摘要
2009年以来,联大关于普遍管辖权的辩论表明人们对普遍管辖权的概念、范围和适用的认知存在很大的混乱。真正或纯粹的普遍管辖权是一种仅以所涉罪行的受普遍关注性质为根据的管辖权。普遍管辖权的概念和逻辑是合乎情理的,因为每个国家均对受普遍关注之事拥有权益。普遍管辖权可成为国际体系维护其权益、保护人权和对抗有罪不罚的强有力工具。然而,一国行使普遍管辖权可能会侵犯另一国的国家主权和主权平等,亦有可能滥用,从而破坏国际关系的稳定。这些正反两面以及其他方面的因素对国际法的形成过程产生了这样或那样的影响,以致迄今只有针对海盗罪的普遍管辖权方为国际法所接受。针对其他罪行的"‘纯粹的普遍关注’型管辖权"目前尚不存在。"‘普遍关注加现身’型管辖权"的国家实践证据,尚不足以充分证明一项习惯国际法规则已因此形成。允许"‘普遍关注加条约、现身并体制内属地或属人’管辖权",或者"‘普遍关注加条约、现身’型管辖权"的条约实践只局限于特定的条约体制。鉴于这种局面,"荷花号案"论调(the Lotus dictum)及现身条件(the presence requirement)的潜在适用——尤其是关于其要求轻微、程序性观点,可能具有重要意义而值得关注。
The debates in the UNGA since 2009 on universal jurisdiction reveal great confusion on its concept, scope and application. True or pure universal jurisdiction is jurisdiction solely based on the universal concern character of the crime in issue. The concept and logic of universal jurisdiction is understandable, as each State has an interest in matters of universal concern. Universal jurisdiction can be a powerful instrument for the international system to protect its interests and to protect human rights and fight against impunity. However, the exercise of universal jurisdiction by one State may infringe the sovereignty and sovereign equality of another State and can be abused, thus destabilizing international relations. These pros and cons and other factors have influenced the international law formation process in such a way that so far only universal jurisdiction over piracy has been accepted in international law. There is no "pure universal concern jurisdiction" over other crimes yet. The evidence of State practice on "universal concern plus presence" jurisdiction is not yet substantial so as to afford the finding of a customary international law rule in its favor. Treaty practice providing for "universal concern plus treaty, presence and intra-regime territoriality or nationality jurisdiction" or "universal concern plus treaty and presence jurisdiction" is limited to the particular treaty regime only. In the light of this state of affairs, the possible application of the Lotus dictum and the presence requirement—especially the weak, procedural view of it—can be of significance and deserves attention. The movement for "pure universal jurisdiction" has been "trending down" since the conspicuous silence on the legitimacy of universal jurisdiction in the Arrest Warrant case decided by the ICJ in 2002. The subsequent downtrend may have been in no small measure due to the cautious Judgment in that case. That Judgment can be said to have, in an ingenious way, helped to inject some calming elements back into int
出处
《国际法学刊》
2019年第1期106-132,168,共28页
Journal of International Law
基金
国家社会科学基金重大项目(08&ZD055)的部分成果
