本文關(guān)鍵詞： 或引渡 或起訴 習(xí)慣國(guó)際法 第三種選擇 普遍管轄原則　出處：《外交學(xué)院》2011年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：“或引渡或起訴”的法諺是由格勞秀斯在其不朽名著《戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)與和平法》一書(shū)中所提出的“或引渡或懲處”的名言演變而來(lái)的。 “或引渡或起訴”義務(wù)是以預(yù)防和懲罰犯罪的共同利益為基礎(chǔ)而建立的。該共同或相互的利益使引渡犯罪人變得必要而且正當(dāng),否則犯罪人就要受拒絕引渡國(guó)家的起訴。 就“或引渡或起訴”義務(wù)的國(guó)際法淵源問(wèn)題而言,最富有爭(zhēng)議的是該義務(wù)是否具有習(xí)慣國(guó)際法性質(zhì)。通過(guò)對(duì)有關(guān)國(guó)家實(shí)踐的分析、公約條文的梳理可知,就目前而言,并不存在著以“或引渡或起訴”義務(wù)為內(nèi)容的習(xí)慣國(guó)際法。 因不同條約規(guī)定不同,該義務(wù)的運(yùn)作也有所差異。首先,就義務(wù)的產(chǎn)生而言有兩種情況:一是該義務(wù)產(chǎn)生于被指稱(chēng)的罪犯出現(xiàn)在一國(guó)境內(nèi)之時(shí);二是在其境內(nèi)出現(xiàn)被指稱(chēng)的罪犯的國(guó)家收到另一國(guó)的引渡請(qǐng)求之時(shí)產(chǎn)生。并且引渡和起訴這兩個(gè)義務(wù)的優(yōu)先性也因上述差異而迥然相異。具體而言,在第一種情況中,起訴的義務(wù)優(yōu)先,后者則相反。 “或引渡或起訴”義務(wù)和普遍管轄原則有著千絲萬(wàn)縷的聯(lián)系,就純粹的普遍管轄原則而言,兩者較容易區(qū)分;但是,就“準(zhǔn)普遍管轄原則”而言,兩者關(guān)系則更加復(fù)雜,根據(jù)有關(guān)公約約文,本文認(rèn)為,“或引渡或起訴”則是實(shí)現(xiàn)“準(zhǔn)普遍管轄原則”不可缺少的組成部分。
[Abstract]:Aut dedere Aut judicare (Aut dedere Aut judicare) evolved from Grotius' famous book "Aut dedere Aut dedere Aut judicare" in his monumental book the Law of War and Peace. The obligation "Aut dedere Aut judicare" is established on the basis of a common interest in the prevention and punishment of the crime... that common or mutual interest makes the extradition of the offender necessary and justified, otherwise the offender would be subject to the refusal to extradite the State for prosecution. As far as the question of the sources of international law for the obligation Aut dedere Aut judicare is concerned, the most controversial issue is whether the obligation is of a customary international law nature. There is no customary international law with respect to the obligation Aut dedere Aut judicare. The operation of the obligation varies according to the provisions of different treaties. First, there are two situations with regard to the creation of the obligation: one is that the obligation arises when the alleged offender is present in the territory of a State; Second, it arises when the State in whose territory the alleged offender is present receives an extradition request from another State... and the priority of the obligation Aut dedere Aut judicare differs greatly from the foregoing... specifically, in the first case, The obligation to prosecute takes precedence, whereas the latter is the opposite. The obligation Aut dedere Aut judicare is inextricably linked to the principle of universal jurisdiction, which is easier to distinguish in terms of the principle of pure universal jurisdiction; however, the relationship between the two is more complex in the context of the principle of quasi-universal jurisdiction, According to the articles of the relevant conventions, Aut dedere Aut judicare is an indispensable part of the realization of the principle of quasi-universal jurisdiction.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：外交學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D997.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 林燕;高林;;論普遍管轄原則及其適用[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年06期

2 黃風(fēng);黃伯青;;向國(guó)際刑事法院移交人犯問(wèn)題研究[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2007年06期

3 王秀梅;;論國(guó)際法院“關(guān)于或起訴或引渡的義務(wù)問(wèn)題案”及其意義[J];西安交通大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年05期

4 高銘暄,王秀梅;普林斯頓普遍管轄原則及其評(píng)論[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2002年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1502157