The International Society's Complementary Role in Mass Atrocities Responses: The Responsibility to Protect and The Responsibility to Prosecute

国际协会在应对大规模暴行中的补充作用：保护的责任和起诉的责任

• 批准号: 1948650
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Leeds
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2017
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2017 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-1948650
• 关键词: International; Society; Complementary; Role; Mass

This interdisciplinary research project draws on the International Relations and International Criminal Law scholarship to explore new security and justice approaches to mass atrocity crises. Specifically, it examines the relationship between two emerging norms: the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) populations from mass atrocities and the Responsibility to Prosecute perpetrators of mass crimes, through the International Criminal Court (ICC), and how they advance new protection approaches. The International Relations literature on the R2P-ICC relationship is growing. Many see the Responsibility to Prosecute as implicit in R2P. The UN Secretary General and the ICC Prosecutor see the Court as a key tool for implementing R2P. International law scholars, however, tend to focus their analysis either on R2P or the ICC from a legal perspective, whereas this research seeks to add a more normative perspective. Despite the growing literature, there is a research gap regarding the normative status of the Responsibility to Prosecute, its normative relation to R2P and the changing nature of the legal-political knowledge concerning responses to mass atrocities and how this affects policy. This research seeks to address this lacuna and to achieve three goals. The first objective is to examine the origins and the 'making' of these responsibilities, focusing on the Responsibility to Prosecute, which is underresearched.Following World War II, new international criminal justice principles developed, such as the 'duty to prosecute' and 'prosecute or extradite'. The Responsibility to Prosecute is a new term in the international criminal justice language. This research investigates who are the actors involved in creating this concept (governments, international organisations, academics, NGOs) and its history. Despite claims that the Responsibility to Prosecute goes back to the Nuremberg Trials, this thesis looks at it in the context of the emergence of R2P and the establishment of the ICC. This is significant because it illustrates that there is a push for these responsibilities to be linked. Second, this thesis examines the Responsibility to Prosecute and R2P's normative and legal status. It explores whether the Responsibility to Prosecute is a norm and has the same status and normative ambitions as R2P. It investigates the relation between punishment and protection and what 'in the interest of justice' ICC principle means. It then examines whether these responsibilities include any legal obligations or customary international law elements. This will allow me to look at state practice and discourse to analyse whether the great powers agree that there are Responsibilities to Protect and Prosecute, which is significant for understanding why states fulfil (or fail to fulfil) these responsibilities. The final objective is to examine how togetherthese responsibilities advance a protection discourse (a framework of thinking about protection) that is inherently interventionist and sees protection, justice and peace as order through liberal institutional governance. Conclusions will be drawn regarding the legal and political implications of this discourse, how it marginalises alternative approaches to protection and justice, and how it influences policy. I will use qualitative research methods, focusing on interpretative approaches. Utilising a Constructivist perspective, I will examine norm development and study the beliefs and meanings surrounding the two responsibilities. Primary data will add an element of originality, by conducting elite interviews with representatives of states, the ICC, the UN Joint Office on the Prevention of Genocide and R2P, and NGOs, such as the Global Centre for R2P and the Coalition for the ICC. This diverse data set will provide the basis for a detailed examination of the role that the Responsibilities to Protect and Prosecute play in the (re)production of the social and political order.

该跨学科研究项目借鉴了国际关系和国际刑法奖学金，以探索新的安全和正义方法来解决大规模暴行危机。具体而言，它研究了两个新兴规范之间的关系：保护（R2P）人口免受大规模暴行的责任，以及通过国际刑事法院（ICC）（ICC）起诉大规模犯罪犯罪者的责任，以及他们如何推进新的保护方法。关于R2P-ICC关系的国际关系文献正在增长。许多人认为起诉在R2P中是隐含的责任。联合国秘书长和国际刑事法院检察官将法院视为实施R2P的关键工具。但是，国际法学者倾向于从法律角度将其分析集中在R2P或ICC上，而本研究则试图增加更具规范的观点。尽管文献越来越多，但关于起诉责任的规范状况，与R2P的规范关系以及法律政治知识的不断变化的性质存在研究差距，这是关于对大规模暴行的反应以及这如何影响政策的不断变化的。这项研究旨在解决这一空隙并实现三个目标。第一个目的是检查这些责任的起源和“制造”，重点是对起诉的责任，该责任是未经研究的责任。遵循第二次世界大战，开发了新的国际刑事司法原则，例如“起诉义务”和“起诉”或“起诉或归纳”。起诉的责任是国际刑事司法语言的新术语。这项研究调查了参与创建这一概念的参与者（政府，国际组织，学者，非政府组织）及其历史。尽管声称起诉的责任可以追溯到纽伦堡的审判，但本论文在R2P的出现和ICC建立的背景下进行了研究。这很重要，因为它说明了将这些责任联系起来的推动。其次，本文研究了起诉和R2P规范和法律地位的责任。它探讨了起诉的责任是否是规范，并且具有与R2P相同的地位和规范野心。它调查了惩罚与保护之间的关系，以及“出于正义的利益”的ICC原则意味着什么。然后，它检查了这些责任是包括任何法律义务还是习惯国际法要素。这将使我能够研究国家实践和论述，以分析大国是否同意保护和起诉的责任，这对于理解国家为什么履行（或不履行）这些责任的责任很重要。最终的目标是研究这些责任如何促进保护论述（关于保护的思维框架），这是固有的干预主义者，并将保护，正义与和平视为通过自由制度治理的秩序。结论将得出关于这种话语的法律和政治含义，如何边缘化保护和正义的替代方法，以及它如何影响政策。我将使用定性研究方法，重点是解释性方法。利用建构主义的观点，我将研究规范发展，并研究围绕这两个职责的信念和含义。主要数据将通过与国家代表，ICC，联合国预防种族灭绝和R2P的联合办公室以及NGO进行精英访谈，以及NGO，例如全球R2P全球R2P中心和ICC联盟。这种多样化的数据集将为详细检查保护和起诉在社会和政治秩序的（重新生产）中的职责的详细研究提供基础。