Issues of Universal Jurisdiction in the Scilingo Case
Issues of Universal Jurisdiction in the Scilingo Case
复制标题
希林戈案中的普遍管辖权问题
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Tomuschat
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Tomuschat
希林戈案的判决值得注意，既因为它适用了危害人类罪的概念，也因为它依赖于普遍管辖权原则。然而，有人认为，国家法庭用来得出其根据西班牙法律对被告在阿根廷对其他阿根廷人犯下的暴行拥有管辖权的推理并不令人信服。事实上，本案中犯下的暴行既不属于种族灭绝也不属于恐怖主义——根据西班牙相关立法，西班牙法院对这两类罪行拥有域外管辖权。此外，本文还驳斥了法院的主张，即国家实践表明存在一项国际习惯规则，赋予国家法院对危害人类罪的管辖权。然而，法院正确地主张，普遍管辖权必须被视为默认管辖权，旨在在领土或民族国家处于被动状态时授予域外管辖权。也就是说，虽然法院对被告的审判和定罪是正确的，但其推理是错误的；在本案中，法院的管辖权不是基于被动国籍，而是基于被告自愿向法院自首。
The Scilingo judgment is noteworthy both because it applies the notion of crimes against humanity and because it relies upon the principle of universal jurisdiction. It is, however, argued that the reasoning used by the Audiencia Nacional to conclude that it had jurisdiction under Spanish law over the atrocities committed in Argentina by the accused against other Argentineans is unconvincing. Indeed, the atrocities committed in this case do not qualify as either genocide or terrorism - the only two classes of offences over which Spanish courts have extraterritorial jurisdiction under the relevant Spanish legislation. Furthermore, this paper faults the Court`s assertion that state practice demonstrates the existence of an international customary rule granting national courts jurisdiction over crimes against humanity. Nevertheless, the Court correctly claims that universal jurisdiction must be seen as default jurisdiction, intended to grant extraterritorial jurisdiction whenever the territorial or national state are passive. That said, while the Court is correct to both try and convict the accused, its reasoning is faulty; in the case at issue, the Court`s jurisdiction is based not on passive nationality, but on the grounds that the accused had voluntarily surrendered to the Court.