一项实施犯罪的指令；唆使犯罪是指行为人敦促或促使他人实施犯罪；引诱犯罪是指行为人以某种利益诱使他人犯罪。在这三种情形中,行为人均有使犯罪实施的故意,他的行为对犯罪的实施有促进作用。此外,犯罪是否既遂对行为人的责任成立没有影响。
第二等级的共犯责任规定在规约第25条第3款第3项,包括帮助、教唆以及以其他方式协助犯罪的责任。帮助、教唆、协助犯罪是指行为人出于便利实施犯罪的目的,故意向一项犯罪或犯罪企图提供实际的协助、鼓励或道德支持等,包括为其提供犯罪工具,且他的行为对犯罪的实施或准备有促进。
第三等级的共犯责任规定在规约第25条第3款第4项,是指支助团伙犯罪的责任。这是一种兜底的共犯责任形式。支助团伙犯罪是指行为人为了促进团伙的共同犯罪目的,或者明知团体实施犯罪的意图,故意以规约第25条第3款第1-3项之外的方式支助团伙的一项共同犯罪,且对实施犯罪发挥了作用。
根据国际刑事法院适用的控制原则,共犯对罪行的实施没有控制,但是他们对罪行何种程度的促进才是对其施加责任的最低门槛,尚需法院在实践中加以明确。
第四章为违反国际人道法犯罪的不作为犯责任——上级责任。
违反国际人道法犯罪中的上级责任是由上级的消极不作为而引发的责任,它的责任程度较正犯责任与共犯责任更轻。
上级责任概念出现的历史较早,它的法理基础在于上级负有对下级进行有效控制与管理的义务。上级责任在二战后对德、日战犯的审判中被大量运用,并在特设国际刑事法庭和国际刑事法院中得到了进一步的发展。
特设国际刑事法庭中的上级责任是指上级事实上知道或者有理由知道下级即将实施、正在实施或已经实施犯罪,但其未能采取必要且合理的措施防止或惩罚下级的犯罪行为,由此而引发的责任。
国际刑事法院中的上级责任区分军事上级和平民上级,采取了不同的标准,前者的入责门槛低于后者。军事上级责任是在军事上级知道或者理应知道,由于他未适当行使控制,在他有效控制下的部队正在实施或即将实施犯罪,但他未采取权力范围内的一切必要而合理的措施,防止或制止犯罪的实施,或将罪行提交调查和起诉时,对他施加的责任。平民上级责任则是在平民上级未适当行使控制,导致在他有效控制下的下级犯下涉及他有效控制下活动的罪行,且未采取权力范围内的一切必要而合理的措施,防止或制止犯罪或将罪行提交调查和起诉时,对他施加的责任,前提是该上级人员知道下级人员正在实施或即将实施犯罪,或故意不理会明确反映这一情况的情报。
第五章为排除个人刑事责任的理由。
排除个人刑事责任的理由是指行为人的行为虽造成了一定的危害结果或已经具有造成一定危害结果的危险,但却因具备某种特定因素而不构成犯罪,或者因特定的事实因素的存在,而不应负刑事责任或不追究刑事责任的情况。国际刑法规定了排除个人刑事责任理由对维护正义、保障犯罪人人权有重要意义。
在国际刑法中,排除个人刑事责任的理由有实体性排除个人刑事责任的理由与程序性排除个人刑事责任理由之分。实体性排除个人刑事责任的理由又可分为行为正当化理由与责任减免理由。
在涉及违反国际人道法犯罪的情况下,排除个人刑事责任的行为正当化理由包括正当防卫、紧急避险。减免个人刑事责任的理由则包括精神障碍、醉态、事实错误与法律错误、上级命令和军事必要。程序性排除个人刑事责任的理由则有年龄因素、官方身份、时效等。
International humanitarian law is a set of rules which provides the most basic protection for persons in armed conflict and plays an important role in maintaining peace and security for all mankind. However, fragrant acts in violation of international humanitarian law and astounding humanitarian catastrophes have never disappeared. Such atrocities are serious deviation from the basic moral rules of human beings and unacceptable attack on the basic values of the worldl community. As a defensive response, international law classifies acts seriously violating international humanitarian law as international crimes and sets the principle of individual criminal responsibility as the legal basis for punishing these crimes. However, due to the implicit tension between the collective criminality of crimes in violation of international humanitarian law and the individualized criminal responsibility, precise attribution of criminal responsibility to each participant of such crimes has become a constant request. Relying on the abundant practice and enlightening case law of UN ad hoc Tribunals and International Criminal Court (ICC), this dissertation addresses certain pertinent issues concerning individual criminal responsibility for violation of international humanitarian law, including the essence of individual criminal responsibility, criteria for differentiating principals and accessories, elements of specific responsibility forms and grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility, and tries to give a few cues for tackling the difficult task of responsibility ascription.
The dissertation is composed of five chapters.
Chapter 1 is titled as Crimes in Violation of International Humanitarian Law and Individual Criminal Responsibility.
With respect to war or armed conflict, international law has developed two different but interrelated categories of law, i.e. jus ad bellum and jus in bello. International humanitarian law belongs to the latter category. It is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict and protect persons who are not or no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. It is constructed. on several essential principles such as 'respect for and protection of human rights','restriction on the means and methods of warfare' and 'differentiation between military and civil objects', and serves, in armed conflicts, as the last shield for the most fundamental human rights.
Offences in serious violation of international humanitarian law do great harm to the peace and security of human society. In order to fight with them, international law has two powerful weapons. One is the criminalization of these offences and the other is the establishment of the principle of individual criminal responsibility.
According to current international criminal law, crimes in violation of international humanitarian law are not only international crimes, but also belong to the scope of'the most serious crimes of concern to the international community' and 'core international crimes'. Generally speaking, crimes in violation of international humanitarian law consist of genocide crimes and crimes against humanity committed in armed conflict, and war crimes.
According to the principle of individual criminal responsibility, anyone who commits or participates in a crime in violation of international humanitarian law shall be imposed criminal responsibility. The essence of individual criminal responsibility for crimes in violation of international humanitarian law relates to autonomy of personal will. It refers to the impugnment imposed by international criminal law to a person of proper capacity for his choice of acts violating international humanitarian law, on the condition that at the time of action he actually has another choice which conforms to the law. In international criminal law, crime and responsibility shall be assessed separately. The establishment of a crime only provides a basis, for responsibility. If a crime is established, individual criminal responsibility can be set up, provided that he meets the elements of a specific mode of responsibility and lacks defenses which exclude his responsibility. Considering the collective, widespread and systematic context of crimes in violation of international humanitarian law, assigning of responsibility in such crimes is a difficult but crucial task. In order to resolve this problem, international criminal law has constructed a hierarchical system of responsibility, which includes three classes of responsibility, i.e. responsibility for principals, responsibility for accessories and responsibility for omission. Under this system, the responsibility descends by class. Each class consists of some specific forms of responsibility and each specific form of responsibility has different elements.
Chapter 2 explains Responsibility of Principals for Crimes in Violation of International Humanitarian Law.
With respect to crimes in violation of international humanitarian law, a principal shall assume the most severe responsibility.
Under ad hoc Tribunals, a principal is a person who 'committed' a crime of the Statute shall be individually responsible for the crime. In accordance to the case law of ad hoc Tribunals,'committing' encompasses not only physical perpetration of a crime, but also participation in a joint criminal enterprise (JCE), and JCE is a form of responsibility in customary international law, even though that term does not expressly appear anywhere in the Statute. JCE is a theory of common-purpose liability:it permits the imposition of individual criminal responsibility on an accused for his knowing and voluntary participation in a group acting with a common criminal purpose or plan. Ad hoc Tribunals'employment of the JCE theory demonstrates that they have adopted a subjective criterion to determine principals. The jurisprudence of the ad hoc Tribunals distinguished three categories of JCE:
(ⅰ) the basic form, where the participants act on the basis of a 'common design' or 'common enterprise' and with a common 'intention';
(ⅱ) the systemic form, i.e. the so-called concentration camp cases where crimes are committed by members of military or administrative units such as those running concentration or detention camps on the basis of a common plan;
(ⅲ) the so-called 'extended' joint enterprise where one of the co-perpetrators actually engages in acts going beyond the common plan but his or her acts still constitute a 'natural and foreseeable consequence' of the realization of the plan.
Under ICC, a different criterion—control criterion, which combines subjective and objective elements, has been adopted to differentiate principals and accessories. According to this approach, only those who have control over the commission and are aware of having such control may be principals. Considering Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute together with the case law of ICC, persons acting in the following modes shall be imposed responsibility as principals:direct perpetration, indirect perpetration, co-perpetration, and indirect co-perpetration. Direct perpetrators physically carry out the objective elements of the offence; indirect perpetrators control the will of those who carry out the objective elements of the offence; co-perpetrators have, along with others, control over the offence by reason of the essential tasks assigned to them; indirect co-perpetrators have joint control with others over the crime by accomplishing the assigned essential tasks through others. The jurisprudence of ICC interprets the concept of indirect perpetration as including the indirect perpetrator committing the crime through another by means of control over an organization. Under all the modes of responsibility of principals, the perpetrators must carry out the subjective elements of the crime, and are aware of the factual circumstances enabling them to control the crime or control the crime jointly.
Chapter 3 elaborates Responsibility of Accessories for Crimes in Violation of International Humanitarian Law.
With respect to crimes in violation of international humanitarian law, an accessory incurs responsibility less severe than a principal.
Under ad hoc Tribunals, the forms of responsibility of accessories cover: planning, instigating, ordering and aiding and abetting. The planner designs an act or omission and his conduct substantially contributes to the perpetration of a crime; the instigator prompts another to engage in an act or omission and his conduct substantially contributes to the perpetration of a crime; under the mode of ordering the person instructs another person under his authority to engage in an act or omission and his conduct has a direct and substantial effect on perpetration of a crime. Under these three modes of responsibility, the person shall conduct with the direct and indirect intent that a crime be committed. The aidor and abettor intentionally lends practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support to the physical perpetrator, with the awareness of the crime and the perpetrator's mental state, and his conduct has a substantial effect on the commission of the crime.
Under ICC, the forms of responsibility of accessories are respectively stipulated in Article 25(3)(b)-(d) of the Rome Statute and their culpability descend accordingly.
The first grade of accessory responsibility is set in Article 25(3)(b) of the Rome Statute and embodies ordering, soliciting and inducing. Under these responsibility forms, the person respectively instructs, prompts or entices another to commit a crime, with the intent and knowledge that the crime be committed, and his conduct contributes to the commission of a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted.
The second grade of accessory responsibility is provided in Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute and enbraces aiding and abetting and otherwise assisting. Under these responsibility modes, the person provides practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support to the physical perpetrator of a commited or attempted crime, including providing the means for its commission, with the intent to facilitate the commission of s a crime.
The third grade of accessory responsibility is formulated in Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute and refers to the subsidiary form of accessory responsibility contributing to joint commission of a crime. Under this responsibility form, the person, in any other way than those listed in Article 25(3)(a)-(c) of the Rome Statute, contributes the joint commission or attemption of a crime, with the intent to further common criminal purpose or with the knowledge of common criminal purpose.
Acoording to the control criterion applied in ICC, an accessory has no control over the commission of a crime. However, so far as contribution is concerned, the triggering standard for accessory responsibility still need to be developed in the future jurisprudence of the court.
Chapter 4 discusses Responsibility for Omission for the Crimes in Violation of International Humanitarian Law-Superior Responsibility.
With respect to crimes in violation of international humanitarian law, superior responsibility derives from the superior's culpable omission and introduces a responsibility with lower threshold than both principal and accessory responsibility.
The roots of superior responsibility can be found in ancient international law and its rationale lies in the concept that the positions of superior entail duties. Due to the post second world war trials and the jurispreduce of ad hoc tribunals, the doctrine of superior responsibility has experienced great historical evolution. After the establishment of the ICC, its development continues.
Under ad hoc Tribunals, superior responsibility refers to the responsibility imposed on the superior, if he knew or had reason to know that his subordinates were commiting or about to commit a crime or had commited a crime, but failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his material ability to prevent the subordinates from or punish their for engaging in the criminal conduct in question.
Under ICC, military superior responsibility is differentiated from civil superior responsibility, the threshold of the former is lower than the latter. Military superior responsibility refers to the responsibility imposed on the military superior, if he knew or should have known that, as a result of his failure to exercise control properly, the forces under his effective control were committing or about to commit a crime, but failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter for investigation and prosecution. Civil superior responsibility refers to the responsibility imposed on the civil superior, if he knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that as a result of his failure to exercise control properly, the subordinates under his effective control were committing or about to commit a crime concerning activities within his effective responsibility and control, but failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter for investigation and prosecution.
The theme of Chapter 5 is Grounds for Excluding Individual Criminal Responsibility.
Grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility refer to a range of factors that justifies or excuses the person's act which has already produced harmful consequence.
The recognition of grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility by international criminal law is a requirement for maintaining justice and protecting the human rights of defendants.
Grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility can be differentiated as substantial ones and procedural ones. Substantial grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility consist of two categories:justification grounds and excusing grounds. The former covers legitimate defense, necessities and duress. The latter includes mental disease or defect, intoxication, mistake of fact and mistake of law, superior command and military necessity. Procedural grounds usually refer to such grounds preventing the investigation of the individual criminal responsibility as under-age, official capability and limitation etc.
论文共分五章。
第一章为违反国际人道法的犯罪与个人刑事责任。
国际法关于战争或武装冲突的规定包含两个部分,其一是有关国家诉诸战争权力的规定,其二是对作战方式和手段的规定。国际人道法属于后者,是指在武装冲突中保护战争受难者,并对作战的手段和方法加以限制的规则。它围绕“尊重和保护人权”、“限制作战方式”、“区分军事与民事目标”等原则构建规则体系,是在武装冲突中保护最基本人权的最后屏障。
严重违反国际人道法的行为对全人类的和平与安全造成极大破坏。为了与这些行为作斗争,国际法发展出了两大“有力武器”。一是将这些行为犯罪化；二是建立了个人刑事责任原则。
依据现行国际刑法,违反国际人道法的犯罪不仅是国际犯罪,而且属于“整个国际社会关注的最严重犯罪”和“国际核心罪行”的范畴。违反国际人道法的犯罪主要包括战争罪,以及在武装冲突中发生的危害人类罪与灭绝种族罪。
依据个人刑事责任原则,实施或参与违反国际人道法的犯罪,应负个人刑事责任。违反国际人道法犯罪的个人刑事责任的实质与个人意思自治相关。它是指具有相对意志自由的行为人,在具备适法行为选择可能性时,选择了违反国际人道法的行为,因而被国际刑法规范施加的非难可能性。在国际刑法中,罪行的成立与责任的成立并非同步。罪行的成立仅为责任提供了依据,责任的成立尚需满足积极的责任要件,并考察是否存在消极的责任排除理由。由于违反国际人道法犯罪的集体、广泛与系统犯罪的特点,此种罪行中个人刑事责任的确定成为了一个困难却至关重要的问题。为恰当处理归责问题,国际刑法建立了违反国际人道法犯罪的个人刑事责任等级体系,将责任分为正犯责任、共犯责任和不作为犯责任这三类责任程度依次递减的责任类别,每一类责任中均包含若干种具体的责任形式,而每一种责任形式均有其不同的要件。
第二章为违反国际人道法犯罪的正犯责任。
违反国际人道法犯罪的正犯责任是最严重的责任形式。
在特设国际刑事法庭中,正犯责任是“实施犯罪”的责任,包括直接实行与团伙共同犯罪两种具体的责任形式。虽然团伙共同犯罪并未在法庭的规约中出现,但是法庭的案例法认为此种责任形式包含在规约规定的“实施犯罪”的涵义之内,也存在于习惯国际法中。团伙共同犯罪责任是一种基于“共同目的”的责任：只要证明犯罪参与人有促成共同犯罪目的的故意,则不必考察他对该罪所起的确切作用,即可认定他对该罪承担正犯责任。团伙共同犯罪责任的运用,表明特设国际刑事法庭采纳主观标准来区分正犯与共犯。团伙共同犯罪包括基本型、系统型和扩展型三种。基本型团伙犯罪是指一伙人基于共同的犯罪故意,共同执行一项共同犯罪计划；系统型团伙共同犯罪是指一伙人明知拘留所或集中营的存在或性质,仍基于促进该组织犯罪目的的故意,在该组织内执行共同计划内的犯罪；扩展型团伙共同犯罪是指一伙人达成一项共同犯罪计划,其中一些人犯下的罪行虽然在共同犯罪目的之外,但属执行共同犯罪计划自然和可以预见的结果。
在国际刑事法院中,确定正犯责任的方法与特设国际刑事法庭不同。国际刑事法院采用了兼具客观因素与主观因素的控制标准来区分正犯与共犯,将控制了罪行的实施,并且知道自己拥有这种控制的人认定为正犯。根据《国际刑事法院规约》第25条第3款第1项的规定和国际刑事法院的案例法,正犯责任包括直接实行、间接实行、共同实行和间接共同实行责任。直接实行是指行为人实际实行了罪行的物质要件；间接实行是指行为人控制了实际实行了罪行物质要件的人的意志,从而控制了犯罪的实施；共同实行是指行为人通过完成分派给他的核心任务,与其他人一起控制罪行；间接共同实行是指行为人利用他人完成分派给他的核心任务,从而与其他人一起控制罪行。根据国际刑事法院的案例法,间接实行还包括行为人通过控制组织实施犯罪的形式。以上这些责任形式均要求行为人满足了所诉罪行的所有心理要件,且知道自己对犯罪拥有控制或共同控制。
第三章为违反国际人道法犯罪的共犯责任。
违反国际人道法犯罪的共犯责任轻于正犯责任。
在特设国际刑事法庭中,共犯责任包括计划、命令、唆使以及帮助与教唆的责任。计划犯罪是指行为人策划了一项行为,且他的行为实质性地促进了犯罪。唆使犯罪是指行为人促使他人执行一项行为,且他的行为实质上促进了罪行的实施。命令犯罪是指行为人向他人发出了执行一项行为的权威性指令,且他的行为直接和实质性地促进了罪行的实施。计划、唆使、命令责任均要求行为人有使罪行得到实施的直接故意或间接故意。帮助与教唆犯罪是指行为人知道实际实行人犯罪意图,却故意向实际实行人提供了实际的协助、鼓励或道德支持,且他的行为对实际实行人实施犯罪产生了实质影响。
在国际刑事法院中,共犯责任共有三个等级,分别规定于规约第25条第3款第2项至第4项,其责任程度逐级递减,体现出良好的体系性。
第一等级的共犯责任规定在规约第25条第3款第2项,包括命令、唆使、引诱犯罪的责任。命令犯罪是指行为人向他人发出一项实施犯罪的指令；唆使犯罪是指行为人敦促或促使他人实施犯罪；引诱犯罪是指行为人以某种利益诱使他人犯罪。在这三种情形中,行为人均有使犯罪实施的故意,他的行为对犯罪的实施有促进作用。此外,犯罪是否既遂对行为人的责任成立没有影响。
第二等级的共犯责任规定在规约第25条第3款第3项,包括帮助、教唆以及以其他方式协助犯罪的责任。帮助、教唆、协助犯罪是指行为人出于便利实施犯罪的目的,故意向一项犯罪或犯罪企图提供实际的协助、鼓励或道德支持等,包括为其提供犯罪工具,且他的行为对犯罪的实施或准备有促进。
第三等级的共犯责任规定在规约第25条第3款第4项,是指支助团伙犯罪的责任。这是一种兜底的共犯责任形式。支助团伙犯罪是指行为人为了促进团伙的共同犯罪目的,或者明知团体实施犯罪的意图,故意以规约第25条第3款第1-3项之外的方式支助团伙的一项共同犯罪,且对实施犯罪发挥了作用。
根据国际刑事法院适用的控制原则,共犯对罪行的实施没有控制,但是他们对罪行何种程度的促进才是对其施加责任的最低门槛,尚需法院在实践中加以明确。
第四章为违反国际人道法犯罪的不作为犯责任——上级责任。
违反国际人道法犯罪中的上级责任是由上级的消极不作为而引发的责任,它的责任程度较正犯责任与共犯责任更轻。
上级责任概念出现的历史较早,它的法理基础在于上级负有对下级进行有效控制与管理的义务。上级责任在二战后对德、日战犯的审判中被大量运用,并在特设国际刑事法庭和国际刑事法院中得到了进一步的发展。
特设国际刑事法庭中的上级责任是指上级事实上知道或者有理由知道下级即将实施、正在实施或已经实施犯罪,但其未能采取必要且合理的措施防止或惩罚下级的犯罪行为,由此而引发的责任。
国际刑事法院中的上级责任区分军事上级和平民上级,采取了不同的标准,前者的入责门槛低于后者。军事上级责任是在军事上级知道或者理应知道,由于他未适当行使控制,在他有效控制下的部队正在实施或即将实施犯罪,但他未采取权力范围内的一切必要而合理的措施,防止或制止犯罪的实施,或将罪行提交调查和起诉时,对他施加的责任。平民上级责任则是在平民上级未适当行使控制,导致在他有效控制下的下级犯下涉及他有效控制下活动的罪行,且未采取权力范围内的一切必要而合理的措施,防止或制止犯罪或将罪行提交调查和起诉时,对他施加的责任,前提是该上级人员知道下级人员正在实施或即将实施犯罪,或故意不理会明确反映这一情况的情报。
第五章为排除个人刑事责任的理由。
排除个人刑事责任的理由是指行为人的行为虽造成了一定的危害结果或已经具有造成一定危害结果的危险,但却因具备某种特定因素而不构成犯罪,或者因特定的事实因素的存在,而不应负刑事责任或不追究刑事责任的情况。国际刑法规定了排除个人刑事责任理由对维护正义、保障犯罪人人权有重要意义。
在国际刑法中,排除个人刑事责任的理由有实体性排除个人刑事责任的理由与程序性排除个人刑事责任理由之分。实体性排除个人刑事责任的理由又可分为行为正当化理由与责任减免理由。
在涉及违反国际人道法犯罪的情况下,排除个人刑事责任的行为正当化理由包括正当防卫、紧急避险。减免个人刑事责任的理由则包括精神障碍、醉态、事实错误与法律错误、上级命令和军事必要。程序性排除个人刑事责任的理由则有年龄因素、官方身份、时效等。
International humanitarian law is a set of rules which provides the most basic protection for persons in armed conflict and plays an important role in maintaining peace and security for all mankind. However, fragrant acts in violation of international humanitarian law and astounding humanitarian catastrophes have never disappeared. Such atrocities are serious deviation from the basic moral rules of human beings and unacceptable attack on the basic values of the worldl community. As a defensive response, international law classifies acts seriously violating international humanitarian law as international crimes and sets the principle of individual criminal responsibility as the legal basis for punishing these crimes. However, due to the implicit tension between the collective criminality of crimes in violation of international humanitarian law and the individualized criminal responsibility, precise attribution of criminal responsibility to each participant of such crimes has become a constant request. Relying on the abundant practice and enlightening case law of UN ad hoc Tribunals and International Criminal Court (ICC), this dissertation addresses certain pertinent issues concerning individual criminal responsibility for violation of international humanitarian law, including the essence of individual criminal responsibility, criteria for differentiating principals and accessories, elements of specific responsibility forms and grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility, and tries to give a few cues for tackling the difficult task of responsibility ascription.
The dissertation is composed of five chapters.
Chapter 1 is titled as Crimes in Violation of International Humanitarian Law and Individual Criminal Responsibility.
With respect to war or armed conflict, international law has developed two different but interrelated categories of law, i.e. jus ad bellum and jus in bello. International humanitarian law belongs to the latter category. It is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict and protect persons who are not or no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. It is constructed. on several essential principles such as 'respect for and protection of human rights','restriction on the means and methods of warfare' and 'differentiation between military and civil objects', and serves, in armed conflicts, as the last shield for the most fundamental human rights.
Offences in serious violation of international humanitarian law do great harm to the peace and security of human society. In order to fight with them, international law has two powerful weapons. One is the criminalization of these offences and the other is the establishment of the principle of individual criminal responsibility.
According to current international criminal law, crimes in violation of international humanitarian law are not only international crimes, but also belong to the scope of'the most serious crimes of concern to the international community' and 'core international crimes'. Generally speaking, crimes in violation of international humanitarian law consist of genocide crimes and crimes against humanity committed in armed conflict, and war crimes.
According to the principle of individual criminal responsibility, anyone who commits or participates in a crime in violation of international humanitarian law shall be imposed criminal responsibility. The essence of individual criminal responsibility for crimes in violation of international humanitarian law relates to autonomy of personal will. It refers to the impugnment imposed by international criminal law to a person of proper capacity for his choice of acts violating international humanitarian law, on the condition that at the time of action he actually has another choice which conforms to the law. In international criminal law, crime and responsibility shall be assessed separately. The establishment of a crime only provides a basis, for responsibility. If a crime is established, individual criminal responsibility can be set up, provided that he meets the elements of a specific mode of responsibility and lacks defenses which exclude his responsibility. Considering the collective, widespread and systematic context of crimes in violation of international humanitarian law, assigning of responsibility in such crimes is a difficult but crucial task. In order to resolve this problem, international criminal law has constructed a hierarchical system of responsibility, which includes three classes of responsibility, i.e. responsibility for principals, responsibility for accessories and responsibility for omission. Under this system, the responsibility descends by class. Each class consists of some specific forms of responsibility and each specific form of responsibility has different elements.
Chapter 2 explains Responsibility of Principals for Crimes in Violation of International Humanitarian Law.
With respect to crimes in violation of international humanitarian law, a principal shall assume the most severe responsibility.
Under ad hoc Tribunals, a principal is a person who 'committed' a crime of the Statute shall be individually responsible for the crime. In accordance to the case law of ad hoc Tribunals,'committing' encompasses not only physical perpetration of a crime, but also participation in a joint criminal enterprise (JCE), and JCE is a form of responsibility in customary international law, even though that term does not expressly appear anywhere in the Statute. JCE is a theory of common-purpose liability:it permits the imposition of individual criminal responsibility on an accused for his knowing and voluntary participation in a group acting with a common criminal purpose or plan. Ad hoc Tribunals'employment of the JCE theory demonstrates that they have adopted a subjective criterion to determine principals. The jurisprudence of the ad hoc Tribunals distinguished three categories of JCE:
(ⅰ) the basic form, where the participants act on the basis of a 'common design' or 'common enterprise' and with a common 'intention';
(ⅱ) the systemic form, i.e. the so-called concentration camp cases where crimes are committed by members of military or administrative units such as those running concentration or detention camps on the basis of a common plan;
(ⅲ) the so-called 'extended' joint enterprise where one of the co-perpetrators actually engages in acts going beyond the common plan but his or her acts still constitute a 'natural and foreseeable consequence' of the realization of the plan.
Under ICC, a different criterion—control criterion, which combines subjective and objective elements, has been adopted to differentiate principals and accessories. According to this approach, only those who have control over the commission and are aware of having such control may be principals. Considering Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute together with the case law of ICC, persons acting in the following modes shall be imposed responsibility as principals:direct perpetration, indirect perpetration, co-perpetration, and indirect co-perpetration. Direct perpetrators physically carry out the objective elements of the offence; indirect perpetrators control the will of those who carry out the objective elements of the offence; co-perpetrators have, along with others, control over the offence by reason of the essential tasks assigned to them; indirect co-perpetrators have joint control with others over the crime by accomplishing the assigned essential tasks through others. The jurisprudence of ICC interprets the concept of indirect perpetration as including the indirect perpetrator committing the crime through another by means of control over an organization. Under all the modes of responsibility of principals, the perpetrators must carry out the subjective elements of the crime, and are aware of the factual circumstances enabling them to control the crime or control the crime jointly.
Chapter 3 elaborates Responsibility of Accessories for Crimes in Violation of International Humanitarian Law.
With respect to crimes in violation of international humanitarian law, an accessory incurs responsibility less severe than a principal.
Under ad hoc Tribunals, the forms of responsibility of accessories cover: planning, instigating, ordering and aiding and abetting. The planner designs an act or omission and his conduct substantially contributes to the perpetration of a crime; the instigator prompts another to engage in an act or omission and his conduct substantially contributes to the perpetration of a crime; under the mode of ordering the person instructs another person under his authority to engage in an act or omission and his conduct has a direct and substantial effect on perpetration of a crime. Under these three modes of responsibility, the person shall conduct with the direct and indirect intent that a crime be committed. The aidor and abettor intentionally lends practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support to the physical perpetrator, with the awareness of the crime and the perpetrator's mental state, and his conduct has a substantial effect on the commission of the crime.
Under ICC, the forms of responsibility of accessories are respectively stipulated in Article 25(3)(b)-(d) of the Rome Statute and their culpability descend accordingly.
The first grade of accessory responsibility is set in Article 25(3)(b) of the Rome Statute and embodies ordering, soliciting and inducing. Under these responsibility forms, the person respectively instructs, prompts or entices another to commit a crime, with the intent and knowledge that the crime be committed, and his conduct contributes to the commission of a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted.
The second grade of accessory responsibility is provided in Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute and enbraces aiding and abetting and otherwise assisting. Under these responsibility modes, the person provides practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support to the physical perpetrator of a commited or attempted crime, including providing the means for its commission, with the intent to facilitate the commission of s a crime.
The third grade of accessory responsibility is formulated in Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute and refers to the subsidiary form of accessory responsibility contributing to joint commission of a crime. Under this responsibility form, the person, in any other way than those listed in Article 25(3)(a)-(c) of the Rome Statute, contributes the joint commission or attemption of a crime, with the intent to further common criminal purpose or with the knowledge of common criminal purpose.
Acoording to the control criterion applied in ICC, an accessory has no control over the commission of a crime. However, so far as contribution is concerned, the triggering standard for accessory responsibility still need to be developed in the future jurisprudence of the court.
Chapter 4 discusses Responsibility for Omission for the Crimes in Violation of International Humanitarian Law-Superior Responsibility.
With respect to crimes in violation of international humanitarian law, superior responsibility derives from the superior's culpable omission and introduces a responsibility with lower threshold than both principal and accessory responsibility.
The roots of superior responsibility can be found in ancient international law and its rationale lies in the concept that the positions of superior entail duties. Due to the post second world war trials and the jurispreduce of ad hoc tribunals, the doctrine of superior responsibility has experienced great historical evolution. After the establishment of the ICC, its development continues.
Under ad hoc Tribunals, superior responsibility refers to the responsibility imposed on the superior, if he knew or had reason to know that his subordinates were commiting or about to commit a crime or had commited a crime, but failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his material ability to prevent the subordinates from or punish their for engaging in the criminal conduct in question.
Under ICC, military superior responsibility is differentiated from civil superior responsibility, the threshold of the former is lower than the latter. Military superior responsibility refers to the responsibility imposed on the military superior, if he knew or should have known that, as a result of his failure to exercise control properly, the forces under his effective control were committing or about to commit a crime, but failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter for investigation and prosecution. Civil superior responsibility refers to the responsibility imposed on the civil superior, if he knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that as a result of his failure to exercise control properly, the subordinates under his effective control were committing or about to commit a crime concerning activities within his effective responsibility and control, but failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter for investigation and prosecution.
The theme of Chapter 5 is Grounds for Excluding Individual Criminal Responsibility.
Grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility refer to a range of factors that justifies or excuses the person's act which has already produced harmful consequence.
The recognition of grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility by international criminal law is a requirement for maintaining justice and protecting the human rights of defendants.
Grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility can be differentiated as substantial ones and procedural ones. Substantial grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility consist of two categories:justification grounds and excusing grounds. The former covers legitimate defense, necessities and duress. The latter includes mental disease or defect, intoxication, mistake of fact and mistake of law, superior command and military necessity. Procedural grounds usually refer to such grounds preventing the investigation of the individual criminal responsibility as under-age, official capability and limitation etc.
引文
1[英]劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》(下卷,第一分册),王铁崖、陈体强译,商务印书馆1989年版,第145页。
2 Stephen C. Neff, War and the Law of Nations:A General History, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.3.
3[美]理查德·塔克著：《战争与和平的权利》,罗炯等译,凤凰出版传媒集团、译林出版社2009年版,第21页。
4 Stephen C. Neff, War and the Law of Nations:A General History, Cambridge University Press,2005, pp.50-53.
1[法]孟德斯鸠著：《论法的精神》,张雁深译,商务印书馆2007年版,第91页。
2 Stephen C. Neff, War and the Law of Nations:A General History, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.95.
3[法]夏尔·卢梭著：《武装冲突法》,张凝等译,中国对外翻译出版公司1987年版,第12页。
4 Stephen C. Neff, War and the Law of Nations:A General History, Cambridge University Press,2005, pp.96-119.
5[英]劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》(下卷,第一分册),王铁崖、陈体强译,商务印书馆1989年版,第130页。
61899年和1907年《国际纠纷和平解决公约》第1条和第2条。参见世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版,第173-174页,第336页。
7《国际联盟盟约》在序言部分即开篇名义指出各缔约国承担不从事战争的义务,在第12条规定了会员国诉诸战争前应先将争议提交仲裁、司法解决或行政院审查,并在上述程序结束后3个月内不得从事战争,在第13条、第15条规定不得对遵守国际仲裁、司法判决会行政院报告的缔约国发动战争,第16条、第17条规定将会员国或非会员国不遵守盟约规定而从事战争的行为,视为对全体会员国的战争行为,国联行政院有权建议各会员国政府共同出兵,以维护盟约的执行。参见世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1917-1923),世界知识出版社1961年版,第266页,第270-273页。
1《巴黎非战公约》在序言部分、第1条和第2条均明确指出,各缔约国废弃战争作为实行国家政策的工具,所有争端或冲突只能用和平的方法加以解决。参见世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1924-1933),世界知识出版社1961年版,第373-374页。
2《联合国宪章》序言、第一章“宗旨及原则”,第六章“争端之和平解决”,第七章“对于和平之威胁、和平之破坏及侵略行为之应付办法”具体体现了对武力和武力威胁的禁止。参见世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第35-37页,第43-47页。
3[加]卡列维·霍尔蒂斯著：《和平与战争：16481989年的武装冲突与国际秩序》,王浦劬等译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第25-26页。
4张景恩著：《国际法与战争》,国防大学出版社1999年版,第11页。
5顾德欣编著：《战争法概论》,国防大学出版社1991年版,第10-11页。
1 Dietrich Schindler, Jiri Toman eds., Laws of Armed Conflicts:A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, Brill Academic Publishers,2004, p.92.
2海牙诸公约中,《关于建立国际捕获法院公约》即1907年海牙第12公约,未生效。
1朱文奇著：《国际人道法》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版,第38页。
2《关于战俘待遇的日内瓦公约》第2-4条。参见世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1924-1933),世界知识出版社1961年版,第401-402页。
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第258页、第283页、第309页、第378页。
4世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第258页、第283页、第309页、第378页。
5世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第258-259页、第283-284页、第309-310页、第378-379页。
6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255-259页。
7《第二议定书》第13条“对平民居民的保护”,参见赵永琛编：《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第265页。
8《第二附加议定书》第14条“对平民居民生存所不可缺少的物体的保护”,参见赵永琛编：《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第265页。
1《第二附加议定书》第15条“对含有危险力量的工程和装置的保护”,参见赵永琛编：《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第266页。
2《第二附加议定书》第17条“对强迫平民迁徙的禁止”,参见赵永琛编：《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第266页。
3俞正山：《国际人道法的界定及其与战争法、武装冲突法的等同问题》,载《西安政治学院学报》第22卷第6期(2009年12月),第81页。
4王虎华：《国际人道法的定义》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》第23卷第2期(2005年3月),第142页。
5 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, Sixth Edition, Cambridge University Press,2008, p.1167.
6邵沙平主编：《国际法》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版,第567页；杨泽伟著：《国际法析论》,中国人民大学出版社2003年版,第61页。
7[韩]柳炳华著：《国际法》(下卷),朴国哲等译,中国政法大学出版社1997年版,第411页。
8王铁崖主编：《中华法学大辞典·国际法学卷》,中国检察出版社1996年版,第488页。
I.C.J., Legality of the Threat or Use of Unclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,8 July 1996, para.75.
红十字国际委员会：《什么是国际人道法?》,http://www.icrc.org/Web/chi/sitechiO.nsf/html/humanitarian-law-factsheet,(访问日期：2010年11月8日)。
3让·皮克泰：《国际人道法的原则》,王海平译,载朱文奇主编：《国际人道法文选2004》,法律出版社2006年版,第1页。
4例如,1949年《日内瓦公约》共同第3条规定：“在一缔约国之领土内发生非国际性之武装冲突之场合,冲突之各方最低限度应遵守下列规定：(一)不实际参加战事之人员,包括放下武器之武装部队人员及因病、伤、拘留、或其他原因而失去战斗力之人员在内,在一切情况下应予以人道待遇,不得基于种族、肤色、宗教或信仰、性别、出身或财力或其他类似标准而有所歧视。因此,对于上述人员,不论何时何地,不得有下列行为：(甲)对生命与人身施以暴力,特别如各种谋杀、残伤肢体、虐待及酷刑；(乙)作为人质；
5例如,1868年《圣彼得堡宣言》在序言性质的条款中指出：“……各国在战争中应尽力实现的唯一合法目标是削弱敌人的军事力量；为了这一目标,应满足于使最大限度数量的敌人失去战斗力；由于武器的使用无益地加剧失去战斗力的人的痛苦或使其死亡不可避免,将会超越这一目标……”。
1 Robert Kolb, Richard Hyde, An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts, Hart Publishing,2008, pp.153-154.
2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239页。
3 I.C.J., Legality of the Threat or Use of Unclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,8 July 1996, para.78.
5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240页。
4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232页。
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232-233页。
2 Robert Kolb, Richard Hyde, An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts, Hart Publishing,2008, p.153.
3 Adam Roberts, The Equal Application of the Laws of War:a Principle under Pressure, International Review of the Red Cross, No.872, p.932.
Marco Sassoli, Ius ad Bellum and lus in Bello - The Separation between the Legality of the Use of Force and Humanitarian Rules to Be Respected in Warfare:Crucial or Outdated? In Michael N. Schmitt, Jelena Pejic eds., International Law and Armed Conflict:Exploring the Faultlines, Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007, p.252.
5世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第258页、第283页、第309页、第378页。
6世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第258页、第283页、第309页、第378页。
7世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第258-259页、第283-284页、第309-310页、第378-379页。
8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255-259页。
1[法]卢梭著：《社会契约论》,何兆武译,商务印书馆2005年版,第14-15页。
2 Marco Sassoli, Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello - The Separation between the Legality of the Use of Force and Humanitarian Rules to Be Respected in Warfare:Crucial or Outdated? In Michael N. Schmitt, Jelena Pejic eds., International Law and Armed Conflict:Exploring the Faultlines, Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007, p.255.
世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版,第187页。
4参见1977年《第一附加议定书》第1条第2款,1977年《第二附加议定书》序言,1980年《联合国常规武器公约》序言。
1近年来,红十字国际委员会一直致力于适用于国际性与非国际性武装冲突的国际人道法习惯规则的研究与编纂,并于2005年出版了它的研究成果,对进一步促进国际人道法的传播、研究与推广意义重大。红十字国际委员会的研究成果分两卷,分别为Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume Ⅰ (Rules), Cambridge University Press,2005和Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume Ⅱ (Practice), Cambridge University Press,2005.
2世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第259页、第284页、第311-312页、第380页。
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第260页、第285页、第312页、第380页。
1 Hans-Joachim Heintze, On the Relationship between Human Rights Law Protection and International Humanitarian Law, International Review of the Red Cross, No.856,31 December 2004, p.789.
2 Jean Pictet, Humanitarian Law and the Protection of War Victims, Sijtoff/Henry Duant Institute,1975, p.15, Cited from Danio Campanelli, The law of Military Occupation Put to the Test of Human Rights Law, International Review of the Red Cross, No.871, p.653.
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916)，世界知识出版社1986年版,第361-362页。
4 Hans-Joachim Heintze, On the Relationship between Human Rights Law Protection and International Humanitarian Law, International Review of the Red Cross, No.856, p.791.
1 I.C.J., Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,9 July 2004, paras.101,111-113.
2 I.C.J., Legality of the Threat or Use of Unclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,8 July 1996, para.25.
3 I.C.J., Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,9 July 2004, para.106.
4 Michael J. Matheson, The Opinions of the International Court of Justice on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, American Journal of International Law, Vol.91, No.3,1997, p.423, cited from Hans-Joachim Heintze, On the Relationship between Human Rights Law Protection and International Humanitarian Law, International Review of the Red Cross, No.856, p.797.
5 I.C.J., Legality of the Threat or Use of Unclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,8 July 1996, para.25.
6贾宇著：《国际刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第84页。
1 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-verlag Berlin Heldelberg,2008, p.57.
2 M. C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, Transnational Publishers. Inc.,2003. p.114-115.
3 M. C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, Transnational Publishers. Inc.,2003, p.115.
4 M. C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, Transnational Publishers. Inc.,2003. pp.116-117.
5 Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press,2003, pp.23-25.
1王世洲主编：《现代国际刑法学原理》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版,第233-234页。
2[日]日本国际法学会编：《国际法辞典》,中文版总校订：外交学院国际法教研室,世界知识出版社1985年版,第489页。
Win-chiat Lee, International Crimes and Universal Jurisdiction, in Larry May ed., International Criminal Law and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press,2009, p.8.
4邵沙平著：《现代国际刑法教程》,武汉大学出版社1993年版,第88页。
5张智辉著：《国际刑法通论》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第104页。
6林欣主编：《国际刑法问题研究》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版,第17页。
7贾宇著：《国际刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第87页。
8马呈元著：《国际刑法论》,中国政法大学出版社2008年版,第248页。
1A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第13页。
2A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第14页,第(4)段。
3马呈元著：《国际刑法论》,中国政法大学出版社,2008年版,第240页。
4 H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law, Oxford University Press,1961, pp.97-107.
1 J. Spiropoulos (Special Rapporteur), Formulation of Nuremberg Principles, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission,1950, Vol.Ⅱ, p.191.
2 A/37/10(SUPP), Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Thirty-first Session,14 August1979,p.244；亦可参见赵永琛编：《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社,1999年版,第671页。
3A/51/22(SUPP)(Vol.Ⅰ),《设立国际刑事法院问题筹备委员会的报告(第一卷)》,1996年9月13日,第51段。
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第5页。
1 M. C. Bassiouni. Introduction to International Criminal Law. Transnational Publishers. Inc.,2003. pp.686.701.
2 Robert Cryer, Hakan Friman, Darryl Robinson and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.60.
3 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.60.
4 M. C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, Transnational Publishers, Inc.,2003, p.170; Robert Cryer, Hakan Friman, Darryl Robinson and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.61
5 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.60.
6陈兴良：《犯罪构成论：从四要件到三阶层——个学术史的考察》,《中外法学》,2010年第1期,第49页。
1马克昌：《简评三阶层犯罪论体系》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》,2009年第3卷·总第19卷,法律出版社2009年版,第14页。
2[日]大塚仁著,《犯罪论的基本问题》,冯军译,中国政法大学出版社1993年版,第51页。
马克昌：《简评三阶层犯罪论体系》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》,2009年第3卷·总第19卷,法律出版社2009年版,第14页。
4[日]小野清一郎著：《犯罪构成要件理论》,王泰译,中国人民公安大学出版社1991年版,第12页。
马克昌：《简评三阶层犯罪论体系》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》,2009年第3卷·总第19卷,法律出版社2009年版,第18-19页。
6马克昌：《简评三阶层犯罪论体系》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》,2009年第3卷·总第19卷,法律出版社2009年版,第21-22页。
7[德]克劳斯·罗克辛：《德国犯罪原理的发展与现代趋势》,王世洲译,《法学家》,2007年第1期,第154-156页。
8陈兴良：《犯罪构成论：从四要件到三阶层——一个学术史的考察》,《中外法学》,2010年第1期,第50页。
9[日]小野清一郎著：《犯罪构成要件理论》,王泰译,中国人民公安大学出版社1991年版,第9页。
1[日]福田平、大塚仁编：《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔、文石、周世铮译,辽宁人民出版社1986年版,第43-44页。
2[英]J·C·史密斯,B·霍根著：《英国刑法》,李贵方等译,法律出版社2000年版,第35-37页。
3[英]J·C·史密斯,B·霍根著：《英国刑法》,李贵方等译,法律出版社2000年版,第215页。
4储槐植著：《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社1987年版,第216-217页。
5孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社2007年版,第303-304页。
1[法]雅克·博里康：《法国的犯罪-犯罪人二元论体系介绍》,朱琳译,《法学杂志》2006年第6期,第138页。
2孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第1l卷,法律出版社2007年版,第304-305页。
3孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社2007年版,第305-312页。
4 George P. Fletcher, Criminal Theory in the Twentieth Century, Theoretical Inquries in Law, January 2001, p.269,转引自维泽昆：《三阶层犯罪构成体系：一个域外经验的反思与质疑》,第32卷第2期,2010年3月,第169页。
5孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社2007年版,第313页。
6陈兴良：《犯罪构成论：从四要件到三阶层——一个学术史的考察》,《中外法学》,2010年第1期,第51页。
7[苏]A·H·特拉伊宁,《犯罪构成的一般学说》,王作富等译,中国人民大学出版社1958年版,第51页。
8[苏]A·H·特拉伊宁,《犯罪构成的一般学说》,王作富等译,中国人民大学出版社1958年版,第51页、第99-100页。
1陈兴良：《犯罪构成论：从四要件到三阶层——一个学术史的考察》,《中外法学》,2010年第1期,第52页。
2高铭暄：《论四要件犯罪构成理论的合理性暨对中国刑法学体系的坚持》,《中国法学》2009年第2期,第6页。
3 M. C. Bassiouni, A draft International Criminal Code and Draft Statute for an International Tribunal, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1987, pp.100-101,转引自马呈元著：《国际刑法论》,中国政法大学出版社2008年版,第253页。
4贾宇著：《国际刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第96页。
1[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第112-113页。
2[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第115页。
3[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第113页。
4马呈元著：《国际刑法论》,中国政法大学出版社2008年版,第251-261页；张智辉著：《国际刑法通论》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第114-125页。
5贾宇著：《国际刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第97页；甘雨沛、高格：《国际刑法学新体系》,北京大学出版社2000年版,第115页。
6黄风、凌岩、王秀梅著：《国际刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版,第114-115页；刘亚平著：《国际刑法与国际犯罪》,群众出版社1986年版,第97页。
王秀梅主编：《国际刑法学研究述评(1978-2008)》,北京师范大学出版社2009年版,第79页。
1[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第113页。
2 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Elements of Crimes under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2008, pp.9-13.
3A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第5页,第6-7页,第7-12页。
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第23页。
5A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第12页。
1A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日，第20-21页。
2A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第22页。
3A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第23-24页。
4第32条规定,事实错误和法律错误仅在否定构成犯罪所需的心理要件时,才作为排除个人刑事责任的理由的限制性条件。第33条规定,仅在行为人有服从有关政府或上级命令的法律义务、该人不知道命令为不法的且命令的不法性不明显时,上级命令和法律规定才可以作为排除个人刑事责任的理由。参见A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24-25页。
5这三个案件分别是刚果民主共和国局势中的托马斯·卢班加·迪伊洛案(Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007)刚果民主共和国局势中的热尔曼·加丹加和马蒂厄·恩乔洛·楚伊案(Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 30 September 2008);中非共和国局势中的让-皮埃尔·本巴·贡博案(Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, 15 June 2009)。
6 Eve La Haye, War Crimes in Internal Armed Conflicts, Cambridge University Press,2008, p.105.
7 Jose Doria, Hans-Peter Gasser, M. Cherif Bassiouni, The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2009, p.3.
1世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版,第196页。
2世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版,第199页。
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版,第187页；世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版,第401页。
4 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.65.
5世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1917-1923),世界知识出版社1961年版,第157页。
6同上。
7顾德欣编著：《战争法概论》,国防大学出版社1991年版,第202页。
8梅汝璈著：《远东国际军事法庭》,法律出版社、人民法院出版社2005年版,第5-6页。
9世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第97页。
1-COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第8页。
1但这些武器、射弹、装备和作战方法应当已被全面禁止,并已依照规约的规定以一项修正案的形式列入本规约的一项附件内。
2A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第8-10页。
3A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第10页。
1A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第10-11页。
2ICC-ASP/1/3,《国际刑事法院罗马规约缔约国大会第一届会议正式记录》(中文本),2002年9月3日至10日,第116页。
3违反人道罪和危害人类罪的英文均为‘'crimes against humanity",两者只是翻译上的差别。
4世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第97页。
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692页。
2凌岩著：《卢旺达国际刑事法庭的理论与实践》,世界知识出版社2010年版,第35页。
3 J. Spiropoulos (Special Rapporteur), Formulation of Nuremberg Principles, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission,1950, Vol.Ⅱ, pp.193-195.
1S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第14、40页。
2S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第14页,第47-48段。
3S/RES/955(1994),《安全理事会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第4页。
4 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, paras.248,251; Prosecutor v.
1A/COE183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第6页。
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76页。
3ICC-ASP/1/3,《国际刑事法院罗马规约缔约国大会第一届会议正式记录》(中文本),2002年9月3日至10日,第108页。
4ICC-ASP/1/3,《国际刑事法院罗马规约缔约国大会第一届会议正式记录》(中文本),2002年9月3日至10日,第108页。
5ICC-ASP/1/3,《国际刑事法院罗马规约缔约国大会第一届会议正式记录》(中文本),2002年9月3日至10日,第108页。
6 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.45.
1 A/RES/96(Ⅰ), The Crime of Genocide,21 December 1946.
2 A/RES/260(Ⅲ), Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,9 December 1948.
3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301页。
4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301页。
5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301-302页。
I. C. J., Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion,28 May 1951, p.23.
2S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第13、39-40页
3S/RES/955(1994),《安全理事会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第3-4页
4 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Appeal Judgment,19 April 2004, para.34; Prosecutor v. Simba, Case No. ICTR-01-76-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,13 December 2005, para.413; Prosecutor v. Simba, Case No. ICTR-01-76-A, Appeal Judgement and Sentence,27 November 2007, para.264 Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, paras.61-63; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.167; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1 A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.63; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.313; Prosecutor v. Muhimana, Case No. ICTR-95-1B-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,28 April 2005, para.496; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.8; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.40.
A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第5页。
2马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第395页。
1[日]福田平、大塚仁编：《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔、文石、周世铮译,辽宁人民出版社1986年版,第111页。
2[日]西田典之著：《日本刑法中的责任概念》,金光旭译,载冯军主编：《比较刑法研究》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版,第10页。
3马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第397页。
4赵秉志主编：《外国刑法原理》(大陆法系),中国人民大学出版社2000年版,第146页。
5马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第398-399页。
1马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第399-400页。
2[英]维克托·塔德洛斯著：《刑事责任论》,谭淦译,中国人民大学出版社2009年版,第22页。
3 Antony Duff, Criminal Attempts, Oxford University Press,1996, p.189.
1 H.L.A.Hart, Punishment and Responsibility:Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press,2nd edition,2008, p.152.
孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社2007年版,第314页。
3孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社2007年版,第313页。
1 M. C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, Transnational Publishers, Inc.,2003, pp.676-677, 690.
2 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.14.
3赵永琛著：《国际刑法与司法协助》,法律出版社1994年版,第90页。
4甘雨沛、高格著：《国际刑法学新体系》北京大学出版社2000年版,第135页。林欣主编：《国际刑法问题研究》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版,第135页。
5张智辉著：《国际刑法通论》(增补本),中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第135页。
6王秀梅著：《国际刑事法院研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版,第321页。黄风、凌岩、王秀梅著：《国际刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版,第107页。
7黄芳著：《国际犯罪国内立法研究》,中国方正出版社2001年版,第25-26页。
1周露露著：《当代国际刑法基本原则研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版,第127页。
2马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第392页。
3马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第393页。
4[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社1999年版,第276页。
1周露露著：《当代国际刑法基本原则研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版,第133-134页。
Ⅰ. Tallgren, The Sense and Sensibility of International Criminal Law, (2002) 13 EJIL 575, cited from Harmen Van Der Wilt, Andre Nollkaemper, Menno Dolman, Jann Kleffner eds., System Criminality in International Law, Cambridge University Press,2009, p.5.
2 Andre Nollkaemper,'Introduction', in Harmen Van Der Wilt, Andre Nollkaemper, Menno Dolman, Jann Kleffner ed., System Criminality in International Law, Cambridge University Press,2009, p.5
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第6页。
3 Ibid., p.6.
5世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第98页。
6世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第98页。
1 Antonio Cassese International Criminal Law Oxford University Press, 2003, pp.137-138.
A/CN.4/490/Add.1,《关于国家责任的第一次报告(增编1):特别报告员:詹姆斯.克劳福德先生》(中
2 Antonio Cassese,International Criminal Law,Oxford University Press,2003,p.136.文版),1998年5月2日,第2页,第43段。
4A/CN.4/488,《国家责任：各国政府提出的评论和意见》(中文本),1998年3月25日,第48页(奥地利对第19条的评论)、51页(爱尔兰对第19条的评论),第55页(联合王国对第19条的评论),第56页(美国对第19条的评论),118页(德国对第二部分第四章的评论)。
5A/CN.4/488,《国家责任：各国政府提出的评论和意见》(中文本),1998年3月25日,第50页(法国对第19条的评论),第54页(瑞士对第19条的评论)。
6A/CN.4/488,《国家责任：各国政府提出的评论和意见》(中文本),1998年3月25日,第53页(爱尔兰对第19条的评论)。
A/CN.4/488,《国家责任：各国政府提出的评论和意见》(中文本),1998年3月25日,第57页(美国对第19条的评论),118页(德国对第二部分第四章的评论)。
8A/CN.4/488,《国家责任：各国政府提出的评论和意见》(中文本),1998年3月25日,第49页(丹麦代表北欧各国[芬兰、冰岛、挪威、瑞典和丹麦]对第19条的评论)。
9A/CN.4/488,《国家责任：各国政府提出的评论和意见》(中文本),1998年3月25日,第54页(蒙古对 第19条的评论)。
1A/CN.4/490/Add.1,《关于国家责任的第一次报告(增编1)：特别报告员：詹姆斯·克劳福德先生》(中文版),1998年5月2日,第8-9页。
2 United States et al v. Hermann Wilhelm Goring et al in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg,14 November 1945-1 October 1946 (1947) Vol 22,217th day, p.466, Cited from David A. Blumenthal, Timothy L. H. McCormack eds., The Legacy of Nuremberg:Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007, p.103.
3 Andre Nollkaemper,'Introduction', in Harmen Van Der Wilt, Andre Nollkaemper, Menno Dolman, Jann Kleffner ed., System Criminality in International Law, Cambridge University Press,2009, p.3.
4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,第146页；Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.123; Michael J. Kelly and Timothy L.H. McCormack, Contributions of the Nuremberg Trial to the Subsequent Development of International Law, in David A. Blumenthal, Timothy L. H. McCormack eds., The Legacy of Nuremberg:Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007, pp.103-104.
1 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgment,15 July 1999, para.191.
2世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第97页。
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第97页。
4[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第142页,注释157。 Crimes Against Humanity as Indirect Perpetrator by Virtue of an Organized Power Apparatus,9 J. Int'1 Crim. Just. 137, March,2011, FN51.
1 Kai Ambos, The Fujimori Judgment:A President's Responsibility for Crimes Against Humanity as Indirect Perpetrator by Virtue of an Organized Power Apparatus,9 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.137, March,2011, p.146.
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, paras.342-346.
3 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.115.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.326; Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.480; Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.210.
5 Gerhard Werle and Boris Burghardt, Foreword (of Symposium:Indirect Perpetration:A Perfect Fit for International Prosecution of Armchair Killers?),9 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.85, March,2011, p.88.
6 Ibid.
7参见江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,第53-71页；陈兴良：《共同犯罪论》,《现代法学》第23卷第3期,2001年6月,第50-51页。
8参见江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,第53-56页；陈兴良：《共同犯罪论》,《现代法学》第23卷第3期,2001年6月,第50页。
1参见江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,第57-58页；陈兴良：《共同犯罪论》,《现代法学》第23卷第3期,2001年6月,第51页。
2参见江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,第59-60页；陈兴良：《共同犯罪论》,《现代法学》第23卷第3期,2001年6月,第51页。
3江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,第64页。
4参见江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,第67-68页：陈兴良：《共同犯罪论》,《现代法学》第23卷第3期,2001年6月,第51页。
5 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.601; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdamic, Case No. IT-99-37-AR72, Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction-Joint Criminal Enterprise,21 May 2003, para.20; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.73; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement, 25 February 2004, para.95; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.258; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.696; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 February 2005,
Kai Ambos, The Fujimori Judgment:A President's Responsibility for Crimes Against Humanity as Indirect Perpetrator by Virtue of an Organized Power Apparatus,9 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.137, March,2011, p.146.
2 Stefano Manacorda and Chantal Meloni, Indirect Perpetration versus Joint Criminal Enterprise:Concurring Approaches in the Practice of International Criminal Law? 9 J. Int'1 Crim. Just., March,2011, p.162.
1 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.2.
受害人B在该判决书中,被称为证人D,因为该人在该案的审判程序中充当了证人。参见Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.41.
该名士兵在该判决书中,被称为被告B。参见Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No.IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement, 10 December 1998, para.74.
4 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.38.
5 Prosecutor v. Furundziia, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.130.
6 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.189.
7 Prosecutor v. Furundziia, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.216.
8 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.249.
1 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, paras.267-269.
2 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, paras.273-275.
4 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Appeal Judgement,21 July 2000, para.120.
3 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Appeal Judgement,21 July 2000, para.86.
5 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Trial Judgement,7 May 1997, paras.180-188.
6 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Trial Judgement,7 May 1997, paras.342,344,369.
7 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Trial Judgement,7 May 1997, paras.373,375,386.
8 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Trial Judgement,7 May 1997,para.760.
1 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, paras.172,174.
2 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.175.
3 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.183.
4 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, paras.187-188.
5 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.194.
6 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, paras.197,200,202-204.
1 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.220.
2 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A. Anneal Judgement,15 July 1999, nara.232.
3 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, paras.235-237.
4 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.601; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdamic, Case No. IT-99-37-AR72, Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction-Joint Criminal Enterprise,21 May 2003, para.20; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.73; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement, 25 February 2004, para.95; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.258; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.696; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 February 2005, para.79; Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement,17 March 2009, para.662; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1860; Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004, para.468; Prosecutor v. Simba, Case No. ICTR-01-76-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,13 December 2005, para.385.
5 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdamic, Case No. IT-99-37-AR72, Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction-Joint Criminal Enterprise,21 May 2003, para.29; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.95; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, paras.363-364; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1021.
1 Prosecutor v. Brdanin. Case No. IT-99-36-T, Decision on Motion for Aauittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis,28
2 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, paras.4,1 November 2003, para.57.
3 Prosecutor v. Brdanin Case No. IT-99-36-A Decision on Interlocutory Anneal, 19 March 2004 para. 5
(?) Prosecutor v. Rwamakuma, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR72.4, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding
4 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, para.6. Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide,22 October 2004, para.3.
(?) Prosecutor v. Rwamakuma, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR72.4, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide,22 October 2004, para.14.
该案为United States v. Altstoetter, Von Ammon, Bamickel, Cuhorst, Enger, Joel, Klemm, Lautz, Mettgenbert, Nebelung, Oeschey, Petersen, Rothaug, Rothenberger, Schlegelberger and Westphal,3 Trials of War criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No.10 (1953), ("Justice Case").
(?)Prosecutor v. Rwamakuma, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR72.4, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide,22 October 2004, paras.14,16,19-22,31-32.
1 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.28.
2 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, paras.111-112.
3 Antonio Cassese, The Proper Limits to Individual Responsibility Under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise,5 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.109, March 2007, p.110.
4凌岩著：《卢旺达国际刑事法庭的理论与实践》,世界知识出版社2010年版,第198页。
Antonio Cassese, The Proper Limits to Individual Responsibility Under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise,5 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.109, March 2007, p.110. February 2009, para.102; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1024; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1862.
1 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Appeal Judgement,21 July 2000, para.120.
2 Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.721.
3 Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No.IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.158; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.353.
4 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, para.430; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1024.
5 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.199, n.243; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010. para.1024.
6 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, para.410; Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement,17 March 2009, para.163; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1028; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1862.
'Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal, Judgement,17 March 2009, para.163; Prosecutor v. November 2005, para.511; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.65; Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, Trial Judgement,27 September 2006, para.883; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1022; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1864; Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004, para.467; Prosecutor v. Simba, Case No. ICTR-01-76-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,13 December 2005, para.388.
1 Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend,26 June 2001, para.31; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, para.110; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.65.
2 Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement,17 March 2009, para.697; Prosecutor v Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1864.
3 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, para.83; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.160.
4 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, para.69; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.160; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.102; Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004, para.49.
5 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No.IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.288.
6 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, para.110.
7 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, para.487; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para. 111; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.997; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2009, para.109.
1 Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement,17 March 2009, para.226; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1029.
2 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, para.362; Prosecutor v. Popo Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1029.
3 Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement,17 March 2009, paras.225-226; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1029.
4 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, para.413; Prosecutor v Martic, Case No. IT-95-11-A, Appeal Judgment,8 October 2008, para.168; Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement,17 March 2009, para.226; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic. Case No. IT-05-88-T. Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1029.
5 Kai Ambos, Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility,5 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.159, March,2007, p.161; Stefano Manacorda and Chantal Meloni, Indirect Perpetration versus Joint Criminal Enterprise:Concurring Approaches in the Practice of International Criminal Law? 9 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.159, March,2011, p.162.
6 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgment,15 July 1999, paras.203,228.
7 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 20 para.272; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.32; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.157; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.101; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1864; Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004, para.467.
8 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, para.198; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.511.
1 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, Dara.203.
Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, paras.324,384; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburarv 2005. para.201.
3 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgment,15 July 1999, para.228; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.89; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.157; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.101; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.511; Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004, para.467.
4 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.372; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, paras.174,202.
5 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999,para.203. 0 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.228.
'Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend,26 June 2001, para.27.有意思的是,该案的审判庭在该段中引用Tadic案的上诉判决来支持它的观点,但是显然Tadic案的上诉庭在这个问题上持有不同的意见。
1 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, paras.3-10.
2 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, para.78.
3 Prosecutor v. Krnoielac. Case No. IT-97-25-T. Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, paras.127.170.313-314.346. 487
4 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, paras.172,318.
5 Prosecutor v. Krnoielac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.84.
(?)Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.94.
6 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, paras.89,96.
8 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.111.
9 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, paras.112-113. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December
10 Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.101; Prosecutor v. 2004,para.467.
11 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, para.82; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.65; Prosecutor (?) Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1864.
12 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para. 111; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.288; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, nara.110.
1 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.220.
2 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.228.
3 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgment,26 February 2001, para.398; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.32; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.101; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 February 2005, para.83; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2009, para.110; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1865; Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004, para.467.
4 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.220.
5 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.228.
1 Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend,26 June 2001, para.30.
2 Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend,26 June 2001, para.31.
3 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.613.
4 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.615.
5 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.616.
6 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.617.
7 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Appeal Judgement,19 April 2004, para.149.
8 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T,Trial Judgement,29 October 2003, para.436; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.101; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, paras.265; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No.IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.703; Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004, para.467.
(?) Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, paras.5-6; Prosecutor v. Milosevic, Case No. IT-02-54-T, Decision on Motion for Judgement of Acquittal,16 June 2004, para.290; prosecutor v. Milutmovic, bamovic, Ojdanic,pavkovic, Lazarevic and Lukic, Case No.IT-05-87-1, Inal Judgement,26 February 2009, para.111.
1 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004, para.33.
2 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, para.83; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.511.
3 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, para.411; Prosecutor v Martic, Case No. IT-95-11-T, Trial Judgement,12 June 2007, para.439; Prosecutor v Martic, Case No. IT-95-11-A, Appeal Judgment,8 October 2008, para.83; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1030.
4 Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, paras.1865,1867.
5 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.65.
6 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.87.
7 Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, Trial Judgement,27 September 2006, para.882.
1 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement,29 October 2003, para.530.
2 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Decision on Motion for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis 28 November 2003, paras.30,32,57.
3 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, para.6.
4 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, para.10.
5 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Tri Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1031.
6 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, paras.5-7; Prosecutor V. Ponovic. Beara Nikolic Rorovcanin Miletic Gvero and Pandurevic Case No IT-05-88-T Trial
7 Prosecutor v. Brdanin. Case No. IT-99-36-A. Decision on Interlocutory Anneal.19 March 2004, paras 6 9(?) Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1031. Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic. Gvero and Pandurevic. Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1031.
8 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, para.5: Prosecutor v. Krstic. Case No. IT-98-33-A. Anneal Judgement 19 Anril 2004, para .150 .Prosecutory Milntinovic Sainovic. Oidanic. Pavkovic. Lazarevic and Lukic Case No IT-05-87-T ,Trial Judgement, 26 Febrnary 2009, para.112.
1 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, paras.2-9.
2 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.10.
3 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.341.
1 Prosecutor v. Rrdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial judgment,1 Sentemher 2004, paras.345-347.
2 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial judgment,1 September 2004, paras.346.
3 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-PT, Fourth Amended Indictment,10 April 2002, para.26.
5 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.427.但是在上诉判决中,上诉庭
4 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-PT, Fourth Amended Indictment,10 April 2002, para.28.认为检察官仅依据第一类和第三类团伙共同犯罪责任指控被告犯下所诉罪行。参见Prosecutor v. Stakic. Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.66.
6 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.432.
Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.438.
2 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.439.
3 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.439, note 942.
4 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.440.
5 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.440.
6 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.440.
7 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.441.
8 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.441, note 950.
1 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.108.
2 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.442.
3 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.468.
4 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, paras.470,475.
5 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.472.
6 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, paras.484,488.
7 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.490.
8 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.496.
9 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.498.
10 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.616.
11 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.661.
12 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, p.253.
Prosecutor v. Tolimir, Miletic, Gvero, Pandurevic, Beara, Popovic, Nikolic, Trbic and Borovcanin, Case No. IT-05-88-PT, Consolidated Amended Indictment,28 June 2005, para.88; Prosecutor v. Prlic, Stojic, Praljak, Petkovic, Coric and Pusic, Case No. IT-04-74-PT, Amended Indictment,16 November 2005, para.15; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Prosecution's Notice of Filing Amended Joinder Indictment and Motion to Amend the Indictment with Annexes,16 August 2005, paras.20-22.
2 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, para.2.
3 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, paras.7,30.
4 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, para.14.
Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, para.15.
1 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, para.37.
2 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, para.39.
3 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, paras.40,42.
4 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.59.
5 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.59.
6 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.62.
7 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.63.
1 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A. Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.63.
2 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A. Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.66.
3 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, paras.73-78.
4 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.80.
5 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.84.
6 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.104.
7 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.92.
8 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, paras.98,104.
9 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.6.
10 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.259.
11 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.261.
12 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.172,259,261.
1 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi. Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004. paras.246.264.
3 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi. Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004. paras.284-286.288.
2 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.285.
4 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, paras.259,262,287.
5 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, paras.290,293,334.
6 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, paras.295,334.
7 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.4.
8 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.38.
9 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.46.
10 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi. Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A. Anneal Judgement,7 Julv 2006. para.44.
11 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi. Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A. Anneal Judgement,7 Julv 2006. para.45.
12沙哈布丁Shahabuddeen)法官和朔姆堡Schomburg)去官对此持有异议。
13 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.50.
14刘大群法官和梅隆(Meron)法官对此持有异议。
15 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi. Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A. Anneal Judeement,7 Julv 2006. para.58.
17 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.59.
16居内(Guney)法官对此持有异议。
1 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.60.
2 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.60, note 145.
3 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.60.
4 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.60.
5 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.61.
6 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.61.
7居内法官对此持有异议。
8 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.61.
9 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.16.
1 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, paras.16-20, nn.29-38.
2 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.17.
3 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.18.
4 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.18.
5 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, paras.17,20.
6-CONF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
7 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.21.
8 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.22.
9 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.28.
1 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, paras.21-22.
2 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, paras.22-23.
3 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, para.51.
4 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, para.39.
5 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Giiney, para.5.
6 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement, 7 July 2006, Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Guney, para.6.
7MCONF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.326.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.327.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, paras.328-332.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.328.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.329.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.330.
7 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, paras.331-332.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.332.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.333.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, paras.334-335.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.338.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.339.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.481.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.482.
2 Ibid.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.482, n.642.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.483.
5 Ibid.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.484.
7 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.485.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.485, n.647.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.486.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.488.
4 Situation in Darfur, Sudan in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.210.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, paras.347-348.
A/CONF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.340.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.341.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.342.
5 Ibid.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.342, n.422.
7 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.521; Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.212.
8 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.343.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.344.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.344.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.345.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.346.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.524.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.347.
7 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.348.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.349.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.527.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.351.
4A/CONF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第23页。
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.351.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.357.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.351; Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.358.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.352; Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.359.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.352; Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemha Gomho,15 June 2009, para.360.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.369.
3ICC-ASP/1/3,《国际刑事法院罗马规约缔约国大会第一届会议正式记录》(中文本),2002年9月3日至10日,第113页。
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.361.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confinnation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.533; Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, paras.351,370.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.362.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.366.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.538; Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, paras.351,371.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.367; Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.539.
7 G P. Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law, New York, Oxford University Press,2000, p.639.
8 Florian Jessberger and Julia Geneuss, On the Application of a Theory of Indirect Perpetration in Al Bashir German Doctrine at the Hague? 6 J, Int'l Crim. Just.853, p.857; Thomas Weigend, Perpetration through an Organization:The Unexpected Career of a German Legal Concept,9 J. Int'l Crim. Just.91, p.104.
1 Florian Jessberger and Julia Geneuss, On the Application of a Theory of Indirect Perpetration in Al Bashir: German Doctrine at the Hague? 6 J. Int'l Crim. Just.853, p.860.
2MCONF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.495.
4 Ibid.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.496.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.497.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.498.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.499.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.499, n.660.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.499.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.498.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.500,510.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.501.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.502, n.666.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,paras.502-504.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.504.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.505.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.506.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.506-508.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.508.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.509.
4 Ibid.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.495-496.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.513.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.514.
4 Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.211.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,paras.511-512.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.515.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,paras.516-517.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.516.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.517.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.518.
6 Ibid.
7 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.527.
8 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.528,532.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.528-530.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.531.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.534.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.534.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.490.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.491.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.492.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.493.
5 Ibid.
Situation in Darfur, Sudan in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.210.
2 Situation in Darfur, Sudan in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.214.
Situation in Darfur, Sudan in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.223.
4 Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-1, Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.519.
2 Ibid.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.519-520.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.521.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.522.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.523.
7 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.524.
1 Situation in the Democratic Renublic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.525. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.526.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.31.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.32.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.33.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, paras.33-34.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.35.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.36.
3 Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-1, Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, pp.4-6.
4 Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.221; Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-1, Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, pp.6-7.
5 Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.222; Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-1, Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, p.7.
1 Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009,
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and para.223; Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-1, Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, p.7. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.527.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.532.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.533.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.534.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.537.
7 Situation in Darfur, Sudan in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03. Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest aeainst Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.214.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.538-539.
1S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第41页。
2S/RES/955(1994),《安全理事会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第6页。
3S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第41页。
4S/RES/955(1994),《安全理事会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第6页。
5 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.278; Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.601; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.59; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement, 29 October 2003, para.443; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No.IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.168; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1005; Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No.ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.480; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, para.37; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.380; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003,para.761.
1 Prosecutor v. Akavesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.483.
2 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.279; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.386; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.59; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement,29 October 2003, para.442; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999, para.199; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, para.37; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.119; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.592; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.271.
3 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.601; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement,29 October 2003, para.443;Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.168; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment, 1 September 2004, para.268; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.26; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.513; Prosecutor v Boskoski and Tarculovski, Case No. IT-04-82-T, Trial Judgment,10 July 2008, para.398; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1005; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1869; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.380; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.20.
4 Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.2.
5 Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, paras.512,527, 529-531.
6 Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.761; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.20.
1 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.982.
2 Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.168; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.267; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.26; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Judgement,30 November 2005, para.513; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1006; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999, para.198; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No.ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, para.34; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.115; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.589; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.378; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.758; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.20.
3 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1006; Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003, paras.6,98,697-699.
4 Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003, para.954.
5 Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003, paras.730,954.
6 Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003, paras.720,730.
7 Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003, para.1067.
8 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.26; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Judgement,30 November 2005, para.513; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1 A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999, para.198; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, paras.590,592; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, paras.379-380; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.759; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.20.
1 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.479.
2 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.278.
3 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.474.
4 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, pp.347-348.
5 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004, para.40.
6 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgment,26 February 2001, para.386; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.31; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement,29 October 2003, para.445.
7 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.29.
1 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.31.
2 Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.513 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1005.
3 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1006.
4S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第41页。
S/RES/955(1994),《安全理事会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第6页。
6 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.482.
7 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.280; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Kos, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgement,2 November 2001, paras.243,250; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.27; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, paras.270-273; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1007; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1 A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.381; Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi, Case No. ICTR-2001-71-I, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 July 2004, para.456; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.279; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.18.
1 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement, 3 March 2000, para. 280.
4 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.387;
2 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.338.
3 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.339. Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.60; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.269; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.514; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No.11-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.273; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.176; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.593; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.762.
5 Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.381; Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi, Case No. ICTR-2001-71-I, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 July 2004, para.456; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.18.
6 Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi, Case No. ICTR-2001-71-I, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 July 2004, para.456; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.18.
7 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, paras.422,692.
8 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.88, p.92.
1 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No.IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, paras.278,280; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.387; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.269; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.514; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.593; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.381; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.762; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.279.
2 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No.IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.387; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.60; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.269; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.27; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No.IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 February 2005, para.252; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.514; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.274; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.168; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1009; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.129.
3 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.278.
4 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.280.
5 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.27.
6 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Tri Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1009; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, paras.129-130.
7 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.276.
8 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.272.
1 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.273.
2 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1008.
3 Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.18.
4 Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi. Case No. ICTR-2001-71-I. Trial Judeement and Sentence.15 Julv 2004. para.464.
5 Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi, Case No. ICTR-2001-71-I, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 July 2004, paras.463, 464.
6 Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.168; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.267; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.27; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.269, n.732; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1009; Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, paras.34,38; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, paras.473-481; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.119; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.378; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.758; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.18.
7 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1007.
1 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.278.
2 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.29.
3 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.32.
4 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1007.
5 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.277.
6 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.279.
1 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.279.
2 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No.IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.281; Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.601; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement,29 October 2003, para.445; Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.483.
3 Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, para.39; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.121.
4 Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.594; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No.ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.763.
5 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1012; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.382; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No.ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.281.
6 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 Feburary 2001, para.338; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.270; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No.IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.28; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.168; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1871; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement,20 May 2005, para.361; Prosecutor v. Ntagerura, Bagambiki and Imanishimwe, Case No. ICTR-99-46-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.365; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No.ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.19.
7 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.282; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.388; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.61; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.270; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.331; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1012.
8 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.281; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.388; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.61; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.270; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.168; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.331; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.515; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1012; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence.22 January 2003. nara.76.
1 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.281; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.61.
2 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.281; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.388; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.178; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.331; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.515; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.76.
3 Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.171.
4 Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.176.
5 Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.177, n.507.
6 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.483.
7 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.281; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, para.39; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.121; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.382.
8 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.388.
1 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.388.
3 Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.61;
2 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.28. Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.594; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No.ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.763; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.282.
4 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, paras.178,196, 425-429,446-449.
5 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No.ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, paras.430,435-435, 465,553.
6 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement,20 May 2005, paras.349-351.
7 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement,20 May 2005, para.361.
8 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement,20 May 2005, para.363.
9 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement,20 May 2005, para.363.
10 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement,20 May 2005, paras.364,389, pp.125-126.
1 Prosecutor v Rrdanin Case No IT-99-36-T Trial Judgment 1 Sentemher 2004 para 270:Prosecutor v. Strugar. ICTR-99-54A-A. Appeal Judement.19 September 2005. para.75:Prosecutor v. Limai. Bala and Musliu. Case No. Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.331; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.515; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgment,30 November 2006, para.176; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1012; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.19.
2 Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda. Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003. para.594.
3 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi. Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement.17 June 2004. para.282.
4 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez. Case No. IT-95-14/2-A. Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004. para.840: Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.143.
5 Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-A, Appeal Judgment,19 September 2005, para.75.
1 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.267; Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.473; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, paras.34,38; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, paras.115-116; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.378; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.378.
2 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.332.
3 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004,
4 Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-A, Appeal Judgment,19 September 2005, para.75.
5 Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.169; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.332; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1013.
6 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.270.
7 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.333.
8 Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.515.
1 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgment,29 July 2004, para.42.
2 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.30.
3 Prosecutor v. Ponovic. Reara. Nikolic. Borovcanin, Miletic. Gvero and Pandurevic Case No IT-05-88-T, Trial
4 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.347. Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1010.
5 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.347.
7S/25704,《秘书长按照安全理事会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3
6 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.347.日,第41页。
8S/RES/955(1994),《联合国安理会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第6页。
9 Prosecutor v. Tadic. Case No. IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement,7 May 1997, paras.674-680.682-687
10 Prosecutor v. Tadic Case No TT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, para.688.
11 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement,7 May 1997, paras.689-691.
1 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.692.
2 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, paras.190-249.
3 Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.102; Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004, para.49; Prosecutor v. Simic, Case No. IT-95-9-A, Appeal Judgement,28 November 2006, para.86; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, para.484; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Appeal Judgement,9 May 2007, para.127; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1015.
4 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement,7 May 1997, para.689.
5 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2 Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.766; Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.327; Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001,para.352.
6 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, paras.235,249.
Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.229; Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.283; Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic, Case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, Trial Judgement,22 February 2001, para.391; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.399; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-T, Trial Judgement,29 November 2002, para.70; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.63; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement, 17 October 2003, para.162; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.102; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.271; Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004, para.45; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case Judgement,31 January 2005, para.349; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.726; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.517; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.281; Prosecutor v. Simic, Case No. IT-95-9-A, Appeal Judgement,28 November 2006, para.85; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, para.43; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.126; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.597; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.762.
1 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.282.
2 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.484.
3 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, p.92, n.512; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.516; Prosecutor v. Kos, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.254; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.384; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.765.
4 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.384; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.765; Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi, Case No. ICTR-2001-71-I, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 July 2004, para.457.
5 Prosecutor v. Akavesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998. para.693.
6 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.232.
1 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.64.
2 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.87.
3 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.129; Prosecutor v. Blaski Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.284; Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic, Case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, Trial Judgement,22 February 2001, para.391; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, para.88; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-T, Trial Judgement,29 November 2002, para.70; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.63; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement, 17 October 2003, para.162; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.176; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.271; Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004, para.47; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.726; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.349; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement, 30 June 2006, para.283; Prosecutor v. Mrksic and Sljivancanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Appeal Judgement,5 May 2009, para.146; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1019; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.766; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.22.
4 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, paras.284.
5 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, paras.284.
6 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.65; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Kos, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.257; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.165; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.271; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.349; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.283; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.386; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.600; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.769.
1 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.693.
2 Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.22.
3 Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.22.
4 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.88; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.162; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.168; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.349; Prosecutor v. Mrksic and Sljivancanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Appeal Judgement,5 May 2009. nara.146:Prosecutor v. Popovic. Beara. Nikolic. Borovcanin. Miletic. Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1019; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR 95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999, para.202; Prosecutor v. Rutaganira, Case No. ICTR-95-1C-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,14 March 2005, para.64; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judeement,11 September 2006, para.22.
Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.22.
6 Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Appeal Judgement,9 May 2007, para.134; Prosecutor v. Mrksic and Sljivancanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Appeal Judgement,5 May 2009, paras.146,200.
7 Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Appeal Judgement,9 May 2007, para.134; Prosecutor v. Mrksic and Sljivancanin, Case No.IT-95-13/1-A, Appeal Judgement,5 May 2009, para.200; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1019.
8 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-A, Appeal Judgement,3 July 2008, para.43; Prosecutor v. Mrksic and Sliivancanin. Case No. IT-95-13/1-A. Appeal Judeement.5 May 2009. paras.97.101:Prosecutor v. Popovic. Beara. Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judeement,10 June 2010, para.1019.
1 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.52.
2 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.262; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-T, Trial Judgement,29 November 2002, para.251; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.271; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.164; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.142; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T. Trial Judgement.17 January 2005, para.753.
3 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Appeal Judgement,19 April 2004, para.143.
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
5 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.371.
1 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.371.
2 Situation in Uganda, Case No. ICC-02/04-01/05, Warrant of Arrest for Joseph Kony issued on 8 July 2005 as amended on 27 September 2005,27 September 2005, p.12 et seq.; Situation in Uganda, Case No. ICC-02/04-01/05, Warrant of Arrest for Vincent Otti,8 July 2005, p.12 et seq.; Situation in Uganda, Case No. ICC-02/04-01/05, Warrant of Arrest for Okot Odhiambo,8 July 2005, p.10 et seq.; Situation in Uganda, Case No. ICC-02/04-01/05, Warrant of Arrest for Dominic Ongwen,8 July 2005, p.8 et seq.
3A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第16页。
4A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第19页,第(8)段。
5A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第19页,第(8)段。
1 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.756, margin no.14.
2 Bryan A. Garner ed., Black's Law Dictionary, West Group, Seventh Edition,1999, p.1398.
3 Bryan A. Garner ed., Black's Law Dictionary, West Group, Seventh Edition,1999, p.779.
4薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第688页、1270页。
5 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.756, margin no.15.
6A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
1 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.756, margin no.17.
2A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第20页,第11段。
3A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
4 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent IssueS, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.167.
1 Dietrich Schindler, Jiri Toman eds., Laws of Armed Conflicts:A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, Brill Academic Publishers,2004, p.1256.
2 Dietrich Schindler, Jiri Toman eds., Laws of Armed Conflicts:A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, Brill Academic Publishers,2004, p.1257.
3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692页。
4 J. Spiropoulos (Special Rapporteur), Formulation of Nuremberg Principles, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission,1950, Vol.Ⅱ, p.195.
5 Dietrich Schindler, Jiri Toman eds., Laws of Armed Conflicts:A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, Brill Academic Publishers,2004, p.840.
6A/47/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十三届会议工作报告》(中文本),1991年9月10日，第249页。
7A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第16页。
8第17条至20条所规定的罪行分别为灭绝种族罪行、危害人类罪行、危害联合国人员和有关人员罪行以及战争罪行。
9A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第21页。
William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, Cambridge University Press,2001, pp.80-83.
2[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第150页。
Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.167.
4李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编：《国际刑事法院国际刑事法院规约评释》(上册),北京大学出版社2006年版,第265页；Per Saland in Roy S. Lee ed., The Inernational Criminal Court - The Making of the Rome Statute, Kluwer Law International,1999, pp.198-200.
5 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.168.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.334.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, paras.335-337.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.39.
3 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, pp.126-127; Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.175.
4 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.311.
5 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No.IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, para.97.
1 Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.702; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, paras.263.
2 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement,7 May 1997, para.674; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdanic, Case No. IT-99-37-AR72, General Ojdanic's Appeal from Denial of Preliminary Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction:Joint Criminal Enterprise,28 Feburary 2003, para.23; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, para.5; Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Appeal Judgement,19 April 2004, para.150; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2009, para.112.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.41.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.39.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, paras.42-44.
1让-马里·亨克茨,路易斯·多斯瓦尔德-贝克编：《习惯国际人道法规则》,刘欣燕等译,法律出版社2007年版,第523页、第526页。
2[春秋]孙武著：《孙子兵法》,[三国]曹操(注),郭化若(译),上海古籍出版社,1984年版,第268页。
Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, translated and slightly abridged by A.C.Campbell, A.M., Batoche Books Kitchener,2001, p.216.
2 William H. Parks, Command Responsibility for War Crimes, Military Law Review, Vol.62,1973, p.4.
3 American Articles of War, Section Ⅸ,20 September 1776, cited from Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.146.
4世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1648-1871),世界知识出版社1984年版,第444页。
5世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1986年版,第303页。
6世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1924-1933),世界知识出版社1961年版,第397页。
1世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1986年版,第188-189页。
2世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1986年版,第197页
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1986年版,第365页。
4世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1986年版,第373-374页。
5世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1986年版,第401页。
6 Elies van Sliedregt, The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, 2003, p.120.
1 Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, Report Presented to the Preliminary Peace Conference, Versailles,29 March 1919, reprinted in 14 American Journal of International Law,95(1920), p.121.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅳ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1948, pp.2-3.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅳ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1948, p.35.
4约翰逊(Johnson)大法官未参与本案的审理与评议。
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅳ, His Maiestv's Stationery Office,1948, pp.35.38-49.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅳ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1948, pp.49-54.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅳ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1948, pp.54-73.
4 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ (The German High Command Trial), His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.5.
5 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ (The German High Command Trial), His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, pps.2-5.
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ (The German High Command Trial), His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.765.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ (The German High Command Trial), His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949,p.75.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ (The German High Command Trial), His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.76.
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949. pps.34-35.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, pps.60-61.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, pps.69-70.
4 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.70.
5 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.71.
Judgement of International Military Tribunal of Far East,4 November 1948, pp.33,45-48,59-60, at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-10.html, viewed at 17 March 2011另见《远东国际军事法庭判决书》,张效林译,群众出版社1986年版,第563-568页。
Judgement of International Military Tribunal of Far East,4 November 1948, p.1158, at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-10.html, viewed at 17 March 2011;另见《远东国际军事法庭判决书》,张效林译,群众出版社1986年版,第576页。
3 Judgement of International Military Tribunal of Far East,4 November 1948, p.1160, at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-10.html, viewed at 17 March 2011;另见《远东国际军事法庭判决书》,张效林译,群众出版社1986年版,第577-578页。
4 Judgement of International Military Tribunal of Far East,4 November 1948, pp.1160-1161, at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-10.html, viewed at 17 March 2011;另见《远东国际军事法庭判决书》,张效林译,群众出版社1986年版,第578页。
5 Judgement of International Military Tribunal of Far East,4 November 1948, p.1161, at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-10.html, viewed at 17 March 2011;另见《远东国际军事 法庭判决书》,张效林译,群众出版社1986年版,第578页。
1 Yves SANDOZ, Christophe SWINARSKI, Bruno ZIMMERMANN eds., Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, International Committee of the Red Cross, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1987, para.3525.
2世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949)，世界知识出版社1959年版,第314页。
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第352页。
1《日内瓦第三公约》第130条规定：“上条所述之严重破坏公约行为,应系对于受公约保护之人或财产所犯之任何下列行为：故意杀害,酷刑或不人道待遇,包括生物学实验,故意使身体及健康遭受重大痛苦或严重伤害,强迫战俘在敌国部队中服务,或故意剥夺战俘依本公约规定应享之公允及合法的审判之权利。”参见世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第352页。
2世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1966-1968),世界知识出版社1977年版,第674页。
3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256页。
A/51/10(supp),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第29-30页,第(4)段。
2A/51/10(supp),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第30页,第(5)段。
1A/51/10(supp),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第30页,第(6)段。
2S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第41页。
3S/RES/955(1994),《安全理事会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第6页。
4A/CONF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第22页。
5 Argentina, Court of Appeal, Military Junta Case (Appeal),9 December 1985, see Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, volume Ⅱ (Practice), Part Ⅱ, para.649.
Canada, Court Martial Appeal Court, Boland Case, Judgement,16 May 1995, see Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, volume Ⅱ (Practice), Part Ⅱ, para.650.
US, Federal Court of Florida, Ford v. Garcia case, Judgement,3 November 2000, see Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, volume Ⅱ (Practice), Part Ⅱ, para.661.
1S/25704,《秘书长按照安全理事会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第41页。
2S/RES/955(1994),《联合国安理会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第6页。
3 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.3-5.
1 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.334-335.
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.335.
3 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-1, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.338-339.
4 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.342.
5 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.336-337,341.
6 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.340,343.
7 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.346.
8 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.1237,1253,1272.
9 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, paras.189-198,225-226,238-239,256,263.
1 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgment,2 September 1998, para.491.
2 Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzinndana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgment,21 May 1999, paras.214, 222.
3 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.346.
4 Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.275; Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.647.
1 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.193.
Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-A, Appeal Judgement,3 July 2002, para.61.
3 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para. 370.
4 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.196.
5 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No.IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.256.
6 Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.715.
7 Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.716.
8 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.276; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.791.
1 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.197.
2 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.648; Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2006, para.79; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, paras.270-273.
3 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgment,29 July 2004, para.485; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, paras.395-396,414; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.312; Prosecutor v Delic, Case No. IT-04-83-T, Trial Judgment, 15 September 2008, para.62.
4 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, paras.398,414; Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2006, para.83; Prosecutor v Delic, Case No. IT-04-83-T, Trial Judgment,15 September 2008, para.62.
5 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.767; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, paras.408-409,414; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.312.
0 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.767; Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2006, para.83.
7 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.412.
8 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.414;; Prosecutor v Delic Case No. IT-04-83-T, Trial Judgment,15 September 2008, para.62.
9 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.414.
10 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.739:Prosecutor v. Blaskic. Case No. IT-95-14-A. Anneal Judgment,29 Julv 2004. para.69:Prosecutor v. IT-03-68-T. Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.312:Prosecutor v. Kavishema and Ruzindana, Case No. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.396; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999, para.739.
1 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.743; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.312.
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.747.
3 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.739,750,765-766.
4 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.750.
5 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.749-750.
6 Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.739; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-A, Appeal Judgement,23 May 2005, paras.90-91.
7Prosecutor v. Struear. Case No. IT-01-42-T. Trial Judgement.31 January 2005, para.410.
8 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.401. paras.739-740; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-A, Judgement,3 May 2006, para.331;
9 Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999, paras.501,503.
10 Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, paras.531, 559,597,625,739; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999,para.501.
11 Prosecutor v. Kavishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T Trial Judgement.21 Mav 1999, para.501.
12 Prosecutor v. Kaieliieli. Case No. ICTR-98-44A-A, Appeal Judgement,23 Mav 2005, para.87.
13 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, paras.374-375; Prosecutor v Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, paras.847,913.
14 Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.795.
15 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.401.
1根据审判庭在脚注中说明,这个持有不同意见的学者是巴西奥尼先生。
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.398.
3 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.399.
4 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.400.
5 Prosecutor v. Halilovic, Case No. IT-01-48-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 2005, para.78.
6 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.338.
1 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.114.
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.383.
3 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.332.
4 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, paras.226,235.
5 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, paras.226,239.
6 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001,
1A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第22页。
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.406.
A/CONF.183/2/Add.1,《设立国际刑事法院筹备委员会的报告(增编)》(中文本),1998年4月14日,第50页。
2A/CONF.183/2/Add.1,《设立国际刑事法院筹备委员会的报告(增编)》(中文本),1998年4月14日,第50页,注释10。
3A/CONF.183/2/Add.1,《设立国际刑事法院筹备委员会的报告(增编)》(中文本),1998年4月14日,第50页,注释11。
4A/CONF.183/2/Add.1,《设立国际刑事法院筹备委员会的报告(增编)》(中文本),1998年4月14日,第50页,注释12。
1A/CONF.183/C.1/L.2,《美利坚合众国提议的第25条案文》(中文本),1998年6月16日。
2A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.1,《(联合国设立国际刑事法院全权代表外交会议)全体委员会第一次会议简要记录》(中文本),1998年11月20日,第67段。
1A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.1,《(联合国设立国际刑事法院全权代表外交会议)全体委员会第一次会议简要记录》(中文本),1998年11月20日,第68段。
2A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.1,《(联合国设立国际刑事法院全权代表外交会议)全体委员会第一次会议简要记录》(中文本),1998年11月20日,第69-76段,第78-81段。
3A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.1,《(联合国设立国际刑事法院全权代表外交会议)全体委员会第一次会议简要记录》(中文本),1998年11月20日,第77段。
4A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.1,《(联合国设立国际刑事法院全权代表外交会议)全体委员会第一次会议简要记录》(中文本),1998年11月20日,第82段。
1 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.408.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.408.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61 (7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.408.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61 (7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.409.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.409.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.412.
7 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.412.
1 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.413.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.414.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.415.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009. para.415.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.416.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.417.
1 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.417, ns.540-546.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.418.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.419.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.423.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.424.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.425.
1 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.425.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.425.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.426.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.435.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.436.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.437.
Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.438.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.439.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.440.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.442.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.443.
1 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.429.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.430.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, paras.430-431.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.431.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.432.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61 (7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.433.
1 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.434.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.434.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.434.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009. nara.434.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.434.
6A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第22页。
1 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.840, margin no.124.
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.355-363.
3 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.492.
4 Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, paras.868-869; Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003, paras.970-971.
5 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.838.
1 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.840, margin no.126.
2 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck-Hart-Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.840, margin no.125.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.412.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.413.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.416.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.419.
1 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck-Hart-Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.841, margin no.129.
2 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck-Hart-Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.840, margin no.127.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61 (7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, paras.423-426.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61 (7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.430.
1 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.841, margin no.128.
2 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.260.
1世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第98页。
2同上。
3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692页。
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.155.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.177.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.177.
4 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.174.
5 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.174.
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.50.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.184.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.184.
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.185.
2《欧洲国际军事法庭宪章》第7条规定：“被告的官方地位,无论是国家元首还是政府部门的负责官员，不得被视为免除其责任或者减刑的因素。”
3《纽伦堡判决书》,第52-53页,转引自转引自A/51/10(supp),第32页。
1 Year Book of the International Law Commission,1954, Vol. Ⅱ, p.150-151.
2A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第25页。
3A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第27页。
4A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第31页。
1A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第32页。
2A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
1A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21-22页。
2A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第23页。
A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24页。
2A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24页。
3A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第25页。
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第19页。
1[德]李斯特著：《德国刑法教科书》,徐久生译,法律出版社2000年版,第201页。
2马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第279-282页。
3马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第296-297页。
4马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第297页。
1[日]福田平、大塚仁编：《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔、文石、周世铮译,辽宁人民出版社1986年版,第83页。
2马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第298-299页。
3[日]泷川幸辰著：《犯罪论序说》,王泰译,载高铭暄等主编：《刑法论丛》(第4卷),法律出版社2000年版,第386页。
1[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版,第303页。
2马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第434页。
3马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第434页。
4[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版,第304页。
1[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版,第315页。
2马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第405-406页。
3马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第411页。
4[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版,第306页。
1[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版,第303-304页。
2旧]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版,第306页。
3马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第446-447页。
4马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第458页。
马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第459页。
2 Peter D. W. Heberling, Note, Justification:The Impact of the Model Penal Code on Statutory Reform,75 Columbia Law Review (1975), pp.914,916.
1[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第192页。
1[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第188页。
2 American Law Institute, Comment to Artcle 3 of Model Penal Code, at 2-4,转引自[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第198-199页。
1[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第184-201页。
1《德国刑法典》,徐久生、庄敬华译,中国方正出版社2004年版,第12-13页。
1[英]J·C·史密斯,B·霍根著：《英国刑法》,李贵方等译,法律出版社2000年版,第289-290页。
2[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第202页。
3[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第234页。
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24页。
5 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 Feburary 2001, paras.449,451.
1[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第210页。
2[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第237-238页。
P. Saland, in Roy S. Lee ed., The International Criminal Court, The Making of the Rome Statute,1999,
pp.189-208,转引自[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第168页。
4 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgment,26 February 2001, para.451; Albin Eser, Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility, in Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.881, margin no.43.
1A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24页。
2 Albin Eser, Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility, in Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.881, margin no.43.
3A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24页。
4 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgment,26 February 2001, para.452.
1 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.812.
2 Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press,2003, p.242.
3[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第172页,注释303。
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24页。
5 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Appeal Judgment,7 October 1997, Separate Opinion of Judges Kirk McDonald and Vohrah, paras.59 et seq.
6 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Appeal Judgment,7 October 1997, Separate Opinion of Judge Cassese, para.16.
1[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第174页。
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.173.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.174.
1 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22, Incitement,22 May 1996, paras.9-12.
2 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-T, Sentencing Judgment,29 November 1996, para.10.
3 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-T, Sentencing Judgment,29 November 1996, paras.86,91-98,111.
4 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Appeal Judgment,7 October 1997, para.11.
5 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Appeal Judgment,7 October 1997, para.19.
6 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cassess,7 October 1997, paras.42-44; Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Stephen,7 October 1997, paras.64-66.
1 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A. Appeal Judgment,7 October 1997, para.20.
2 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-Tbis, Sentencing Judgment,5 March 1998, paras.8,17.
3 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-This. Sentencing Judgment,5 March 1998. para.23.
4 William Schabas, The UN International Criminal Tribunals:The Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, Cambridge University Press,2006, p.332.
1A/CONF.18312/Add.1,《设立国际刑事法院筹备委员的报告》(增编一),第57页。
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.582.
A. Cassese, P. Gaeta and J. R. W. D. Jones eds., The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Vol.1, 2002, pp.951-954.
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.1178.
1[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第192页,脚注第401.
2[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第192页。
1 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Kos, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.706.
2A/CONF.183/2/Add.1,《设立国际刑事法院筹备委员会的报告》,第56页,注释24.
1 Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press,2003, p.251.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, paras.294-296.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, paras.306,312-314.
3朱文奇、冷新宇、张膑心著：《战争罪》,法律出版社2010年版,第183页。
1卢有学著：《战争罪刑事责任研究》,法律出版社2009年版,第248页。
1该条的标题虽为“上级命令和法律规定”,但是条文内容全部是关于“上级命令”的,并未提及“法律规定”的情况。这应该是一项立法疏漏。
2 A/CONE 183/C.1/WGGP/L.2, Proposal by the United States of America for Single Provision Covering Issues Curently Governed by Articles 31,32,33 and 34,16 June 1998.
1 Paola Gaeta, The Defence of Superior Orders:The Statute of the International Criminal Court versus Customary International Law,10 European Journal of International Law 1999, p.172.
2 Chales Garraway, Superior Orders and the International Criminal Court:Justic Delivered or Justice Denied, International Review of the Red Cross, No.836, p.785.
1《纽伦堡判决书》,第53-54页。转引自A/51/10(supp),第58页,注释98。
2《欧洲国际军事法庭战犯审判》,第八卷,第1179页。转引自A/51/10(supp),第58页,注释98。
The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, pp.155-157,170-171.
4卢有学著：《战争罪刑事责任研究》,法律出版社2007年版,第172页。
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.93.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, pp.93-94.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.66-67.
4 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.69.
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.167.
2 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgment,3 March 2000, paras.553,559.
3A/RES/40/33,《北京规则》规则4.1的说明。
1、[英]劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》(下卷,第一分册),王铁崖、陈体强译,商务印书馆1989年版
2、[美]理查德·塔克著：《战争与和平的权利》,罗炯等译,凤凰出版传媒集团、译林出版社2009年版。
3、[法]孟德斯鸠著：《论法的精神》,张雁深译,商务印书馆2007年版。
4、[法]夏尔·卢梭著：《武装冲突法》,张凝等译,中国对外翻译出版公司1987年版。
5、[加]卡列维·霍尔蒂斯著：《和平与战争：16481989年的武装冲突与国际秩序》,王浦劬等译,北京大学出版社2005年版。
6、朱文奇著：《国际人道法》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
7、张景恩著：《国际法与战争》,国防大学出版社1999年版。
8、杨泽伟著：《国际法析论》,中国人民大学出版社2003年版
9、[韩]柳炳华著：《国际法》(下卷),朴国哲等译,中国政法大学出版社1997年版。
10、[法]卢梭著：《社会契约论》,何兆武译,商务印书馆2005年版。
11、贾宇著：《国际刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
12、邵沙平著：《现代国际刑法教程》,武汉大学出版社,1993年版。
13、张智辉著：《国际刑法通论》,中国政法大学出版社,1999年版。
14、林欣主编：《国际刑法问题研究》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版。
15、马呈元著：《国际刑法论》,中国政法大学出版社2008年版。
16、[日]大塚仁著,《犯罪论的基本问题》,冯军译,中国政法大学出版社1993年版。
17、[日]小野清一郎著：《犯罪构成要件理论》,王泰译,中国人民公安大学出版社1991年版。
18、[日]福田平、大塚仁编：《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔、文石、周世铮 译,辽宁人民出版社1986年版。
19、[英]J·C·史密斯,B·霍根著：《英国刑法》,李贵方等译,法律出版社2000年版。
20、储槐植著：《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社1987年版。
21、[苏]A·H·特拉伊宁,《犯罪构成的一般学说》,王作富等译,中国人民大学出版社1958年版。
22、[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版。
23、梅汝璈著：《远东国际军事法庭》,法律出版社、人民法院出版社2005年版。
24、甘雨沛、高格著：《国际刑法学新体系》北京大学出版社2000年版。
25、刘亚平著：《国际刑法与国际犯罪》,群众出版社1986年版。
26、凌岩著：《卢旺达国际刑事法庭的理论与实践》,世界知识出版社2010年版。
27、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。
28、马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版。
29、赵永琛著：《国际刑法与司法协助》,法律出版社1994年版。
30、[英]维克托·塔德洛斯著：《刑事责任论》,谭淦译,中国人民大学出版社2009年版。
31、王秀梅著：《国际刑事法院研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版。
32、黄风、凌岩、王秀梅著：《国际刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
33、黄芳著：《国际犯罪国内立法研究》,中国方正出版社2001年版。
34、周露露著：《当代国际刑法基本原则研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版。
35、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。
36、[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版。
37、江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版。
38、[春秋]孙武著：《孙子兵法》,[三国]曹操(注),郭化若(译),上海古籍出版社,1984年版。
39、《德国刑法典》,徐久生、庄敬华译,中国方正出版社2004年版。
40、卢有学著：《战争罪刑事责任研究》,法律出版社2009年版。
41、[德]李斯特著：《德国刑法教科书》,徐久生译,法律出版社2000年版。
42、[日]泷川幸辰著：《犯罪论序说》,王泰译,载高铭暄等主编：《刑法论丛》(第4卷),法律出版社2000年版。
43、[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版。
44、朱文奇、冷新宇、张膑心著：《战争罪》,法律出版社2010年版。
1、顾德欣编著：《战争法概论》,国防大学出版社1991年版。
2、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版。
3、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。
4、邵沙平主编：《国际法》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
5、王铁崖主编：《中华法学大辞典·国际法学卷》,中国检察出版社1996年版
6、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版。
7、王世洲主编：《现代国际刑法学原理》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版。
8、[日]日本国际法学会编：《国际法辞典》,中文版总校订：外交学院国际法教研室,世界知识出版社1985年版。
9、[日]福田平、大塚仁编：《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔、文石、周世铮译,辽宁人民出版社1986年版。
10、王秀梅主编：《国际刑法学研究述评(1978-2008)》,北京师范大学出版社2009年版。
11、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1917-1923),世界知识出版社1961年版。
12、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版。
13、赵秉志主编：《外国刑法原理》(大陆法系),中国人民大学出版社2000年版。
14、薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版。
15、让-马里·亨克茨,路易斯·多斯瓦尔德-贝克编：《习惯国际人道法规则》,刘欣燕等译,法律出版社2007年版。
16、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1648-1871),世界知识出版社1984年版。
17、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1924-1933),世界知识出版社1961年版。
18、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1966-1968),世界知识出版社1977年版。
19、[日]福田平、大塚仁编：《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔、文石、周世铮译,辽宁人民出版社1986年版。
1、俞正山：《国际人道法的界定及其与战争法、武装冲突法的等同问题》,载《西安政治学院学报》第22卷第6期,2009年12月,第81-87页。
2、王虎华：《国际人道法的定义》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》第23卷第2期,2005年3月,第141-146页。
3、陈兴良：《犯罪构成论：从四要件到三阶层——一个学术史的考察》,《中外法学》,2010年第1期,第49-69页。
4、高铭暄：《论四要件犯罪构成理论的合理性暨对中国刑法学体系的坚持》,《中国法学》2009年第2期,第5-11页。
5、维泽昆：《三阶层犯罪构成体系：一个域外经验的反思与质疑》,第32 卷第2期,2010年3月,第167-184页。
6、陈兴良：《共同犯罪论》,《现代法学》第23卷第3期,2001年6月,第48-57页。
1、马克昌：《简评三阶层犯罪论体系》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》,2009年第3卷·总第19卷,法律出版社2009年版,第13-27页。
2、孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社2007年版,第303-320页。
3、[日]西田典之著：《日本刑法中的责任概念》,金光旭译,载冯军主编：《比较刑法研究》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。http://www.criminallawbnu.cn/criminal/,京师刑事法治网。
1、让·皮克泰：《国际人道法的原则》,王海平译,载朱文奇主编：《国际人道法文选2004)),法律出版社2006年版。
2、[法]雅克·博里康：《法国的犯罪-犯罪人二元论体系介绍》,朱琳译,《法学杂志》2006年第6期,第138-141页。
3、[德]克劳斯·罗克辛：《德国犯罪原理的发展与现代趋势》,王世洲译,《法学家》,2007年第1期,第151-160页。
1. I. C. J., Legality of the Threat or Use of Unclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,8 July 1996.
2. I. C.J., Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,9 July 2004.
3. I.C. J., Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v. United States of America, Judgment,27 June 1986.
4. I. C. J., Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion,28 May 1951.
1. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22, Incitement,22 May 1996.
2. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-T, Trial Judgment,29 November 1996.
3. Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Trial Judgement,7 May 1997.
4. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Appeal Judgment,7 October 1997.
5. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-Tbis, Sentencing Judgment,5 March 1998.
6. Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998.
7. Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement, 25 June 1999.
8. Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999.
9. Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic, Mir jan Kupreskic, Vlatko Kupreskic, Josipovic, Papic and Santic, Case No. IT-95-16-T, Trial Judgement,14 January 2000.
10. Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000.
11. Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-A, Appeal Judgement, 24 March 2000.
12. Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Appeal Judgement, 21 July 2000.
13. Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Objections by Momir Talic to the Form of the Amended Indictment,20 February 2001.
14. Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001.
15. Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic, Case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, Trial Judgement,22 February 2001.
16. Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 Feburary 2001.
17. Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend, 26 June 2001.
18. Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001.
19. Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Kos, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001.
20. Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdanic, Case No. IT-99-37-AR72, General Ojdanic' s Appeal from Denial of Preliminary Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction:Joint Criminal Enterprise, 28 Feburary 2003.
21. Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003.
22. Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement, 17 September 2003.
23. Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003.
24. Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement,29 October 2003.
25. Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003.
26. Prosecutor v. Ntagerura, Bagambiki and Imanishimwe, Case No. ICTR-99-46-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,25 February 2004.
27. Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement, 25 February 2004.
28. Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004.
29. Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004.
30. Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004.
31. Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004.
32. Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005.
33. Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005.
34. Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 February 2005.
35. Prosecutor v. Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-03-70-PT, Decision on Vladirmir Lazarevic' s Preliminary Motion on Form of Indictment,8 July 2005.
36. Prosecutor v. Milutionvic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Nebojsa Pavkovic' s Preliminary Motion on Form of Indictment,22 July 2005.
37. Prosecutor v. Halilovic, Case No. IT-01-48-T, Trial Judgement, 16 November 2005.
38. Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005.
39. Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2006.
40. Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006.
41. Prosecutor v. Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Tolmir, Miletic, Gvero, Pandurevic and Trbic, Case No. IT-05-88-PT, Decision on Motions Challenging the Indictment pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules,31 May 2006.
42. Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006.
43. Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, Trial Judgement, 27 September 2006.
44. Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007.
45. Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Appeal Judgement,9 May 2007.
46. Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-A, Appeal Judgement,27 September 2007.
47. Prosecutor v Delic, Case No. IT-04-83-T, Trial Judgment,15 September 2008.
48. Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2009.
49. Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement, 17 March 2009.
50. Prosecutor v. Mrksic and Sljivancanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Appeal Judgement,5 May 2009.
51. Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010.
52. Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement, 23 February 2011.
1. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998.
2. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999.
3. Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement, 6 December 1999.
4. Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000.
5. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-A Appeal Judgement (Reasons),1 June 2001.
6. Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-A, Appeal Judgement, 3 July 2002.
7. Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003.
8. Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003.
9. Prosecutor v. Niyitegeka, Case No. ICTR 96-14-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,16 May 2003.
10. Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003.
11. Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003.
12. Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement, 20 May 2005.
13. Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-A, Appeal Judgement,23 May 2005.
14. Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003.
15. Prosecutor v. Ntagerura, Bagambiki and Imanishimwe, Case No. ICTR-99-46-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,25 February 2004, para.630.
16. Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004.
17. Prosecutor v. Simba, Case No. ICTR-01-76-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,13 December 2005.
18. Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006
19. Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement, 11 September 2006.
20. Prosecutor v Bagosora, Kabiligi, Nsengiyumva, Ntabakuze, Case No. ICTR-98-41-T, Trial Judgment and Sentence,18 December 2008.
1. Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007.
2. Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun and Ali Muhammad Al Abd-Al-Rahman, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/07-1, Decision on the Prosecution Application under Article 58(7) of the Statute, 27 April 2007.
3. Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-707, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008.
4. Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-1, Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009.
5. Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor' s Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009.
6. Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7) (a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009.
7. Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus, Case No. ICC-02/05-03/09, Second Decision on the Prosecutor' s Application under Article 58,27 August 2009.
8. Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, Case No. ICC-02/05-02/09-243, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,8 February 2010.
9. Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor' s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010.
10. Situation in the Republic of Kenya in the Case of the Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Decision on the Prosecutor' s Application for Summons to Appear for William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Case No. ICC-01/09-01/11-01,8 March 2011.
11. Situation in the Republic of Kenya in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, Decision on the Prosecutor' s Application for Summons to Appear for Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, Case No. ICC-01/09-02/11-01,8 March 2011.
1. Stephen C. Neff, War and the Law of Nations:A General History, Cambridge University Press,2005.
2. Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, Sixth Edition, Cambridge University Press,2008.
3. Robert Kolb, Richard Hyde, An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts, Hart Publishing,2008.
4. Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008.
5. M. C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, Transnational Publishers, Inc.,2003.
6. Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press,2003.
7. H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law, Oxford University Press,1961.
8. Robert Cryer, Hakan Friman, Darryl Robinson and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge University Press,2007.
9. Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Elements of Crimes under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2008.
10. Eve La Haye, War Crimes in Internal Armed Conflicts, Cambridge University Press,2008.
11. Jose Doria, Hans-Peter Gasser, M. Cherif Bassiouni, The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
12. Antony Duff, Criminal Attempts, Oxford University Press,1996.
13. H. L. A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility:Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press,2nd edition,2008.
14. Elies van Sliedregt, The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, TMC Asser Press,2003.
15. George P. Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law, Oxford University Press,2002.
16. Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
17. William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, Cambridge University Press,2001.
18. Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, translated and slightly abridged by A. C.Campbell, A.M., Batoche Books Kitchener,2001.
19. William Schabas, The UN International Criminal Tribunals:The Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
1. Dietrich Schindler, Jiri Toman eds., Laws of Armed Conflicts:A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, Brill Academic Publishers,2004.
2. Michael N. Schmitt, Jelena Pejic eds., International Law and Armed Conflict:Exploring the Faultlines, Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007.
3. Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume Ⅰ (Rules), Cambridge University Press,2005.
4. Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume Ⅱ (Practice), Cambridge University Press,2005.
5. Larry May ed., International Criminal Law and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press,2009.
6. International Law Commission, Yearbook of the International Law Commission,1950, Vol. Ⅱ.
7. Harmen Van Der Wilt, Andre Nollkaemper, Menno Dolman, Jann Kleffner ed., System Criminality in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2009
8. David A. Blumenthal, Timothy L. H. McCormack eds., The Legacy of Nuremberg:Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007.
9. Charles Jalloh, Consolidated Legal Texts for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Brill,2007.
10. Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C. H.Beck · Hart · Nomos, Second Edition, 2008.
11. Bryan A. Garner ed., Black' s Law Dictionary, West Group, Seventh Edition,1999.
12. Dietrich Schindler, Jiri Toman eds., Laws of Armed Conflicts:A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, Brill Academic Publishers,2004.
13. Roy S. Lee ed., The Inernational Criminal Court - The Making of the Rome Statute, Kluwer Law International,1999.
14. The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅳ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1948.
15. The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ (The German High Command Trial), His Majesty' s Stationery Office,1949.
16. The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ,His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949.
17. Yves SANDOZ, Christophe SWINARSKI, Bruno ZIMMERMANN eds., Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, International Committee of the Red Cross, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1987.
18. The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume XV, His Majesty' s Stationery Office,1949.
19. A. Cassese, P. Gaeta and J. R. W. D. Jones eds., The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Vol.1,2002.
1. Adam Roberts, The Equal Application of the Laws of War:a Principle under Pressure, International Review of the Red Cross, No.872.
2. Hans-Joachim Heintze, On the Relationship between Human Rights Law Protection and International Humanitarian Law, International Review of the Red Cross, No.856.
3. Danio Campanelli, The law of Military Occupation Put to the Test of Human Rights Law, International Review of the Red Cross, No.871.
4. Kai Ambos, The Fujimori Judgment:A President's Responsibility for Crimes Against Humanity as Indirect Perpetrator by Virtue of an Organized Power Apparatus,9 J. Int' 1 Crim. Just.137, March,2011.
5. Stefano Manacorda and Chantal Meloni, Indirect Perpetration versus Joint Criminal Enterprise:Concurring Approaches in the Practice of International Criminal Law? 9 J. Int' 1 Crim. Just., March,2011.
6. Gerhard Werle and Boris Burghardt, Foreword (of Symposium: Indirect Perpetration:A Perfect Fit for International Prosecution of Armchair Killers?),9 J. Int' 1 Crim. Just.85, March,2011.
7. Antonio Cassese, The Proper Limits to Individual Responsibility Under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise,5 J. Int' 1 Crim. Just. 109, March 20073.
8. William H. Parks, Command Responsibility for War Crimes, Military Law Review, Vol.62,1973.
9. Peter D. W. Heberling, Note, Justification:The Impact of the Model Penal Code on Statutory Reform,75 Columbia Law Review (1975).
10. Paola Gaeta, The Defence of Superior Orders:The Statute of the International Criminal Court versus Customary International Law,10 European Journal of International Law 1999.
11. Chales Garraway, Superior Orders and the International Criminal Court:Justic Delivered or Justice Denied, International Review of the Red Cross, No.836.
1. www.UN.org
2. www.ICTY.org
3. www.ICTR.org
4. www.icc-cpi.int
5. www.un.org/law/ilc/
6. www.icrc.org/
7. www.ibiblio.org/
8. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/military-legal-resource s-home.html
2 Stephen C. Neff, War and the Law of Nations:A General History, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.3.
3[美]理查德·塔克著：《战争与和平的权利》,罗炯等译,凤凰出版传媒集团、译林出版社2009年版,第21页。
4 Stephen C. Neff, War and the Law of Nations:A General History, Cambridge University Press,2005, pp.50-53.
1[法]孟德斯鸠著：《论法的精神》,张雁深译,商务印书馆2007年版,第91页。
2 Stephen C. Neff, War and the Law of Nations:A General History, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.95.
3[法]夏尔·卢梭著：《武装冲突法》,张凝等译,中国对外翻译出版公司1987年版,第12页。
4 Stephen C. Neff, War and the Law of Nations:A General History, Cambridge University Press,2005, pp.96-119.
5[英]劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》(下卷,第一分册),王铁崖、陈体强译,商务印书馆1989年版,第130页。
61899年和1907年《国际纠纷和平解决公约》第1条和第2条。参见世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版,第173-174页,第336页。
7《国际联盟盟约》在序言部分即开篇名义指出各缔约国承担不从事战争的义务,在第12条规定了会员国诉诸战争前应先将争议提交仲裁、司法解决或行政院审查,并在上述程序结束后3个月内不得从事战争,在第13条、第15条规定不得对遵守国际仲裁、司法判决会行政院报告的缔约国发动战争,第16条、第17条规定将会员国或非会员国不遵守盟约规定而从事战争的行为,视为对全体会员国的战争行为,国联行政院有权建议各会员国政府共同出兵,以维护盟约的执行。参见世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1917-1923),世界知识出版社1961年版,第266页,第270-273页。
1《巴黎非战公约》在序言部分、第1条和第2条均明确指出,各缔约国废弃战争作为实行国家政策的工具,所有争端或冲突只能用和平的方法加以解决。参见世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1924-1933),世界知识出版社1961年版,第373-374页。
2《联合国宪章》序言、第一章“宗旨及原则”,第六章“争端之和平解决”,第七章“对于和平之威胁、和平之破坏及侵略行为之应付办法”具体体现了对武力和武力威胁的禁止。参见世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第35-37页,第43-47页。
3[加]卡列维·霍尔蒂斯著：《和平与战争：16481989年的武装冲突与国际秩序》,王浦劬等译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第25-26页。
4张景恩著：《国际法与战争》,国防大学出版社1999年版,第11页。
5顾德欣编著：《战争法概论》,国防大学出版社1991年版,第10-11页。
1 Dietrich Schindler, Jiri Toman eds., Laws of Armed Conflicts:A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, Brill Academic Publishers,2004, p.92.
2海牙诸公约中,《关于建立国际捕获法院公约》即1907年海牙第12公约,未生效。
1朱文奇著：《国际人道法》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版,第38页。
2《关于战俘待遇的日内瓦公约》第2-4条。参见世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1924-1933),世界知识出版社1961年版,第401-402页。
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第258页、第283页、第309页、第378页。
4世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第258页、第283页、第309页、第378页。
5世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第258-259页、第283-284页、第309-310页、第378-379页。
6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255-259页。
7《第二议定书》第13条“对平民居民的保护”,参见赵永琛编：《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第265页。
8《第二附加议定书》第14条“对平民居民生存所不可缺少的物体的保护”,参见赵永琛编：《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第265页。
1《第二附加议定书》第15条“对含有危险力量的工程和装置的保护”,参见赵永琛编：《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第266页。
2《第二附加议定书》第17条“对强迫平民迁徙的禁止”,参见赵永琛编：《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版,第266页。
3俞正山：《国际人道法的界定及其与战争法、武装冲突法的等同问题》,载《西安政治学院学报》第22卷第6期(2009年12月),第81页。
4王虎华：《国际人道法的定义》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》第23卷第2期(2005年3月),第142页。
5 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, Sixth Edition, Cambridge University Press,2008, p.1167.
6邵沙平主编：《国际法》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版,第567页；杨泽伟著：《国际法析论》,中国人民大学出版社2003年版,第61页。
7[韩]柳炳华著：《国际法》(下卷),朴国哲等译,中国政法大学出版社1997年版,第411页。
8王铁崖主编：《中华法学大辞典·国际法学卷》,中国检察出版社1996年版,第488页。
I.C.J., Legality of the Threat or Use of Unclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,8 July 1996, para.75.
红十字国际委员会：《什么是国际人道法?》,http://www.icrc.org/Web/chi/sitechiO.nsf/html/humanitarian-law-factsheet,(访问日期：2010年11月8日)。
3让·皮克泰：《国际人道法的原则》,王海平译,载朱文奇主编：《国际人道法文选2004》,法律出版社2006年版,第1页。
4例如,1949年《日内瓦公约》共同第3条规定：“在一缔约国之领土内发生非国际性之武装冲突之场合,冲突之各方最低限度应遵守下列规定：(一)不实际参加战事之人员,包括放下武器之武装部队人员及因病、伤、拘留、或其他原因而失去战斗力之人员在内,在一切情况下应予以人道待遇,不得基于种族、肤色、宗教或信仰、性别、出身或财力或其他类似标准而有所歧视。因此,对于上述人员,不论何时何地,不得有下列行为：(甲)对生命与人身施以暴力,特别如各种谋杀、残伤肢体、虐待及酷刑；(乙)作为人质；
5例如,1868年《圣彼得堡宣言》在序言性质的条款中指出：“……各国在战争中应尽力实现的唯一合法目标是削弱敌人的军事力量；为了这一目标,应满足于使最大限度数量的敌人失去战斗力；由于武器的使用无益地加剧失去战斗力的人的痛苦或使其死亡不可避免,将会超越这一目标……”。
1 Robert Kolb, Richard Hyde, An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts, Hart Publishing,2008, pp.153-154.
2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239页。
3 I.C.J., Legality of the Threat or Use of Unclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,8 July 1996, para.78.
5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240页。
4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232页。
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232-233页。
2 Robert Kolb, Richard Hyde, An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts, Hart Publishing,2008, p.153.
3 Adam Roberts, The Equal Application of the Laws of War:a Principle under Pressure, International Review of the Red Cross, No.872, p.932.
Marco Sassoli, Ius ad Bellum and lus in Bello - The Separation between the Legality of the Use of Force and Humanitarian Rules to Be Respected in Warfare:Crucial or Outdated? In Michael N. Schmitt, Jelena Pejic eds., International Law and Armed Conflict:Exploring the Faultlines, Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007, p.252.
5世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第258页、第283页、第309页、第378页。
6世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第258页、第283页、第309页、第378页。
7世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第258-259页、第283-284页、第309-310页、第378-379页。
8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255-259页。
1[法]卢梭著：《社会契约论》,何兆武译,商务印书馆2005年版,第14-15页。
2 Marco Sassoli, Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello - The Separation between the Legality of the Use of Force and Humanitarian Rules to Be Respected in Warfare:Crucial or Outdated? In Michael N. Schmitt, Jelena Pejic eds., International Law and Armed Conflict:Exploring the Faultlines, Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007, p.255.
世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版,第187页。
4参见1977年《第一附加议定书》第1条第2款,1977年《第二附加议定书》序言,1980年《联合国常规武器公约》序言。
1近年来,红十字国际委员会一直致力于适用于国际性与非国际性武装冲突的国际人道法习惯规则的研究与编纂,并于2005年出版了它的研究成果,对进一步促进国际人道法的传播、研究与推广意义重大。红十字国际委员会的研究成果分两卷,分别为Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume Ⅰ (Rules), Cambridge University Press,2005和Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume Ⅱ (Practice), Cambridge University Press,2005.
2世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第259页、第284页、第311-312页、第380页。
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第260页、第285页、第312页、第380页。
1 Hans-Joachim Heintze, On the Relationship between Human Rights Law Protection and International Humanitarian Law, International Review of the Red Cross, No.856,31 December 2004, p.789.
2 Jean Pictet, Humanitarian Law and the Protection of War Victims, Sijtoff/Henry Duant Institute,1975, p.15, Cited from Danio Campanelli, The law of Military Occupation Put to the Test of Human Rights Law, International Review of the Red Cross, No.871, p.653.
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916)，世界知识出版社1986年版,第361-362页。
4 Hans-Joachim Heintze, On the Relationship between Human Rights Law Protection and International Humanitarian Law, International Review of the Red Cross, No.856, p.791.
1 I.C.J., Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,9 July 2004, paras.101,111-113.
2 I.C.J., Legality of the Threat or Use of Unclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,8 July 1996, para.25.
3 I.C.J., Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,9 July 2004, para.106.
4 Michael J. Matheson, The Opinions of the International Court of Justice on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, American Journal of International Law, Vol.91, No.3,1997, p.423, cited from Hans-Joachim Heintze, On the Relationship between Human Rights Law Protection and International Humanitarian Law, International Review of the Red Cross, No.856, p.797.
5 I.C.J., Legality of the Threat or Use of Unclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,8 July 1996, para.25.
6贾宇著：《国际刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第84页。
1 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-verlag Berlin Heldelberg,2008, p.57.
2 M. C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, Transnational Publishers. Inc.,2003. p.114-115.
3 M. C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, Transnational Publishers. Inc.,2003, p.115.
4 M. C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, Transnational Publishers. Inc.,2003. pp.116-117.
5 Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press,2003, pp.23-25.
1王世洲主编：《现代国际刑法学原理》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版,第233-234页。
2[日]日本国际法学会编：《国际法辞典》,中文版总校订：外交学院国际法教研室,世界知识出版社1985年版,第489页。
Win-chiat Lee, International Crimes and Universal Jurisdiction, in Larry May ed., International Criminal Law and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press,2009, p.8.
4邵沙平著：《现代国际刑法教程》,武汉大学出版社1993年版,第88页。
5张智辉著：《国际刑法通论》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第104页。
6林欣主编：《国际刑法问题研究》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版,第17页。
7贾宇著：《国际刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第87页。
8马呈元著：《国际刑法论》,中国政法大学出版社2008年版,第248页。
1A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第13页。
2A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第14页,第(4)段。
3马呈元著：《国际刑法论》,中国政法大学出版社,2008年版,第240页。
4 H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law, Oxford University Press,1961, pp.97-107.
1 J. Spiropoulos (Special Rapporteur), Formulation of Nuremberg Principles, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission,1950, Vol.Ⅱ, p.191.
2 A/37/10(SUPP), Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Thirty-first Session,14 August1979,p.244；亦可参见赵永琛编：《国际刑法约章选编》,中国人民公安大学出版社,1999年版,第671页。
3A/51/22(SUPP)(Vol.Ⅰ),《设立国际刑事法院问题筹备委员会的报告(第一卷)》,1996年9月13日,第51段。
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第5页。
1 M. C. Bassiouni. Introduction to International Criminal Law. Transnational Publishers. Inc.,2003. pp.686.701.
2 Robert Cryer, Hakan Friman, Darryl Robinson and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.60.
3 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.60.
4 M. C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, Transnational Publishers, Inc.,2003, p.170; Robert Cryer, Hakan Friman, Darryl Robinson and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.61
5 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.60.
6陈兴良：《犯罪构成论：从四要件到三阶层——个学术史的考察》,《中外法学》,2010年第1期,第49页。
1马克昌：《简评三阶层犯罪论体系》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》,2009年第3卷·总第19卷,法律出版社2009年版,第14页。
2[日]大塚仁著,《犯罪论的基本问题》,冯军译,中国政法大学出版社1993年版,第51页。
马克昌：《简评三阶层犯罪论体系》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》,2009年第3卷·总第19卷,法律出版社2009年版,第14页。
4[日]小野清一郎著：《犯罪构成要件理论》,王泰译,中国人民公安大学出版社1991年版,第12页。
马克昌：《简评三阶层犯罪论体系》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》,2009年第3卷·总第19卷,法律出版社2009年版,第18-19页。
6马克昌：《简评三阶层犯罪论体系》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》,2009年第3卷·总第19卷,法律出版社2009年版,第21-22页。
7[德]克劳斯·罗克辛：《德国犯罪原理的发展与现代趋势》,王世洲译,《法学家》,2007年第1期,第154-156页。
8陈兴良：《犯罪构成论：从四要件到三阶层——一个学术史的考察》,《中外法学》,2010年第1期,第50页。
9[日]小野清一郎著：《犯罪构成要件理论》,王泰译,中国人民公安大学出版社1991年版,第9页。
1[日]福田平、大塚仁编：《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔、文石、周世铮译,辽宁人民出版社1986年版,第43-44页。
2[英]J·C·史密斯,B·霍根著：《英国刑法》,李贵方等译,法律出版社2000年版,第35-37页。
3[英]J·C·史密斯,B·霍根著：《英国刑法》,李贵方等译,法律出版社2000年版,第215页。
4储槐植著：《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社1987年版,第216-217页。
5孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社2007年版,第303-304页。
1[法]雅克·博里康：《法国的犯罪-犯罪人二元论体系介绍》,朱琳译,《法学杂志》2006年第6期,第138页。
2孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第1l卷,法律出版社2007年版,第304-305页。
3孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社2007年版,第305-312页。
4 George P. Fletcher, Criminal Theory in the Twentieth Century, Theoretical Inquries in Law, January 2001, p.269,转引自维泽昆：《三阶层犯罪构成体系：一个域外经验的反思与质疑》,第32卷第2期,2010年3月,第169页。
5孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社2007年版,第313页。
6陈兴良：《犯罪构成论：从四要件到三阶层——一个学术史的考察》,《中外法学》,2010年第1期,第51页。
7[苏]A·H·特拉伊宁,《犯罪构成的一般学说》,王作富等译,中国人民大学出版社1958年版,第51页。
8[苏]A·H·特拉伊宁,《犯罪构成的一般学说》,王作富等译,中国人民大学出版社1958年版,第51页、第99-100页。
1陈兴良：《犯罪构成论：从四要件到三阶层——一个学术史的考察》,《中外法学》,2010年第1期,第52页。
2高铭暄：《论四要件犯罪构成理论的合理性暨对中国刑法学体系的坚持》,《中国法学》2009年第2期,第6页。
3 M. C. Bassiouni, A draft International Criminal Code and Draft Statute for an International Tribunal, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1987, pp.100-101,转引自马呈元著：《国际刑法论》,中国政法大学出版社2008年版,第253页。
4贾宇著：《国际刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第96页。
1[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第112-113页。
2[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第115页。
3[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第113页。
4马呈元著：《国际刑法论》,中国政法大学出版社2008年版,第251-261页；张智辉著：《国际刑法通论》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第114-125页。
5贾宇著：《国际刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第97页；甘雨沛、高格：《国际刑法学新体系》,北京大学出版社2000年版,第115页。
6黄风、凌岩、王秀梅著：《国际刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版,第114-115页；刘亚平著：《国际刑法与国际犯罪》,群众出版社1986年版,第97页。
王秀梅主编：《国际刑法学研究述评(1978-2008)》,北京师范大学出版社2009年版,第79页。
1[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第113页。
2 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Elements of Crimes under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2008, pp.9-13.
3A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第5页,第6-7页,第7-12页。
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第23页。
5A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第12页。
1A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日，第20-21页。
2A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第22页。
3A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第23-24页。
4第32条规定,事实错误和法律错误仅在否定构成犯罪所需的心理要件时,才作为排除个人刑事责任的理由的限制性条件。第33条规定,仅在行为人有服从有关政府或上级命令的法律义务、该人不知道命令为不法的且命令的不法性不明显时,上级命令和法律规定才可以作为排除个人刑事责任的理由。参见A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24-25页。
5这三个案件分别是刚果民主共和国局势中的托马斯·卢班加·迪伊洛案(Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007)刚果民主共和国局势中的热尔曼·加丹加和马蒂厄·恩乔洛·楚伊案(Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 30 September 2008);中非共和国局势中的让-皮埃尔·本巴·贡博案(Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, 15 June 2009)。
6 Eve La Haye, War Crimes in Internal Armed Conflicts, Cambridge University Press,2008, p.105.
7 Jose Doria, Hans-Peter Gasser, M. Cherif Bassiouni, The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2009, p.3.
1世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版,第196页。
2世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版,第199页。
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版,第187页；世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版,第401页。
4 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.65.
5世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1917-1923),世界知识出版社1961年版,第157页。
6同上。
7顾德欣编著：《战争法概论》,国防大学出版社1991年版,第202页。
8梅汝璈著：《远东国际军事法庭》,法律出版社、人民法院出版社2005年版,第5-6页。
9世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第97页。
1-COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第8页。
1但这些武器、射弹、装备和作战方法应当已被全面禁止,并已依照规约的规定以一项修正案的形式列入本规约的一项附件内。
2A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第8-10页。
3A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第10页。
1A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第10-11页。
2ICC-ASP/1/3,《国际刑事法院罗马规约缔约国大会第一届会议正式记录》(中文本),2002年9月3日至10日,第116页。
3违反人道罪和危害人类罪的英文均为‘'crimes against humanity",两者只是翻译上的差别。
4世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第97页。
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692页。
2凌岩著：《卢旺达国际刑事法庭的理论与实践》,世界知识出版社2010年版,第35页。
3 J. Spiropoulos (Special Rapporteur), Formulation of Nuremberg Principles, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission,1950, Vol.Ⅱ, pp.193-195.
1S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第14、40页。
2S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第14页,第47-48段。
3S/RES/955(1994),《安全理事会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第4页。
4 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, paras.248,251; Prosecutor v.
1A/COE183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第6页。
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76页。
3ICC-ASP/1/3,《国际刑事法院罗马规约缔约国大会第一届会议正式记录》(中文本),2002年9月3日至10日,第108页。
4ICC-ASP/1/3,《国际刑事法院罗马规约缔约国大会第一届会议正式记录》(中文本),2002年9月3日至10日,第108页。
5ICC-ASP/1/3,《国际刑事法院罗马规约缔约国大会第一届会议正式记录》(中文本),2002年9月3日至10日,第108页。
6 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.45.
1 A/RES/96(Ⅰ), The Crime of Genocide,21 December 1946.
2 A/RES/260(Ⅲ), Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,9 December 1948.
3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301页。
4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301页。
5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301-302页。
I. C. J., Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion,28 May 1951, p.23.
2S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第13、39-40页
3S/RES/955(1994),《安全理事会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第3-4页
4 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Appeal Judgment,19 April 2004, para.34; Prosecutor v. Simba, Case No. ICTR-01-76-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,13 December 2005, para.413; Prosecutor v. Simba, Case No. ICTR-01-76-A, Appeal Judgement and Sentence,27 November 2007, para.264 Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, paras.61-63; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.167; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1 A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.63; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.313; Prosecutor v. Muhimana, Case No. ICTR-95-1B-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,28 April 2005, para.496; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.8; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.40.
A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第5页。
2马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第395页。
1[日]福田平、大塚仁编：《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔、文石、周世铮译,辽宁人民出版社1986年版,第111页。
2[日]西田典之著：《日本刑法中的责任概念》,金光旭译,载冯军主编：《比较刑法研究》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版,第10页。
3马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第397页。
4赵秉志主编：《外国刑法原理》(大陆法系),中国人民大学出版社2000年版,第146页。
5马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第398-399页。
1马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第399-400页。
2[英]维克托·塔德洛斯著：《刑事责任论》,谭淦译,中国人民大学出版社2009年版,第22页。
3 Antony Duff, Criminal Attempts, Oxford University Press,1996, p.189.
1 H.L.A.Hart, Punishment and Responsibility:Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press,2nd edition,2008, p.152.
孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社2007年版,第314页。
3孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社2007年版,第313页。
1 M. C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, Transnational Publishers, Inc.,2003, pp.676-677, 690.
2 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.14.
3赵永琛著：《国际刑法与司法协助》,法律出版社1994年版,第90页。
4甘雨沛、高格著：《国际刑法学新体系》北京大学出版社2000年版,第135页。林欣主编：《国际刑法问题研究》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版,第135页。
5张智辉著：《国际刑法通论》(增补本),中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第135页。
6王秀梅著：《国际刑事法院研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版,第321页。黄风、凌岩、王秀梅著：《国际刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版,第107页。
7黄芳著：《国际犯罪国内立法研究》,中国方正出版社2001年版,第25-26页。
1周露露著：《当代国际刑法基本原则研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版,第127页。
2马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第392页。
3马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第393页。
4[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社1999年版,第276页。
1周露露著：《当代国际刑法基本原则研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版,第133-134页。
Ⅰ. Tallgren, The Sense and Sensibility of International Criminal Law, (2002) 13 EJIL 575, cited from Harmen Van Der Wilt, Andre Nollkaemper, Menno Dolman, Jann Kleffner eds., System Criminality in International Law, Cambridge University Press,2009, p.5.
2 Andre Nollkaemper,'Introduction', in Harmen Van Der Wilt, Andre Nollkaemper, Menno Dolman, Jann Kleffner ed., System Criminality in International Law, Cambridge University Press,2009, p.5
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第6页。
3 Ibid., p.6.
5世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第98页。
6世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第98页。
1 Antonio Cassese International Criminal Law Oxford University Press, 2003, pp.137-138.
A/CN.4/490/Add.1,《关于国家责任的第一次报告(增编1):特别报告员:詹姆斯.克劳福德先生》(中
2 Antonio Cassese,International Criminal Law,Oxford University Press,2003,p.136.文版),1998年5月2日,第2页,第43段。
4A/CN.4/488,《国家责任：各国政府提出的评论和意见》(中文本),1998年3月25日,第48页(奥地利对第19条的评论)、51页(爱尔兰对第19条的评论),第55页(联合王国对第19条的评论),第56页(美国对第19条的评论),118页(德国对第二部分第四章的评论)。
5A/CN.4/488,《国家责任：各国政府提出的评论和意见》(中文本),1998年3月25日,第50页(法国对第19条的评论),第54页(瑞士对第19条的评论)。
6A/CN.4/488,《国家责任：各国政府提出的评论和意见》(中文本),1998年3月25日,第53页(爱尔兰对第19条的评论)。
A/CN.4/488,《国家责任：各国政府提出的评论和意见》(中文本),1998年3月25日,第57页(美国对第19条的评论),118页(德国对第二部分第四章的评论)。
8A/CN.4/488,《国家责任：各国政府提出的评论和意见》(中文本),1998年3月25日,第49页(丹麦代表北欧各国[芬兰、冰岛、挪威、瑞典和丹麦]对第19条的评论)。
9A/CN.4/488,《国家责任：各国政府提出的评论和意见》(中文本),1998年3月25日,第54页(蒙古对 第19条的评论)。
1A/CN.4/490/Add.1,《关于国家责任的第一次报告(增编1)：特别报告员：詹姆斯·克劳福德先生》(中文版),1998年5月2日,第8-9页。
2 United States et al v. Hermann Wilhelm Goring et al in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg,14 November 1945-1 October 1946 (1947) Vol 22,217th day, p.466, Cited from David A. Blumenthal, Timothy L. H. McCormack eds., The Legacy of Nuremberg:Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007, p.103.
3 Andre Nollkaemper,'Introduction', in Harmen Van Der Wilt, Andre Nollkaemper, Menno Dolman, Jann Kleffner ed., System Criminality in International Law, Cambridge University Press,2009, p.3.
4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,第146页；Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.123; Michael J. Kelly and Timothy L.H. McCormack, Contributions of the Nuremberg Trial to the Subsequent Development of International Law, in David A. Blumenthal, Timothy L. H. McCormack eds., The Legacy of Nuremberg:Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007, pp.103-104.
1 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgment,15 July 1999, para.191.
2世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第97页。
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第97页。
4[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第142页,注释157。 Crimes Against Humanity as Indirect Perpetrator by Virtue of an Organized Power Apparatus,9 J. Int'1 Crim. Just. 137, March,2011, FN51.
1 Kai Ambos, The Fujimori Judgment:A President's Responsibility for Crimes Against Humanity as Indirect Perpetrator by Virtue of an Organized Power Apparatus,9 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.137, March,2011, p.146.
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, paras.342-346.
3 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.115.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.326; Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.480; Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.210.
5 Gerhard Werle and Boris Burghardt, Foreword (of Symposium:Indirect Perpetration:A Perfect Fit for International Prosecution of Armchair Killers?),9 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.85, March,2011, p.88.
6 Ibid.
7参见江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,第53-71页；陈兴良：《共同犯罪论》,《现代法学》第23卷第3期,2001年6月,第50-51页。
8参见江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,第53-56页；陈兴良：《共同犯罪论》,《现代法学》第23卷第3期,2001年6月,第50页。
1参见江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,第57-58页；陈兴良：《共同犯罪论》,《现代法学》第23卷第3期,2001年6月,第51页。
2参见江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,第59-60页；陈兴良：《共同犯罪论》,《现代法学》第23卷第3期,2001年6月,第51页。
3江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,第64页。
4参见江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版,第67-68页：陈兴良：《共同犯罪论》,《现代法学》第23卷第3期,2001年6月,第51页。
5 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.601; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdamic, Case No. IT-99-37-AR72, Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction-Joint Criminal Enterprise,21 May 2003, para.20; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.73; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement, 25 February 2004, para.95; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.258; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.696; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 February 2005,
Kai Ambos, The Fujimori Judgment:A President's Responsibility for Crimes Against Humanity as Indirect Perpetrator by Virtue of an Organized Power Apparatus,9 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.137, March,2011, p.146.
2 Stefano Manacorda and Chantal Meloni, Indirect Perpetration versus Joint Criminal Enterprise:Concurring Approaches in the Practice of International Criminal Law? 9 J. Int'1 Crim. Just., March,2011, p.162.
1 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.2.
受害人B在该判决书中,被称为证人D,因为该人在该案的审判程序中充当了证人。参见Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.41.
该名士兵在该判决书中,被称为被告B。参见Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No.IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement, 10 December 1998, para.74.
4 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.38.
5 Prosecutor v. Furundziia, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.130.
6 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.189.
7 Prosecutor v. Furundziia, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.216.
8 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.249.
1 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, paras.267-269.
2 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, paras.273-275.
4 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Appeal Judgement,21 July 2000, para.120.
3 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Appeal Judgement,21 July 2000, para.86.
5 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Trial Judgement,7 May 1997, paras.180-188.
6 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Trial Judgement,7 May 1997, paras.342,344,369.
7 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Trial Judgement,7 May 1997, paras.373,375,386.
8 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Trial Judgement,7 May 1997,para.760.
1 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, paras.172,174.
2 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.175.
3 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.183.
4 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, paras.187-188.
5 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.194.
6 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, paras.197,200,202-204.
1 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.220.
2 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A. Anneal Judgement,15 July 1999, nara.232.
3 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, paras.235-237.
4 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.601; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdamic, Case No. IT-99-37-AR72, Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction-Joint Criminal Enterprise,21 May 2003, para.20; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.73; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement, 25 February 2004, para.95; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.258; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.696; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 February 2005, para.79; Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement,17 March 2009, para.662; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1860; Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004, para.468; Prosecutor v. Simba, Case No. ICTR-01-76-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,13 December 2005, para.385.
5 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdamic, Case No. IT-99-37-AR72, Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction-Joint Criminal Enterprise,21 May 2003, para.29; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.95; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, paras.363-364; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1021.
1 Prosecutor v. Brdanin. Case No. IT-99-36-T, Decision on Motion for Aauittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis,28
2 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, paras.4,1 November 2003, para.57.
3 Prosecutor v. Brdanin Case No. IT-99-36-A Decision on Interlocutory Anneal, 19 March 2004 para. 5
(?) Prosecutor v. Rwamakuma, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR72.4, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding
4 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, para.6. Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide,22 October 2004, para.3.
(?) Prosecutor v. Rwamakuma, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR72.4, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide,22 October 2004, para.14.
该案为United States v. Altstoetter, Von Ammon, Bamickel, Cuhorst, Enger, Joel, Klemm, Lautz, Mettgenbert, Nebelung, Oeschey, Petersen, Rothaug, Rothenberger, Schlegelberger and Westphal,3 Trials of War criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No.10 (1953), ("Justice Case").
(?)Prosecutor v. Rwamakuma, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR72.4, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide,22 October 2004, paras.14,16,19-22,31-32.
1 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.28.
2 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, paras.111-112.
3 Antonio Cassese, The Proper Limits to Individual Responsibility Under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise,5 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.109, March 2007, p.110.
4凌岩著：《卢旺达国际刑事法庭的理论与实践》,世界知识出版社2010年版,第198页。
Antonio Cassese, The Proper Limits to Individual Responsibility Under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise,5 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.109, March 2007, p.110. February 2009, para.102; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1024; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1862.
1 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Appeal Judgement,21 July 2000, para.120.
2 Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.721.
3 Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No.IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.158; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.353.
4 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, para.430; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1024.
5 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.199, n.243; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010. para.1024.
6 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, para.410; Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement,17 March 2009, para.163; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1028; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1862.
'Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal, Judgement,17 March 2009, para.163; Prosecutor v. November 2005, para.511; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.65; Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, Trial Judgement,27 September 2006, para.883; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1022; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1864; Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004, para.467; Prosecutor v. Simba, Case No. ICTR-01-76-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,13 December 2005, para.388.
1 Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend,26 June 2001, para.31; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, para.110; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.65.
2 Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement,17 March 2009, para.697; Prosecutor v Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1864.
3 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, para.83; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.160.
4 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, para.69; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.160; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.102; Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004, para.49.
5 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No.IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.288.
6 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, para.110.
7 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, para.487; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para. 111; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.997; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2009, para.109.
1 Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement,17 March 2009, para.226; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1029.
2 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, para.362; Prosecutor v. Popo Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1029.
3 Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement,17 March 2009, paras.225-226; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1029.
4 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, para.413; Prosecutor v Martic, Case No. IT-95-11-A, Appeal Judgment,8 October 2008, para.168; Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement,17 March 2009, para.226; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic. Case No. IT-05-88-T. Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1029.
5 Kai Ambos, Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility,5 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.159, March,2007, p.161; Stefano Manacorda and Chantal Meloni, Indirect Perpetration versus Joint Criminal Enterprise:Concurring Approaches in the Practice of International Criminal Law? 9 J. Int'1 Crim. Just.159, March,2011, p.162.
6 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgment,15 July 1999, paras.203,228.
7 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 20 para.272; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.32; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.157; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.101; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1864; Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004, para.467.
8 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, para.198; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.511.
1 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, Dara.203.
Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, paras.324,384; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburarv 2005. para.201.
3 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgment,15 July 1999, para.228; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.89; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.157; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.101; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.511; Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004, para.467.
4 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.372; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, paras.174,202.
5 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999,para.203. 0 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.228.
'Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend,26 June 2001, para.27.有意思的是,该案的审判庭在该段中引用Tadic案的上诉判决来支持它的观点,但是显然Tadic案的上诉庭在这个问题上持有不同的意见。
1 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, paras.3-10.
2 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, para.78.
3 Prosecutor v. Krnoielac. Case No. IT-97-25-T. Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, paras.127.170.313-314.346. 487
4 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, paras.172,318.
5 Prosecutor v. Krnoielac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.84.
(?)Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.94.
6 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, paras.89,96.
8 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.111.
9 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, paras.112-113. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December
10 Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.101; Prosecutor v. 2004,para.467.
11 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, para.82; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.65; Prosecutor (?) Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1864.
12 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para. 111; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.288; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, nara.110.
1 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.220.
2 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.228.
3 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgment,26 February 2001, para.398; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.32; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.101; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 February 2005, para.83; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2009, para.110; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1865; Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004, para.467.
4 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.220.
5 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.228.
1 Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend,26 June 2001, para.30.
2 Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend,26 June 2001, para.31.
3 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.613.
4 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.615.
5 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.616.
6 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.617.
7 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Appeal Judgement,19 April 2004, para.149.
8 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T,Trial Judgement,29 October 2003, para.436; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.101; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, paras.265; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No.IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.703; Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004, para.467.
(?) Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, paras.5-6; Prosecutor v. Milosevic, Case No. IT-02-54-T, Decision on Motion for Judgement of Acquittal,16 June 2004, para.290; prosecutor v. Milutmovic, bamovic, Ojdanic,pavkovic, Lazarevic and Lukic, Case No.IT-05-87-1, Inal Judgement,26 February 2009, para.111.
1 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004, para.33.
2 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, para.83; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.511.
3 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, para.411; Prosecutor v Martic, Case No. IT-95-11-T, Trial Judgement,12 June 2007, para.439; Prosecutor v Martic, Case No. IT-95-11-A, Appeal Judgment,8 October 2008, para.83; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1030.
4 Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, paras.1865,1867.
5 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.65.
6 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.87.
7 Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, Trial Judgement,27 September 2006, para.882.
1 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement,29 October 2003, para.530.
2 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Decision on Motion for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis 28 November 2003, paras.30,32,57.
3 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, para.6.
4 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, para.10.
5 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Tri Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1031.
6 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, paras.5-7; Prosecutor V. Ponovic. Beara Nikolic Rorovcanin Miletic Gvero and Pandurevic Case No IT-05-88-T Trial
7 Prosecutor v. Brdanin. Case No. IT-99-36-A. Decision on Interlocutory Anneal.19 March 2004, paras 6 9(?) Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1031. Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic. Gvero and Pandurevic. Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1031.
8 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, para.5: Prosecutor v. Krstic. Case No. IT-98-33-A. Anneal Judgement 19 Anril 2004, para .150 .Prosecutory Milntinovic Sainovic. Oidanic. Pavkovic. Lazarevic and Lukic Case No IT-05-87-T ,Trial Judgement, 26 Febrnary 2009, para.112.
1 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, paras.2-9.
2 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.10.
3 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.341.
1 Prosecutor v. Rrdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial judgment,1 Sentemher 2004, paras.345-347.
2 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial judgment,1 September 2004, paras.346.
3 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-PT, Fourth Amended Indictment,10 April 2002, para.26.
5 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.427.但是在上诉判决中,上诉庭
4 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-PT, Fourth Amended Indictment,10 April 2002, para.28.认为检察官仅依据第一类和第三类团伙共同犯罪责任指控被告犯下所诉罪行。参见Prosecutor v. Stakic. Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.66.
6 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.432.
Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.438.
2 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.439.
3 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.439, note 942.
4 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.440.
5 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.440.
6 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.440.
7 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.441.
8 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.441, note 950.
1 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.108.
2 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.442.
3 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.468.
4 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, paras.470,475.
5 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.472.
6 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, paras.484,488.
7 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.490.
8 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.496.
9 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.498.
10 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.616.
11 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, para.661.
12 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgment,31 July 2003, p.253.
Prosecutor v. Tolimir, Miletic, Gvero, Pandurevic, Beara, Popovic, Nikolic, Trbic and Borovcanin, Case No. IT-05-88-PT, Consolidated Amended Indictment,28 June 2005, para.88; Prosecutor v. Prlic, Stojic, Praljak, Petkovic, Coric and Pusic, Case No. IT-04-74-PT, Amended Indictment,16 November 2005, para.15; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Prosecution's Notice of Filing Amended Joinder Indictment and Motion to Amend the Indictment with Annexes,16 August 2005, paras.20-22.
2 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, para.2.
3 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, paras.7,30.
4 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, para.14.
Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, para.15.
1 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, para.37.
2 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, para.39.
3 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, paras.40,42.
4 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.59.
5 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.59.
6 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.62.
7 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.63.
1 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A. Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.63.
2 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A. Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.66.
3 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, paras.73-78.
4 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.80.
5 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.84.
6 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.104.
7 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, para.92.
8 Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006, paras.98,104.
9 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.6.
10 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.259.
11 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.261.
12 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.172,259,261.
1 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi. Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004. paras.246.264.
3 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi. Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004. paras.284-286.288.
2 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.285.
4 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, paras.259,262,287.
5 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, paras.290,293,334.
6 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, paras.295,334.
7 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.4.
8 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.38.
9 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.46.
10 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi. Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A. Anneal Judgement,7 Julv 2006. para.44.
11 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi. Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A. Anneal Judgement,7 Julv 2006. para.45.
12沙哈布丁Shahabuddeen)法官和朔姆堡Schomburg)去官对此持有异议。
13 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.50.
14刘大群法官和梅隆(Meron)法官对此持有异议。
15 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi. Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A. Anneal Judeement,7 Julv 2006. para.58.
17 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.59.
16居内(Guney)法官对此持有异议。
1 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.60.
2 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.60, note 145.
3 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.60.
4 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.60.
5 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.61.
6 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.61.
7居内法官对此持有异议。
8 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.61.
9 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.16.
1 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, paras.16-20, nn.29-38.
2 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.17.
3 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.18.
4 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.18.
5 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, paras.17,20.
6-CONF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
7 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.21.
8 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.22.
9 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Resposibility of the Appellant for Commiting Genocide, para.28.
1 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, paras.21-22.
2 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, paras.22-23.
3 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, para.51.
4 Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration,22 March 2006, para.39.
5 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Giiney, para.5.
6 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement, 7 July 2006, Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Guney, para.6.
7MCONF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.326.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.327.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, paras.328-332.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.328.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.329.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.330.
7 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, paras.331-332.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.332.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.333.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, paras.334-335.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.338.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.339.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.481.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.482.
2 Ibid.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.482, n.642.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.483.
5 Ibid.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.484.
7 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.485.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.485, n.647.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.486.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.488.
4 Situation in Darfur, Sudan in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.210.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, paras.347-348.
A/CONF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.340.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.341.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.342.
5 Ibid.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.342, n.422.
7 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.521; Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.212.
8 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.343.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.344.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.344.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.345.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.346.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.524.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.347.
7 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.348.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.349.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.527.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.351.
4A/CONF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第23页。
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.351.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.357.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.351; Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.358.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.352; Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.359.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.352; Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemha Gomho,15 June 2009, para.360.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.369.
3ICC-ASP/1/3,《国际刑事法院罗马规约缔约国大会第一届会议正式记录》(中文本),2002年9月3日至10日,第113页。
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.361.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confinnation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.533; Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, paras.351,370.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.362.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.366.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.538; Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, paras.351,371.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.367; Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.539.
7 G P. Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law, New York, Oxford University Press,2000, p.639.
8 Florian Jessberger and Julia Geneuss, On the Application of a Theory of Indirect Perpetration in Al Bashir German Doctrine at the Hague? 6 J, Int'l Crim. Just.853, p.857; Thomas Weigend, Perpetration through an Organization:The Unexpected Career of a German Legal Concept,9 J. Int'l Crim. Just.91, p.104.
1 Florian Jessberger and Julia Geneuss, On the Application of a Theory of Indirect Perpetration in Al Bashir: German Doctrine at the Hague? 6 J. Int'l Crim. Just.853, p.860.
2MCONF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.495.
4 Ibid.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.496.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.497.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.498.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.499.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.499, n.660.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.499.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.498.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.500,510.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.501.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.502, n.666.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,paras.502-504.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.504.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.505.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.506.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.506-508.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.508.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.509.
4 Ibid.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.495-496.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.513.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.514.
4 Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.211.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,paras.511-512.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.515.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,paras.516-517.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.516.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.517.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.518.
6 Ibid.
7 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.527.
8 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.528,532.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.528-530.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.531.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.534.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.534.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.490.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.491.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.492.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.493.
5 Ibid.
Situation in Darfur, Sudan in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.210.
2 Situation in Darfur, Sudan in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.214.
Situation in Darfur, Sudan in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.223.
4 Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-1, Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.519.
2 Ibid.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.519-520.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.521.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.522.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.523.
7 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.524.
1 Situation in the Democratic Renublic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.525. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.526.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.31.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.32.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.33.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, paras.33-34.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.35.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.36.
3 Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-1, Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, pp.4-6.
4 Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.221; Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-1, Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, pp.6-7.
5 Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.222; Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-1, Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, p.7.
1 Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009,
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and para.223; Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-1, Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, p.7. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008,para.527.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.532.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.533.
5 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.534.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, para.537.
7 Situation in Darfur, Sudan in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03. Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest aeainst Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009, para.214.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008, paras.538-539.
1S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第41页。
2S/RES/955(1994),《安全理事会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第6页。
3S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第41页。
4S/RES/955(1994),《安全理事会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第6页。
5 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.278; Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.601; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.59; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement, 29 October 2003, para.443; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No.IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.168; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1005; Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No.ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.480; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, para.37; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.380; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003,para.761.
1 Prosecutor v. Akavesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.483.
2 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.279; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.386; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.59; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement,29 October 2003, para.442; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999, para.199; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, para.37; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.119; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.592; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.271.
3 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.601; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement,29 October 2003, para.443;Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.168; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment, 1 September 2004, para.268; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.26; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.513; Prosecutor v Boskoski and Tarculovski, Case No. IT-04-82-T, Trial Judgment,10 July 2008, para.398; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1005; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1869; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.380; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.20.
4 Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.2.
5 Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, paras.512,527, 529-531.
6 Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.761; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.20.
1 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.982.
2 Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.168; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.267; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.26; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Judgement,30 November 2005, para.513; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1006; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999, para.198; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No.ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, para.34; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.115; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.589; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.378; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.758; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.20.
3 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1006; Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003, paras.6,98,697-699.
4 Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003, para.954.
5 Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003, paras.730,954.
6 Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003, paras.720,730.
7 Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003, para.1067.
8 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.26; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Judgement,30 November 2005, para.513; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1 A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999, para.198; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, paras.590,592; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, paras.379-380; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.759; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.20.
1 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.479.
2 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.278.
3 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.474.
4 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, pp.347-348.
5 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004, para.40.
6 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgment,26 February 2001, para.386; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.31; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement,29 October 2003, para.445.
7 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.29.
1 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.31.
2 Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.513 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1005.
3 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1006.
4S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第41页。
S/RES/955(1994),《安全理事会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第6页。
6 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.482.
7 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.280; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Kos, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgement,2 November 2001, paras.243,250; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.27; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, paras.270-273; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1007; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1 A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.381; Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi, Case No. ICTR-2001-71-I, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 July 2004, para.456; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.279; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.18.
1 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement, 3 March 2000, para. 280.
4 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.387;
2 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.338.
3 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.339. Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.60; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.269; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.514; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No.11-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.273; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.176; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.593; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.762.
5 Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.381; Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi, Case No. ICTR-2001-71-I, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 July 2004, para.456; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.18.
6 Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi, Case No. ICTR-2001-71-I, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 July 2004, para.456; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.18.
7 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, paras.422,692.
8 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.88, p.92.
1 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No.IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, paras.278,280; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.387; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.269; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.514; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.593; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.381; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.762; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.279.
2 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No.IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.387; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.60; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.269; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.27; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No.IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 February 2005, para.252; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.514; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.274; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.168; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1009; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.129.
3 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.278.
4 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.280.
5 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.27.
6 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Tri Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1009; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, paras.129-130.
7 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.276.
8 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.272.
1 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.273.
2 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1008.
3 Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.18.
4 Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi. Case No. ICTR-2001-71-I. Trial Judeement and Sentence.15 Julv 2004. para.464.
5 Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi, Case No. ICTR-2001-71-I, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 July 2004, paras.463, 464.
6 Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.168; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.267; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.27; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.269, n.732; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1009; Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, paras.34,38; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, paras.473-481; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.119; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.378; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.758; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.18.
7 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1007.
1 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.278.
2 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.29.
3 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.32.
4 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1007.
5 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.277.
6 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.279.
1 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.279.
2 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No.IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.281; Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.601; Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement,29 October 2003, para.445; Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.483.
3 Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, para.39; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.121.
4 Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.594; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No.ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.763.
5 Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1012; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Trial Judgement,7 June 2001, para.30; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.382; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No.ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.281.
6 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 Feburary 2001, para.338; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.270; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No.IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.28; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.168; Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement,23 February 2011, para.1871; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement,20 May 2005, para.361; Prosecutor v. Ntagerura, Bagambiki and Imanishimwe, Case No. ICTR-99-46-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.365; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No.ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.19.
7 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.282; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.388; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.61; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.270; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.331; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1012.
8 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.281; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.388; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.61; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.270; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.168; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.331; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.515; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1012; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence.22 January 2003. nara.76.
1 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.281; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.61.
2 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.281; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.388; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.178; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.331; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.515; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.76.
3 Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.171.
4 Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.176.
5 Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgement,30 November 2006, para.177, n.507.
6 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.483.
7 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.281; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, para.39; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.121; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.382.
8 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.388.
1 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.388.
3 Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.61;
2 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.28. Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.594; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No.ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.763; Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement,17 June 2004, para.282.
4 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, paras.178,196, 425-429,446-449.
5 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No.ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, paras.430,435-435, 465,553.
6 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement,20 May 2005, paras.349-351.
7 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement,20 May 2005, para.361.
8 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement,20 May 2005, para.363.
9 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement,20 May 2005, para.363.
10 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement,20 May 2005, paras.364,389, pp.125-126.
1 Prosecutor v Rrdanin Case No IT-99-36-T Trial Judgment 1 Sentemher 2004 para 270:Prosecutor v. Strugar. ICTR-99-54A-A. Appeal Judement.19 September 2005. para.75:Prosecutor v. Limai. Bala and Musliu. Case No. Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.331; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.515; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeal Judgment,30 November 2006, para.176; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1012; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.19.
2 Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda. Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003. para.594.
3 Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi. Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T, Trial Judgement.17 June 2004. para.282.
4 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez. Case No. IT-95-14/2-A. Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004. para.840: Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006, para.143.
5 Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-A, Appeal Judgment,19 September 2005, para.75.
1 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.267; Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.473; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, paras.34,38; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, paras.115-116; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.378; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.378.
2 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.332.
3 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004,
4 Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-A, Appeal Judgment,19 September 2005, para.75.
5 Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.169; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.332; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1013.
6 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.270.
7 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.333.
8 Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.515.
1 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgment,29 July 2004, para.42.
2 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.30.
3 Prosecutor v. Ponovic. Reara. Nikolic. Borovcanin, Miletic. Gvero and Pandurevic Case No IT-05-88-T, Trial
4 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.347. Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1010.
5 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.347.
7S/25704,《秘书长按照安全理事会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3
6 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.347.日,第41页。
8S/RES/955(1994),《联合国安理会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第6页。
9 Prosecutor v. Tadic. Case No. IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement,7 May 1997, paras.674-680.682-687
10 Prosecutor v. Tadic Case No TT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement, 7 May 1997, para.688.
11 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement,7 May 1997, paras.689-691.
1 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.692.
2 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, paras.190-249.
3 Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.102; Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004, para.49; Prosecutor v. Simic, Case No. IT-95-9-A, Appeal Judgement,28 November 2006, para.86; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007, para.484; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Appeal Judgement,9 May 2007, para.127; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1015.
4 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement,7 May 1997, para.689.
5 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2 Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.766; Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.327; Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001,para.352.
6 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, paras.235,249.
Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999, para.229; Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.283; Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic, Case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, Trial Judgement,22 February 2001, para.391; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.399; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-T, Trial Judgement,29 November 2002, para.70; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.63; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement, 17 October 2003, para.162; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.102; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.271; Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004, para.45; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case Judgement,31 January 2005, para.349; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.726; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.517; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.281; Prosecutor v. Simic, Case No. IT-95-9-A, Appeal Judgement,28 November 2006, para.85; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement,6 December 1999, para.43; Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, para.126; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.597; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.762.
1 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.282.
2 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.484.
3 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, p.92, n.512; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.516; Prosecutor v. Kos, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.254; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.384; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.765.
4 Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.384; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.765; Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi, Case No. ICTR-2001-71-I, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 July 2004, para.457.
5 Prosecutor v. Akavesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998. para.693.
6 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgement,10 December 1998, para.232.
1 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.64.
2 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.87.
3 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.129; Prosecutor v. Blaski Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.284; Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic, Case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, Trial Judgement,22 February 2001, para.391; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2002, para.88; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-T, Trial Judgement,29 November 2002, para.70; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003, para.63; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement, 17 October 2003, para.162; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.176; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.271; Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004, para.47; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.726; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.349; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement, 30 June 2006, para.283; Prosecutor v. Mrksic and Sljivancanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Appeal Judgement,5 May 2009, para.146; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1019; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.766; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.22.
4 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, paras.284.
5 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, paras.284.
6 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.65; Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Kos, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.257; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.165; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.271; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.349; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.283; Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003, para.386; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003, para.600; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.769.
1 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.693.
2 Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.22.
3 Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.22.
4 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.88; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.162; Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003, para.168; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.349; Prosecutor v. Mrksic and Sljivancanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Appeal Judgement,5 May 2009. nara.146:Prosecutor v. Popovic. Beara. Nikolic. Borovcanin. Miletic. Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1019; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR 95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999, para.202; Prosecutor v. Rutaganira, Case No. ICTR-95-1C-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,14 March 2005, para.64; Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judeement,11 September 2006, para.22.
Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement,11 September 2006, para.22.
6 Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Appeal Judgement,9 May 2007, para.134; Prosecutor v. Mrksic and Sljivancanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Appeal Judgement,5 May 2009, paras.146,200.
7 Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Appeal Judgement,9 May 2007, para.134; Prosecutor v. Mrksic and Sljivancanin, Case No.IT-95-13/1-A, Appeal Judgement,5 May 2009, para.200; Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010, para.1019.
8 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-A, Appeal Judgement,3 July 2008, para.43; Prosecutor v. Mrksic and Sliivancanin. Case No. IT-95-13/1-A. Appeal Judeement.5 May 2009. paras.97.101:Prosecutor v. Popovic. Beara. Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judeement,10 June 2010, para.1019.
1 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement,17 September 2003, para.52.
2 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.262; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-T, Trial Judgement,29 November 2002, para.251; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.271; Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003, para.164; Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement,25 February 2004, para.142; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T. Trial Judgement.17 January 2005, para.753.
3 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Appeal Judgement,19 April 2004, para.143.
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
5 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.371.
1 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.371.
2 Situation in Uganda, Case No. ICC-02/04-01/05, Warrant of Arrest for Joseph Kony issued on 8 July 2005 as amended on 27 September 2005,27 September 2005, p.12 et seq.; Situation in Uganda, Case No. ICC-02/04-01/05, Warrant of Arrest for Vincent Otti,8 July 2005, p.12 et seq.; Situation in Uganda, Case No. ICC-02/04-01/05, Warrant of Arrest for Okot Odhiambo,8 July 2005, p.10 et seq.; Situation in Uganda, Case No. ICC-02/04-01/05, Warrant of Arrest for Dominic Ongwen,8 July 2005, p.8 et seq.
3A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第16页。
4A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第19页,第(8)段。
5A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第19页,第(8)段。
1 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.756, margin no.14.
2 Bryan A. Garner ed., Black's Law Dictionary, West Group, Seventh Edition,1999, p.1398.
3 Bryan A. Garner ed., Black's Law Dictionary, West Group, Seventh Edition,1999, p.779.
4薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第688页、1270页。
5 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.756, margin no.15.
6A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
1 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.756, margin no.17.
2A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第20页,第11段。
3A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
4 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent IssueS, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.167.
1 Dietrich Schindler, Jiri Toman eds., Laws of Armed Conflicts:A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, Brill Academic Publishers,2004, p.1256.
2 Dietrich Schindler, Jiri Toman eds., Laws of Armed Conflicts:A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, Brill Academic Publishers,2004, p.1257.
3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692页。
4 J. Spiropoulos (Special Rapporteur), Formulation of Nuremberg Principles, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission,1950, Vol.Ⅱ, p.195.
5 Dietrich Schindler, Jiri Toman eds., Laws of Armed Conflicts:A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, Brill Academic Publishers,2004, p.840.
6A/47/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十三届会议工作报告》(中文本),1991年9月10日，第249页。
7A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第16页。
8第17条至20条所规定的罪行分别为灭绝种族罪行、危害人类罪行、危害联合国人员和有关人员罪行以及战争罪行。
9A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第21页。
William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, Cambridge University Press,2001, pp.80-83.
2[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第150页。
Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.167.
4李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编：《国际刑事法院国际刑事法院规约评释》(上册),北京大学出版社2006年版,第265页；Per Saland in Roy S. Lee ed., The Inernational Criminal Court - The Making of the Rome Statute, Kluwer Law International,1999, pp.198-200.
5 Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.168.
6 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, para.334.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, paras.335-337.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.39.
3 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, pp.126-127; Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008, p.175.
4 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.311.
5 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Prcac, Kos, Radic and Zigic, Case No.IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 Feburary 2005, para.97.
1 Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.702; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, paras.263.
2 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgement,7 May 1997, para.674; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdanic, Case No. IT-99-37-AR72, General Ojdanic's Appeal from Denial of Preliminary Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction:Joint Criminal Enterprise,28 Feburary 2003, para.23; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004, para.5; Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Appeal Judgement,19 April 2004, para.150; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2009, para.112.
3 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.41.
4 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, para.39.
1 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, paras.42-44.
1让-马里·亨克茨,路易斯·多斯瓦尔德-贝克编：《习惯国际人道法规则》,刘欣燕等译,法律出版社2007年版,第523页、第526页。
2[春秋]孙武著：《孙子兵法》,[三国]曹操(注),郭化若(译),上海古籍出版社,1984年版,第268页。
Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, translated and slightly abridged by A.C.Campbell, A.M., Batoche Books Kitchener,2001, p.216.
2 William H. Parks, Command Responsibility for War Crimes, Military Law Review, Vol.62,1973, p.4.
3 American Articles of War, Section Ⅸ,20 September 1776, cited from Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.146.
4世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1648-1871),世界知识出版社1984年版,第444页。
5世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1986年版,第303页。
6世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1924-1933),世界知识出版社1961年版,第397页。
1世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1986年版,第188-189页。
2世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1986年版,第197页
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1986年版,第365页。
4世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1986年版,第373-374页。
5世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1986年版,第401页。
6 Elies van Sliedregt, The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, 2003, p.120.
1 Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, Report Presented to the Preliminary Peace Conference, Versailles,29 March 1919, reprinted in 14 American Journal of International Law,95(1920), p.121.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅳ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1948, pp.2-3.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅳ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1948, p.35.
4约翰逊(Johnson)大法官未参与本案的审理与评议。
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅳ, His Maiestv's Stationery Office,1948, pp.35.38-49.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅳ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1948, pp.49-54.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅳ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1948, pp.54-73.
4 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ (The German High Command Trial), His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.5.
5 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ (The German High Command Trial), His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, pps.2-5.
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ (The German High Command Trial), His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.765.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ (The German High Command Trial), His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949,p.75.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ (The German High Command Trial), His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.76.
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949. pps.34-35.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, pps.60-61.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, pps.69-70.
4 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.70.
5 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.71.
Judgement of International Military Tribunal of Far East,4 November 1948, pp.33,45-48,59-60, at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-10.html, viewed at 17 March 2011另见《远东国际军事法庭判决书》,张效林译,群众出版社1986年版,第563-568页。
Judgement of International Military Tribunal of Far East,4 November 1948, p.1158, at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-10.html, viewed at 17 March 2011;另见《远东国际军事法庭判决书》,张效林译,群众出版社1986年版,第576页。
3 Judgement of International Military Tribunal of Far East,4 November 1948, p.1160, at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-10.html, viewed at 17 March 2011;另见《远东国际军事法庭判决书》,张效林译,群众出版社1986年版,第577-578页。
4 Judgement of International Military Tribunal of Far East,4 November 1948, pp.1160-1161, at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-10.html, viewed at 17 March 2011;另见《远东国际军事法庭判决书》,张效林译,群众出版社1986年版,第578页。
5 Judgement of International Military Tribunal of Far East,4 November 1948, p.1161, at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-10.html, viewed at 17 March 2011;另见《远东国际军事 法庭判决书》,张效林译,群众出版社1986年版,第578页。
1 Yves SANDOZ, Christophe SWINARSKI, Bruno ZIMMERMANN eds., Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, International Committee of the Red Cross, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1987, para.3525.
2世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949)，世界知识出版社1959年版,第314页。
3世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第352页。
1《日内瓦第三公约》第130条规定：“上条所述之严重破坏公约行为,应系对于受公约保护之人或财产所犯之任何下列行为：故意杀害,酷刑或不人道待遇,包括生物学实验,故意使身体及健康遭受重大痛苦或严重伤害,强迫战俘在敌国部队中服务,或故意剥夺战俘依本公约规定应享之公允及合法的审判之权利。”参见世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版,第352页。
2世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1966-1968),世界知识出版社1977年版,第674页。
3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256页。
A/51/10(supp),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第29-30页,第(4)段。
2A/51/10(supp),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第30页,第(5)段。
1A/51/10(supp),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第30页,第(6)段。
2S/25704,《秘书长按照安理会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第41页。
3S/RES/955(1994),《安全理事会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第6页。
4A/CONF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第22页。
5 Argentina, Court of Appeal, Military Junta Case (Appeal),9 December 1985, see Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, volume Ⅱ (Practice), Part Ⅱ, para.649.
Canada, Court Martial Appeal Court, Boland Case, Judgement,16 May 1995, see Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, volume Ⅱ (Practice), Part Ⅱ, para.650.
US, Federal Court of Florida, Ford v. Garcia case, Judgement,3 November 2000, see Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, volume Ⅱ (Practice), Part Ⅱ, para.661.
1S/25704,《秘书长按照安全理事会第808(1993)号决议第2段提出的报告》(中文本),1993年5月3日,第41页。
2S/RES/955(1994),《联合国安理会第955(1994)号决议》(中文本),1994年11月8日,第6页。
3 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.3-5.
1 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.334-335.
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.335.
3 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-1, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.338-339.
4 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.342.
5 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.336-337,341.
6 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.340,343.
7 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.346.
8 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.1237,1253,1272.
9 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, paras.189-198,225-226,238-239,256,263.
1 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgment,2 September 1998, para.491.
2 Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzinndana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgment,21 May 1999, paras.214, 222.
3 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.346.
4 Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.275; Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.647.
1 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.193.
Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-A, Appeal Judgement,3 July 2002, para.61.
3 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para. 370.
4 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.196.
5 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No.IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.256.
6 Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.715.
7 Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005, para.716.
8 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, para.276; Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.791.
1 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.197.
2 Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001, para.648; Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2006, para.79; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, paras.270-273.
3 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgment,29 July 2004, para.485; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, paras.395-396,414; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.312; Prosecutor v Delic, Case No. IT-04-83-T, Trial Judgment, 15 September 2008, para.62.
4 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, paras.398,414; Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2006, para.83; Prosecutor v Delic, Case No. IT-04-83-T, Trial Judgment,15 September 2008, para.62.
5 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.767; Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, paras.408-409,414; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.312.
0 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.767; Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2006, para.83.
7 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.412.
8 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.414;; Prosecutor v Delic Case No. IT-04-83-T, Trial Judgment,15 September 2008, para.62.
9 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.414.
10 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.739:Prosecutor v. Blaskic. Case No. IT-95-14-A. Anneal Judgment,29 Julv 2004. para.69:Prosecutor v. IT-03-68-T. Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.312:Prosecutor v. Kavishema and Ruzindana, Case No. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.396; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999, para.739.
1 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.743; Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.312.
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.747.
3 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.739,750,765-766.
4 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.750.
5 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.749-750.
6 Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, para.739; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-A, Appeal Judgement,23 May 2005, paras.90-91.
7Prosecutor v. Struear. Case No. IT-01-42-T. Trial Judgement.31 January 2005, para.410.
8 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.401. paras.739-740; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-A, Judgement,3 May 2006, para.331;
9 Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999, paras.501,503.
10 Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003, paras.531, 559,597,625,739; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999,para.501.
11 Prosecutor v. Kavishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T Trial Judgement.21 Mav 1999, para.501.
12 Prosecutor v. Kaieliieli. Case No. ICTR-98-44A-A, Appeal Judgement,23 Mav 2005, para.87.
13 Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004, paras.374-375; Prosecutor v Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, paras.847,913.
14 Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005, para.795.
15 Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005, para.401.
1根据审判庭在脚注中说明,这个持有不同意见的学者是巴西奥尼先生。
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.398.
3 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.399.
4 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.400.
5 Prosecutor v. Halilovic, Case No. IT-01-48-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 2005, para.78.
6 Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006, para.338.
1 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement,25 June 1999, para.114.
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.383.
3 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000, para.332.
4 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, paras.226,235.
5 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, paras.226,239.
6 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001,
1A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第22页。
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.406.
A/CONF.183/2/Add.1,《设立国际刑事法院筹备委员会的报告(增编)》(中文本),1998年4月14日,第50页。
2A/CONF.183/2/Add.1,《设立国际刑事法院筹备委员会的报告(增编)》(中文本),1998年4月14日,第50页,注释10。
3A/CONF.183/2/Add.1,《设立国际刑事法院筹备委员会的报告(增编)》(中文本),1998年4月14日,第50页,注释11。
4A/CONF.183/2/Add.1,《设立国际刑事法院筹备委员会的报告(增编)》(中文本),1998年4月14日,第50页,注释12。
1A/CONF.183/C.1/L.2,《美利坚合众国提议的第25条案文》(中文本),1998年6月16日。
2A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.1,《(联合国设立国际刑事法院全权代表外交会议)全体委员会第一次会议简要记录》(中文本),1998年11月20日,第67段。
1A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.1,《(联合国设立国际刑事法院全权代表外交会议)全体委员会第一次会议简要记录》(中文本),1998年11月20日,第68段。
2A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.1,《(联合国设立国际刑事法院全权代表外交会议)全体委员会第一次会议简要记录》(中文本),1998年11月20日,第69-76段,第78-81段。
3A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.1,《(联合国设立国际刑事法院全权代表外交会议)全体委员会第一次会议简要记录》(中文本),1998年11月20日,第77段。
4A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.1,《(联合国设立国际刑事法院全权代表外交会议)全体委员会第一次会议简要记录》(中文本),1998年11月20日,第82段。
1 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.408.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.408.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61 (7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.408.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61 (7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.409.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.409.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.412.
7 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.412.
1 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.413.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.414.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.415.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009. para.415.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.416.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.417.
1 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.417, ns.540-546.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.418.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.419.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.423.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.424.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.425.
1 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.425.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.425.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.426.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.435.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.436.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.437.
Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.438.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.439.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.440.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.442.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.443.
1 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.429.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.430.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, paras.430-431.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.431.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.432.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61 (7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.433.
1 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.434.
2 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.434.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.434.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009. nara.434.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.434.
6A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第22页。
1 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.840, margin no.124.
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, paras.355-363.
3 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998, para.492.
4 Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000, paras.868-869; Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003, paras.970-971.
5 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2001, para.838.
1 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.840, margin no.126.
2 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck-Hart-Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.840, margin no.125.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.412.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.413.
5 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.416.
6 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.419.
1 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck-Hart-Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.841, margin no.129.
2 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck-Hart-Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.840, margin no.127.
3 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61 (7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, paras.423-426.
4 Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61 (7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009, para.430.
1 Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.841, margin no.128.
2 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,2007, p.260.
1世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版,第98页。
2同上。
3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692页。
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.155.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.177.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.177.
4 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.174.
5 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.174.
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.50.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.184.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.184.
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.185.
2《欧洲国际军事法庭宪章》第7条规定：“被告的官方地位,无论是国家元首还是政府部门的负责官员，不得被视为免除其责任或者减刑的因素。”
3《纽伦堡判决书》,第52-53页,转引自转引自A/51/10(supp),第32页。
1 Year Book of the International Law Commission,1954, Vol. Ⅱ, p.150-151.
2A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第25页。
3A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第27页。
4A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第31页。
1A/51/10(SUPP),《国际法委员会第四十八届会议工作报告》(中文本),1996年5月6日至7月26日,第32页。
2A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21页。
1A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第21-22页。
2A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第23页。
A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24页。
2A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24页。
3A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第25页。
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第19页。
1[德]李斯特著：《德国刑法教科书》,徐久生译,法律出版社2000年版,第201页。
2马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第279-282页。
3马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第296-297页。
4马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第297页。
1[日]福田平、大塚仁编：《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔、文石、周世铮译,辽宁人民出版社1986年版,第83页。
2马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第298-299页。
3[日]泷川幸辰著：《犯罪论序说》,王泰译,载高铭暄等主编：《刑法论丛》(第4卷),法律出版社2000年版,第386页。
1[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版,第303页。
2马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第434页。
3马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第434页。
4[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版,第304页。
1[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版,第315页。
2马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第405-406页。
3马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第411页。
4[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版,第306页。
1[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版,第303-304页。
2旧]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版,第306页。
3马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第446-447页。
4马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第458页。
马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版,第459页。
2 Peter D. W. Heberling, Note, Justification:The Impact of the Model Penal Code on Statutory Reform,75 Columbia Law Review (1975), pp.914,916.
1[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第192页。
1[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第188页。
2 American Law Institute, Comment to Artcle 3 of Model Penal Code, at 2-4,转引自[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第198-199页。
1[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第184-201页。
1《德国刑法典》,徐久生、庄敬华译,中国方正出版社2004年版,第12-13页。
1[英]J·C·史密斯,B·霍根著：《英国刑法》,李贵方等译,法律出版社2000年版,第289-290页。
2[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第202页。
3[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第234页。
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24页。
5 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 Feburary 2001, paras.449,451.
1[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第210页。
2[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第237-238页。
P. Saland, in Roy S. Lee ed., The International Criminal Court, The Making of the Rome Statute,1999,
pp.189-208,转引自[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第168页。
4 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgment,26 February 2001, para.451; Albin Eser, Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility, in Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.881, margin no.43.
1A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24页。
2 Albin Eser, Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility, in Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C.H.Beck·Hart·Nomos, Second Edition,2008, p.881, margin no.43.
3A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24页。
4 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgment,26 February 2001, para.452.
1 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004, para.812.
2 Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press,2003, p.242.
3[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第172页,注释303。
4A/COF.183/9,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(中文本),1998年7月17日,第24页。
5 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Appeal Judgment,7 October 1997, Separate Opinion of Judges Kirk McDonald and Vohrah, paras.59 et seq.
6 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Appeal Judgment,7 October 1997, Separate Opinion of Judge Cassese, para.16.
1[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第174页。
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.173.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.174.
1 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22, Incitement,22 May 1996, paras.9-12.
2 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-T, Sentencing Judgment,29 November 1996, para.10.
3 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-T, Sentencing Judgment,29 November 1996, paras.86,91-98,111.
4 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Appeal Judgment,7 October 1997, para.11.
5 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Appeal Judgment,7 October 1997, para.19.
6 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cassess,7 October 1997, paras.42-44; Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Stephen,7 October 1997, paras.64-66.
1 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A. Appeal Judgment,7 October 1997, para.20.
2 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-Tbis, Sentencing Judgment,5 March 1998, paras.8,17.
3 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-This. Sentencing Judgment,5 March 1998. para.23.
4 William Schabas, The UN International Criminal Tribunals:The Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, Cambridge University Press,2006, p.332.
1A/CONF.18312/Add.1,《设立国际刑事法院筹备委员的报告》(增编一),第57页。
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001, para.582.
A. Cassese, P. Gaeta and J. R. W. D. Jones eds., The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Vol.1, 2002, pp.951-954.
2 Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998, para.1178.
1[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第192页,脚注第401.
2[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版,第192页。
1 Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Kos, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001, para.706.
2A/CONF.183/2/Add.1,《设立国际刑事法院筹备委员会的报告》,第56页,注释24.
1 Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press,2003, p.251.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, paras.294-296.
2 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007, paras.306,312-314.
3朱文奇、冷新宇、张膑心著：《战争罪》,法律出版社2010年版,第183页。
1卢有学著：《战争罪刑事责任研究》,法律出版社2009年版,第248页。
1该条的标题虽为“上级命令和法律规定”,但是条文内容全部是关于“上级命令”的,并未提及“法律规定”的情况。这应该是一项立法疏漏。
2 A/CONE 183/C.1/WGGP/L.2, Proposal by the United States of America for Single Provision Covering Issues Curently Governed by Articles 31,32,33 and 34,16 June 1998.
1 Paola Gaeta, The Defence of Superior Orders:The Statute of the International Criminal Court versus Customary International Law,10 European Journal of International Law 1999, p.172.
2 Chales Garraway, Superior Orders and the International Criminal Court:Justic Delivered or Justice Denied, International Review of the Red Cross, No.836, p.785.
1《纽伦堡判决书》,第53-54页。转引自A/51/10(supp),第58页,注释98。
2《欧洲国际军事法庭战犯审判》,第八卷,第1179页。转引自A/51/10(supp),第58页,注释98。
The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, pp.155-157,170-171.
4卢有学著：《战争罪刑事责任研究》,法律出版社2007年版,第172页。
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.93.
2 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, pp.93-94.
3 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.66-67.
4 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.69.
1 The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅩⅤ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949, p.167.
2 Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgment,3 March 2000, paras.553,559.
3A/RES/40/33,《北京规则》规则4.1的说明。
1、[英]劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》(下卷,第一分册),王铁崖、陈体强译,商务印书馆1989年版
2、[美]理查德·塔克著：《战争与和平的权利》,罗炯等译,凤凰出版传媒集团、译林出版社2009年版。
3、[法]孟德斯鸠著：《论法的精神》,张雁深译,商务印书馆2007年版。
4、[法]夏尔·卢梭著：《武装冲突法》,张凝等译,中国对外翻译出版公司1987年版。
5、[加]卡列维·霍尔蒂斯著：《和平与战争：16481989年的武装冲突与国际秩序》,王浦劬等译,北京大学出版社2005年版。
6、朱文奇著：《国际人道法》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
7、张景恩著：《国际法与战争》,国防大学出版社1999年版。
8、杨泽伟著：《国际法析论》,中国人民大学出版社2003年版
9、[韩]柳炳华著：《国际法》(下卷),朴国哲等译,中国政法大学出版社1997年版。
10、[法]卢梭著：《社会契约论》,何兆武译,商务印书馆2005年版。
11、贾宇著：《国际刑法学》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
12、邵沙平著：《现代国际刑法教程》,武汉大学出版社,1993年版。
13、张智辉著：《国际刑法通论》,中国政法大学出版社,1999年版。
14、林欣主编：《国际刑法问题研究》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版。
15、马呈元著：《国际刑法论》,中国政法大学出版社2008年版。
16、[日]大塚仁著,《犯罪论的基本问题》,冯军译,中国政法大学出版社1993年版。
17、[日]小野清一郎著：《犯罪构成要件理论》,王泰译,中国人民公安大学出版社1991年版。
18、[日]福田平、大塚仁编：《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔、文石、周世铮 译,辽宁人民出版社1986年版。
19、[英]J·C·史密斯,B·霍根著：《英国刑法》,李贵方等译,法律出版社2000年版。
20、储槐植著：《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社1987年版。
21、[苏]A·H·特拉伊宁,《犯罪构成的一般学说》,王作富等译,中国人民大学出版社1958年版。
22、[德]格哈德·韦勒著：《国际刑法学原理》,王世洲译,商务印书馆2009年版。
23、梅汝璈著：《远东国际军事法庭》,法律出版社、人民法院出版社2005年版。
24、甘雨沛、高格著：《国际刑法学新体系》北京大学出版社2000年版。
25、刘亚平著：《国际刑法与国际犯罪》,群众出版社1986年版。
26、凌岩著：《卢旺达国际刑事法庭的理论与实践》,世界知识出版社2010年版。
27、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。
28、马克昌著：《比较刑法原理外国刑法学总论》,武汉大学出版社2006年版。
29、赵永琛著：《国际刑法与司法协助》,法律出版社1994年版。
30、[英]维克托·塔德洛斯著：《刑事责任论》,谭淦译,中国人民大学出版社2009年版。
31、王秀梅著：《国际刑事法院研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版。
32、黄风、凌岩、王秀梅著：《国际刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
33、黄芳著：《国际犯罪国内立法研究》,中国方正出版社2001年版。
34、周露露著：《当代国际刑法基本原则研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版。
35、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。
36、[日]野村稔著：《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社2000年版。
37、江溯著：《犯罪参与体系研究——以单一正犯体系为视角》,中国人民公安大学出版社2010年版。
38、[春秋]孙武著：《孙子兵法》,[三国]曹操(注),郭化若(译),上海古籍出版社,1984年版。
39、《德国刑法典》,徐久生、庄敬华译,中国方正出版社2004年版。
40、卢有学著：《战争罪刑事责任研究》,法律出版社2009年版。
41、[德]李斯特著：《德国刑法教科书》,徐久生译,法律出版社2000年版。
42、[日]泷川幸辰著：《犯罪论序说》,王泰译,载高铭暄等主编：《刑法论丛》(第4卷),法律出版社2000年版。
43、[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒著：《美国刑法精解》,王秀梅译,北京大学出版社2009年版。
44、朱文奇、冷新宇、张膑心著：《战争罪》,法律出版社2010年版。
1、顾德欣编著：《战争法概论》,国防大学出版社1991年版。
2、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1948-1949),世界知识出版社1959年版。
3、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。
4、邵沙平主编：《国际法》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
5、王铁崖主编：《中华法学大辞典·国际法学卷》,中国检察出版社1996年版
6、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1872-1916),世界知识出版社1959年版。
7、王世洲主编：《现代国际刑法学原理》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版。
8、[日]日本国际法学会编：《国际法辞典》,中文版总校订：外交学院国际法教研室,世界知识出版社1985年版。
9、[日]福田平、大塚仁编：《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔、文石、周世铮译,辽宁人民出版社1986年版。
10、王秀梅主编：《国际刑法学研究述评(1978-2008)》,北京师范大学出版社2009年版。
11、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1917-1923),世界知识出版社1961年版。
12、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1945-1947),世界知识出版社1959年版。
13、赵秉志主编：《外国刑法原理》(大陆法系),中国人民大学出版社2000年版。
14、薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版。
15、让-马里·亨克茨,路易斯·多斯瓦尔德-贝克编：《习惯国际人道法规则》,刘欣燕等译,法律出版社2007年版。
16、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1648-1871),世界知识出版社1984年版。
17、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1924-1933),世界知识出版社1961年版。
18、世界知识出版社编辑：《国际条约集》(1966-1968),世界知识出版社1977年版。
19、[日]福田平、大塚仁编：《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔、文石、周世铮译,辽宁人民出版社1986年版。
1、俞正山：《国际人道法的界定及其与战争法、武装冲突法的等同问题》,载《西安政治学院学报》第22卷第6期,2009年12月,第81-87页。
2、王虎华：《国际人道法的定义》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》第23卷第2期,2005年3月,第141-146页。
3、陈兴良：《犯罪构成论：从四要件到三阶层——一个学术史的考察》,《中外法学》,2010年第1期,第49-69页。
4、高铭暄：《论四要件犯罪构成理论的合理性暨对中国刑法学体系的坚持》,《中国法学》2009年第2期,第5-11页。
5、维泽昆：《三阶层犯罪构成体系：一个域外经验的反思与质疑》,第32 卷第2期,2010年3月,第167-184页。
6、陈兴良：《共同犯罪论》,《现代法学》第23卷第3期,2001年6月,第48-57页。
1、马克昌：《简评三阶层犯罪论体系》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》,2009年第3卷·总第19卷,法律出版社2009年版,第13-27页。
2、孙平、博胥康：《法国犯罪二元论体系概述：行为和行为人》,赵秉志主编：《刑法论丛》第11卷,法律出版社2007年版,第303-320页。
3、[日]西田典之著：《日本刑法中的责任概念》,金光旭译,载冯军主编：《比较刑法研究》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。http://www.criminallawbnu.cn/criminal/,京师刑事法治网。
1、让·皮克泰：《国际人道法的原则》,王海平译,载朱文奇主编：《国际人道法文选2004)),法律出版社2006年版。
2、[法]雅克·博里康：《法国的犯罪-犯罪人二元论体系介绍》,朱琳译,《法学杂志》2006年第6期,第138-141页。
3、[德]克劳斯·罗克辛：《德国犯罪原理的发展与现代趋势》,王世洲译,《法学家》,2007年第1期,第151-160页。
1. I. C. J., Legality of the Threat or Use of Unclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,8 July 1996.
2. I. C.J., Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,9 July 2004.
3. I.C. J., Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v. United States of America, Judgment,27 June 1986.
4. I. C. J., Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion,28 May 1951.
1. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22, Incitement,22 May 1996.
2. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-T, Trial Judgment,29 November 1996.
3. Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Trial Judgement,7 May 1997.
4. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-A, Appeal Judgment,7 October 1997.
5. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-Tbis, Sentencing Judgment,5 March 1998.
6. Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgement,16 November 1998.
7. Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgement, 25 June 1999.
8. Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement,15 July 1999.
9. Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic, Mir jan Kupreskic, Vlatko Kupreskic, Josipovic, Papic and Santic, Case No. IT-95-16-T, Trial Judgement,14 January 2000.
10. Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement,3 March 2000.
11. Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-A, Appeal Judgement, 24 March 2000.
12. Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Appeal Judgement, 21 July 2000.
13. Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Objections by Momir Talic to the Form of the Amended Indictment,20 February 2001.
14. Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgement,20 February 2001.
15. Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic, Case No. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, Trial Judgement,22 February 2001.
16. Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Judgement,26 Feburary 2001.
17. Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend, 26 June 2001.
18. Prosecutor v. Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment,2 August 2001.
19. Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Kos, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgment,2 November 2001.
20. Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdanic, Case No. IT-99-37-AR72, General Ojdanic' s Appeal from Denial of Preliminary Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction:Joint Criminal Enterprise, 28 Feburary 2003.
21. Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Judgement,31 March 2003.
22. Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeal Judgement, 17 September 2003.
23. Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Judgement,17 October 2003.
24. Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Judgement,29 October 2003.
25. Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgement and Opinion,5 December 2003.
26. Prosecutor v. Ntagerura, Bagambiki and Imanishimwe, Case No. ICTR-99-46-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,25 February 2004.
27. Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeal Judgement, 25 February 2004.
28. Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal,19 March 2004.
29. Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgement,29 July 2004.
30. Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment,1 September 2004.
31. Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeal Judgement,17 December 2004.
32. Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Trial Judgement,17 January 2005.
33. Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Judgement,31 January 2005.
34. Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgment,28 February 2005.
35. Prosecutor v. Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-03-70-PT, Decision on Vladirmir Lazarevic' s Preliminary Motion on Form of Indictment,8 July 2005.
36. Prosecutor v. Milutionvic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic, Dordevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-PT, Decision on Nebojsa Pavkovic' s Preliminary Motion on Form of Indictment,22 July 2005.
37. Prosecutor v. Halilovic, Case No. IT-01-48-T, Trial Judgement, 16 November 2005.
38. Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Judgement,30 November 2005.
39. Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Trial Judgement,15 March 2006.
40. Prosecutor v. Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Appeal Judgement,22 March 2006.
41. Prosecutor v. Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Tolmir, Miletic, Gvero, Pandurevic and Trbic, Case No. IT-05-88-PT, Decision on Motions Challenging the Indictment pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules,31 May 2006.
42. Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgement,30 June 2006.
43. Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, Trial Judgement, 27 September 2006.
44. Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeal Judgment,3 April 2007.
45. Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Appeal Judgement,9 May 2007.
46. Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-A, Appeal Judgement,27 September 2007.
47. Prosecutor v Delic, Case No. IT-04-83-T, Trial Judgment,15 September 2008.
48. Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic, Ojdanic, Pavkovic, Lazarevic and Lukic, Case No. IT-05-87-T, Trial Judgement,26 February 2009.
49. Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement, 17 March 2009.
50. Prosecutor v. Mrksic and Sljivancanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Appeal Judgement,5 May 2009.
51. Prosecutor v. Popovic, Beara, Nikolic, Borovcanin, Miletic, Gvero and Pandurevic, Case No. IT-05-88-T, Trial Judgement,10 June 2010.
52. Prosecutor v. Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Trial Judgement, 23 February 2011.
1. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgement,2 September 1998.
2. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgement,21 May 1999.
3. Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Judgement, 6 December 1999.
4. Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,27 January 2000.
5. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-A Appeal Judgement (Reasons),1 June 2001.
6. Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-A, Appeal Judgement, 3 July 2002.
7. Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,22 January 2003.
8. Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,15 May 2003.
9. Prosecutor v. Niyitegeka, Case No. ICTR 96-14-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,16 May 2003.
10. Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,1 December 2003.
11. Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003.
12. Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, Appeal Judgement, 20 May 2005.
13. Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-A, Appeal Judgement,23 May 2005.
14. Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,3 December 2003.
15. Prosecutor v. Ntagerura, Bagambiki and Imanishimwe, Case No. ICTR-99-46-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,25 February 2004, para.630.
16. Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement,13 December 2004.
17. Prosecutor v. Simba, Case No. ICTR-01-76-T, Trial Judgement and Sentence,13 December 2005.
18. Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A, Appeal Judgement,7 July 2006
19. Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, Trial Judgement, 11 September 2006.
20. Prosecutor v Bagosora, Kabiligi, Nsengiyumva, Ntabakuze, Case No. ICTR-98-41-T, Trial Judgment and Sentence,18 December 2008.
1. Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,29 January 2007.
2. Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun and Ali Muhammad Al Abd-Al-Rahman, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/07-1, Decision on the Prosecution Application under Article 58(7) of the Statute, 27 April 2007.
3. Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-707, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,30 September 2008.
4. Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-1, Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009.
5. Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09-03, Decision on the Prosecutor' s Application for a Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir,4 March 2009.
6. Situation in the Central African Republic in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7) (a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,15 June 2009.
7. Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus, Case No. ICC-02/05-03/09, Second Decision on the Prosecutor' s Application under Article 58,27 August 2009.
8. Situation in Darfur, Sudan of the Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, Case No. ICC-02/05-02/09-243, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,8 February 2010.
9. Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor' s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010.
10. Situation in the Republic of Kenya in the Case of the Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Decision on the Prosecutor' s Application for Summons to Appear for William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Case No. ICC-01/09-01/11-01,8 March 2011.
11. Situation in the Republic of Kenya in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, Decision on the Prosecutor' s Application for Summons to Appear for Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, Case No. ICC-01/09-02/11-01,8 March 2011.
1. Stephen C. Neff, War and the Law of Nations:A General History, Cambridge University Press,2005.
2. Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, Sixth Edition, Cambridge University Press,2008.
3. Robert Kolb, Richard Hyde, An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts, Hart Publishing,2008.
4. Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes:Selected Pertinent Issues, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,2008.
5. M. C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, Transnational Publishers, Inc.,2003.
6. Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press,2003.
7. H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law, Oxford University Press,1961.
8. Robert Cryer, Hakan Friman, Darryl Robinson and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge University Press,2007.
9. Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Elements of Crimes under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2008.
10. Eve La Haye, War Crimes in Internal Armed Conflicts, Cambridge University Press,2008.
11. Jose Doria, Hans-Peter Gasser, M. Cherif Bassiouni, The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
12. Antony Duff, Criminal Attempts, Oxford University Press,1996.
13. H. L. A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility:Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press,2nd edition,2008.
14. Elies van Sliedregt, The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, TMC Asser Press,2003.
15. George P. Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law, Oxford University Press,2002.
16. Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff, Natalie L. Reid, Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
17. William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, Cambridge University Press,2001.
18. Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, translated and slightly abridged by A. C.Campbell, A.M., Batoche Books Kitchener,2001.
19. William Schabas, The UN International Criminal Tribunals:The Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
1. Dietrich Schindler, Jiri Toman eds., Laws of Armed Conflicts:A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, Brill Academic Publishers,2004.
2. Michael N. Schmitt, Jelena Pejic eds., International Law and Armed Conflict:Exploring the Faultlines, Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007.
3. Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume Ⅰ (Rules), Cambridge University Press,2005.
4. Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume Ⅱ (Practice), Cambridge University Press,2005.
5. Larry May ed., International Criminal Law and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press,2009.
6. International Law Commission, Yearbook of the International Law Commission,1950, Vol. Ⅱ.
7. Harmen Van Der Wilt, Andre Nollkaemper, Menno Dolman, Jann Kleffner ed., System Criminality in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2009
8. David A. Blumenthal, Timothy L. H. McCormack eds., The Legacy of Nuremberg:Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007.
9. Charles Jalloh, Consolidated Legal Texts for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Brill,2007.
10. Otto Triffterer ed., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, C. H.Beck · Hart · Nomos, Second Edition, 2008.
11. Bryan A. Garner ed., Black' s Law Dictionary, West Group, Seventh Edition,1999.
12. Dietrich Schindler, Jiri Toman eds., Laws of Armed Conflicts:A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions and Other Documents, Brill Academic Publishers,2004.
13. Roy S. Lee ed., The Inernational Criminal Court - The Making of the Rome Statute, Kluwer Law International,1999.
14. The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅳ, His Majesty's Stationery Office,1948.
15. The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume Ⅻ (The German High Command Trial), His Majesty' s Stationery Office,1949.
16. The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume ⅤⅢ,His Majesty's Stationery Office,1949.
17. Yves SANDOZ, Christophe SWINARSKI, Bruno ZIMMERMANN eds., Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, International Committee of the Red Cross, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1987.
18. The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume XV, His Majesty' s Stationery Office,1949.
19. A. Cassese, P. Gaeta and J. R. W. D. Jones eds., The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Vol.1,2002.
1. Adam Roberts, The Equal Application of the Laws of War:a Principle under Pressure, International Review of the Red Cross, No.872.
2. Hans-Joachim Heintze, On the Relationship between Human Rights Law Protection and International Humanitarian Law, International Review of the Red Cross, No.856.
3. Danio Campanelli, The law of Military Occupation Put to the Test of Human Rights Law, International Review of the Red Cross, No.871.
4. Kai Ambos, The Fujimori Judgment:A President's Responsibility for Crimes Against Humanity as Indirect Perpetrator by Virtue of an Organized Power Apparatus,9 J. Int' 1 Crim. Just.137, March,2011.
5. Stefano Manacorda and Chantal Meloni, Indirect Perpetration versus Joint Criminal Enterprise:Concurring Approaches in the Practice of International Criminal Law? 9 J. Int' 1 Crim. Just., March,2011.
6. Gerhard Werle and Boris Burghardt, Foreword (of Symposium: Indirect Perpetration:A Perfect Fit for International Prosecution of Armchair Killers?),9 J. Int' 1 Crim. Just.85, March,2011.
7. Antonio Cassese, The Proper Limits to Individual Responsibility Under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise,5 J. Int' 1 Crim. Just. 109, March 20073.
8. William H. Parks, Command Responsibility for War Crimes, Military Law Review, Vol.62,1973.
9. Peter D. W. Heberling, Note, Justification:The Impact of the Model Penal Code on Statutory Reform,75 Columbia Law Review (1975).
10. Paola Gaeta, The Defence of Superior Orders:The Statute of the International Criminal Court versus Customary International Law,10 European Journal of International Law 1999.
11. Chales Garraway, Superior Orders and the International Criminal Court:Justic Delivered or Justice Denied, International Review of the Red Cross, No.836.
1. www.UN.org
2. www.ICTY.org
3. www.ICTR.org
4. www.icc-cpi.int
5. www.un.org/law/ilc/
6. www.icrc.org/
7. www.ibiblio.org/
8. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/military-legal-resource s-home.html