本文選題：國際法 + 法律效力��； 參考：《哈爾濱工業(yè)大學》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：確定國際公法規(guī)范的效力是國際法律適用的邏輯前提，效力不確定，存在國際法規(guī)范沖突時就無從選擇。在蘇丹情勢中，由于安理會移交決議與其他規(guī)范之間的效力等級不明，存在法律適用困難的現(xiàn)象。探討決議的效力對于法律適用、案件推進具有直接意義，也適應全面推進國際法治發(fā)展的大環(huán)境。 通過比較在蘇丹情勢中出現(xiàn)的重要國際公法規(guī)范，明確安理會移交決議在國際公法體系中的效力，能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)學術與實踐的互動，為確定國際公法規(guī)范的效力沖突以及蘇丹情勢推進提供理論支撐。考察國際公法沖突實踐情況，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)同一領域內(nèi)的國際公法規(guī)范并未形成統(tǒng)一的體系甚至存在相互沖突的情況。在理論層面，通過理論實踐的相互推進發(fā)展，學界在認識上逐漸形成統(tǒng)一，承認國際法規(guī)范體系確實存在效力等級差別，選擇實質(zhì)內(nèi)容作為效力等級的判斷標準，并演化出了國際強行法、對國際社會整體義務、國際罪行等更易于判別的概念。深入對比普遍管轄原則與安理會移交決議，根據(jù)國際公法效力等級理論對二者進行效力等級判斷，，發(fā)掘兩者矛盾之處并設計可靠的等級判斷主體。對于移交決議中與《滅種罪公約》存在矛盾的地方進行適用性考量，通過文本研究、比較研究的方法對公約與移交決議進行效力比較。通過比較得出，安理會移交決議在國際法體系中并不一定具有最高的效力等級，而需要在特定情況下與相關規(guī)范對比考量。在蘇丹情勢中通過全景式考察，認定普遍管轄權原則與《滅種罪公約》具有相對較高的效力。 通過分析國際公法規(guī)范等級沖突的實踐與理論，選取“安理會移交決議”這一具體視角在具體案例中對“國際公法規(guī)范的效力”進行科學對比而得出結(jié)論，以為該理論日后的進一步深入發(fā)展奠定基礎。
[Abstract]:The determination of the validity of norms of public international law is the logical premise of the application of international law, and when the validity is uncertain, there is no choice when there is a conflict of norms of international law.In the situation of Sudan, there is difficulty in applying the law due to the uncertainty of the grade of validity between the Security Council transfer resolution and other norms.To explore the validity of the resolution is of direct significance to the application of the law and the advancement of the case, and also to the overall environment of promoting the development of the international rule of law.By comparing the important norms of public international law emerging in the situation in the Sudan and clarifying the effectiveness of the Security Council's referral resolutions in the system of public international law, it is possible to achieve academic and practical interaction,In order to determine the conflict of the validity of the norms of public international law and Sudan situation to provide theoretical support.If we examine the practice of the conflict of public international law, we can find that the norms of public international law in the same field have not formed a unified system or even conflict with each other.At the theoretical level, through the mutual development of theory and practice, the academic circles gradually formed a unified understanding, acknowledged that there is a difference in the hierarchy of effects in the normative system of international law, and chose the substantive content as the judgment standard of the grade of effectiveness.The concepts of international jus cogens, international obligations, international crimes and so on are evolved.By comparing the principle of universal jurisdiction with the Security Council's resolution of transfer, the author makes a judgment of the grade of effectiveness according to the hierarchy theory of the validity of public international law, explores the contradictions between the two, and designs a reliable subject of grade judgment.This paper considers the applicability of the conflict between the transfer resolution and the Convention on the Crime of extermination, and compares the effectiveness of the Convention with the transfer resolution by the method of text study and comparative study.By comparison, it is concluded that the transfer resolution of the Security Council does not necessarily have the highest level of validity in the international law system, but needs to be compared with the relevant norms under certain circumstances.Through a panoramic study of the situation in the Sudan, it is concluded that the principle of universal jurisdiction and the Convention on the Crime of Elimination of species have relatively high validity.By analyzing the practice and theory of the hierarchy conflict of the norms of public international law, the conclusion is drawn from the concrete angle of view of "Security Council transfer resolution", which compares the validity of "the norms of public international law" in specific cases.Lay the foundation for the further development of the theory in the future.
【學位授予單位】：哈爾濱工業(yè)大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D993.9

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前8條

1 潘德勇;;論國際法規(guī)范的位階[J];北方法學;2012年01期

2 黃偉;;也論國際法的等級[J];湖南社會科學;2009年02期

3 黃宏;國際刑事法院和國內(nèi)法院在刑事司法管轄權上的關系[J];國際關系學院學報;2002年06期

4 張輝;;國際法效力等級問題初探[J];海南大學學報(人文社會科學版);2010年04期

5 劉旺洪;;全球化:法律統(tǒng)一的范圍及其限度[J];金陵法律評論;2001年01期

6 宋健強;;蘇丹訴案對《羅馬規(guī)約》第13條(b)的整合解釋[J];刑法論叢;2007年02期

7 陳海明;;卡迪案及其對國際法意義的分析[J];太平洋學報;2010年01期

8 楊力軍;;安理會向國際刑事法院移交達爾富爾情勢的法律問題[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2006年04期

本文編號：1746147