特赦在国际刑事法院的适用研究

发布时间：2018-03-02 09:36

本文关键词： 特赦国际刑法国际刑事法院罗马规约　出处：《吉林大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：2002年，国际刑事法院在海牙正式建立。它的建立将有利于在世界范围内维护公平和正义，有利于有效惩治严重的国际犯罪行为，有利于避免国家间的冲突，增进国家间的合作1。正如《国际刑事法院罗马规约》（以下简称《罗马规约》）序言中所言，“对于整个国际社会关注的最严重犯罪，，绝不能听之任之不予处罚”。国际刑事法院的最终目标是结束国际社会对一些严重的国际犯罪有罪不罚的状态。然而，国家特赦的存在却对国际刑事法院的管辖提出了严峻的挑战。长期处于动乱的国家为了尽早地结束战争，恢复和平往往将特赦作为促使冲突双方进行和平协商的筹码，以对相关人员授予特赦为条件来换取其放下武器，从而实现和平，巩固政权。但问题在于，赦免的罪行常常涉及国际刑事法院管辖下的犯罪。此时，若国际刑事法院行使管辖权坚持起诉和审判很有可能会阻断双方和平谈判的进程，该国人民将继续生活在水深火热中。乌干达圣灵抵抗军案就是如此。国际刑事法院的介入使得乌干达政府军与圣灵抵抗军间的谈判以失败告终，之后乌干达一直处在动荡之中，大批难民流离失所，伤亡惨重。实践证明，国际刑事法院在这种情况下坚持调查和起诉的效果并不理想，间接地会造成更多人员的伤亡。由于这种以特赦换和平的做法在历史上并不少见，类似的案件今后还会发生。国际刑事法院在处理涉及国家特赦的案件时只有坚持调查和起诉才是符合《罗马规约》精神的吗？如何才能避免乌干达圣灵抵抗军案的再次发生？国际刑事法院能否在一定条件下承认特赦？本文从适用特赦的理论基础、法律基础和实践基础三个方面论证了国际刑事法院适用特赦的可行性，并得出结论：国际刑事法院适用特赦从理论上讲是可行的，而且具备充分的法律基础。此外，东帝汶、南非两国的特赦实践以及塞拉利昂特别法庭的特赦司法实践也证明了国家特赦确实有利于国内局势的稳定和社会和解，国际刑事法庭适用特赦能够达到预期的效果。因此，笔者建议国际刑事法院适用特赦，并总结了对特赦的具体审查标准，当一国特赦符合国际刑事法院对特赦的审查标准时，国际刑事法院可以考虑承认该国特赦，不行使管辖权。笔者希望为国际刑事法院今后如何处理涉及国家特赦的案件提供一点借鉴。
[Abstract]:In 2002, the International Criminal Court formally established in Hague. It will be beneficial to the establishment in the world to maintain fairness and justice, is conducive to the effective punishment of international crimes are serious, is to avoid the conflict between countries, promote cooperation among countries in 1. as the "Rome statute of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter referred to as the" Rome statute > >) said the introduction, "for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, must not go without punishment." the ultimate goal of the International Criminal Court is the end of the international community penalty for some serious international crimes guilty state. However, the national amnesty is put forward a severe challenge to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court long. A nation in turmoil as soon as possible in order to end the war, the restoration of peace will often make both sides of the conflict as an amnesty to negotiate peace chips, to grant amnesty for relevant personnel As a condition for laid down their weapons, in order to achieve peace, consolidate the regime. But the problem is, pardon crimes often involve crimes under the jurisdiction of International Criminal Court. At this time, if the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to the prosecution and trial is likely to be blocked the peace talks process, people will continue to live in the country hot water in Uganda. The LRA case is the case. The international criminal court involvement in Uganda's army and the LRA's negotiations ended in failure, after Uganda had been in turmoil, a large number of refugees and displaced persons, suffered heavy casualties. Practice has proved that the international criminal court to investigate and prosecute in this case the effect is not ideal. Indirectly cause more casualties. Because of this the amnesty for peace is not rare in the history of similar cases in the future will happen When the International Criminal Court deals with cases involving amnesty in the state, is it only in line with the spirit of the Rome statute to insist on investigation and prosecution? How can we avoid the recurrence of the Uganda Holy Spirit resistance case? Can the International Criminal Court recognize the amnesty under certain conditions?
Based on the theoretical basis for amnesty, three aspects of legal basis and practical basis to demonstrate the feasibility of the International Criminal Court for amnesty, and draws a conclusion that the International Criminal Court for amnesty is feasible in theory, but also has sufficient legal basis. In addition, East Timor, South Africa, and the amnesty practice of the special court for Sierra Leone pardon the judicial practice has also proved that the national amnesty is conducive to the domestic situation of social stability and reconciliation, the International Criminal Tribunal for Amnesty can achieve the desired effect. Therefore, the author suggests that the International Criminal Court for amnesty, and summarizes the specific review criteria of the amnesty, when a country with amnesty review standards of International Criminal Court to the amnesty. The International Criminal Court, can consider to admit that the amnesty, not the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. I hope for the future deal involving Some references are provided to cases of national amnesty.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D997.9

【相似文献】