摘要
侵略罪修正案对缔约国的生效是国际刑事法院对侵略罪行使管辖权的基本要求,但是由于规约关于修正案生效程序的规定十分复杂且侵略罪修正案本身对此问题的沉默,以致这个问题充满争议。这篇文章考察了侵略罪特别工作组在谈判过程中对这一问题的讨论,分析了这些观点各自的法理基础,认为侵略罪修正案的生效不得绕开规约所规定的生效程序,也无法共同适用规约第121条第4款和第5款两个条款;基于对有关条款的文字解释、目的解释以及嗣后实践的印证,侵略罪修正案的生效应当适用规约第121条第5款。这篇文章紧接着对适用规约第121条第5款的法律后果进行了分析,认为该款与规约第15条之二第4款、第5款一样,在缔约国提交或检察官自行开始调查的情况下对国际刑事法院管辖侵略罪起到了限制作用,但是这种限制不适用于安理会提交情势。从这点上讲,安理会在国际刑事法院管辖侵略罪中有望发挥极其关键的作用。
Entry into force of the aggression amendments to State Parties is the fundamental requirement for the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.However,the procedure regarding entry into force of the amendments is quite complex and the aggression amendments themselves keep silent about this issue,making this issue into a controversy.In review of the SWGCA’s discussion during the negotiation,this essay analyzes the respective legal basis of existing opinions,arguing that the entry into force of the aggression amendments shall not steer clear of the procedure stipulated in the Statute,and cannot commonly be applied both paragraph 4 and 5 of Article 121;upon the literal interpretation,teleological interpretation and the verification of subsequent practice,Article121,paragraph 5 of the Statute shall apply to the entry into force of the aggression amendments.Next,this essay scrutinizes the legal consequences of paragraph 5 of Article 121’s application,considering that this provision,same as paragraph 4 and 5 of Article 15 bis,may restrict the ICC’s jurisdiction in the context of State referral and proprio motu,but such restriction is not applicable to Security Council referral.From this point,Security Council is expected to play apivotal role in the ICC’s exercise of jurisdiction over crime of aggression.
出处
《厦门大学法律评论》
2017年第2期80-100,共21页
Xiamen University Law Review
关键词
侵略罪修正案
生效
国际刑事法院
安理会
aggression amendments
entry into force
international criminal court
security council
