A Study of organizational principles and functions of international criminal justice

国际刑事司法的组织原则和职能研究

• 批准号: 09620024
• 负责人: FURUYA Shuichi
• 金额: $ 0.77万
• 依托单位: Kagawa University
• 依托单位国家: 日本
• 项目类别: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
• 财政年份: 1997
• 资助国家: 日本
• 起止时间: 1997 至 1998
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-09620024/
• 关键词: International Criminal Court; Former Yugoslavia; National jurisdiction; Complementarity; 国家刑事裁判所; 国際刑事法; トリガー・メカニズム; 旧ユ-ゴスラヴィア

From the analysis on the relation between the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court on one hand, and national jurisdiction on the other, the following points become clear.1. The Tribunal, which is given primacy over national jurisdiction under its Statute, has elaborated its supremacy through subsequent judgments and decisions. The Tribunal, for example, found in Blaskic case that its order had a direct effect on individuals in the territory of states without national implementing jurisdiction, and it can take forcible measures (such as on-site investigation) in the territory, when the national legislation impedes its effective conduct of investigation and trial.2. On the contrary, each state made an implementing legislation in the framework of international legal cooperation in a traditional sense. Many states inserted into their legislations the same principles as in extradition procedure. For example, there are many stipulations i … More n the legislations that allow a judicial organ of a state to determines whether the Tribunal really has jurisdiction on the accused whom thc state is requested to surrender, or whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused really committed the alleged crimes. In this respect, Tribunal's primacy is reduced implicitly by the national legislations.3. The International Criminal Court adopts the principle of complementarity, which may imply the primacy of national jurisdiction over the Court. Nevertheless, the examination of its legislative history makes it clear that under the Rome Statute, the Court is given a power to determine whether prosecution or trial by national authorities is really effective, and due to this power, it serves as an extra appellate judicial body to review the performance of national prosecutors and judges.On the basis of the researches above, I will next attempt to analyze practical function of the Court by examining in detail implementing legislations which will be made in the near future in order to ratify the Rome Statute of the Court. Less

通过对前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭与国际刑事法院之间的关系以及国家管辖权的分析，可以清楚地看到以下几点。法庭根据其《规约》被赋予优先于国家管辖权的地位，并通过后来的判决和裁决阐述了其至高无上的地位。例如，法庭在Blaskic案中认定，法庭的命令对没有国家执行管辖权的国家领土上的个人有直接影响，当国家立法妨碍法庭有效进行调查和审判时，法庭可以在领土上采取强制措施(如现场调查)。相反，各国在传统意义上的国际法律合作框架内制定了实施立法。许多国家在其立法中加入了与引渡程序相同的原则。例如，I…有很多规定更多的法律允许一个国家的司法机关确定法庭对被要求移交的被告是否真的有管辖权，或者是否有可能有理由相信被告确实犯下了被指控的罪行。在这方面，国家立法隐含地削弱了法庭的首要地位。国际刑事法院采用互补原则，这可能意味着国家对法院的管辖权至高无上。然而，对其立法史的考察表明，根据《罗马规约》，法院有权确定国家当局的起诉或审判是否真正有效，由于这一权力，它是一个额外的上诉司法机构，负责审查国家检察官和法官的业绩。在上述研究的基础上，我接下来将试图通过详细审查为批准《法院罗马规约》而在不久的将来制定的执行立法，来分析法院的实际职能。较少

项目成果

Shuichi Furuya: "Setting up an International Criminal Court : Some Critical Issues Left to the Diplomatic Conference" 香川法学. 18巻1号. 308-376 (1998)

Shuichi Furuya：“建立国际刑事法院：留给外交会议的一些关键问题”《香川法》第 18 卷，第 1. 308-376 号（1998 年）。