本文選題：混合法庭過渡性司法 + 國際刑事法院臨時(shí)性國際法庭加卡卡法庭�。� 參考：《外交學(xué)院》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：為了解決國際刑事司法有法不能依，有罪不能罰的問題，國際社會(huì)在應(yīng)對起訴違反戰(zhàn)爭罪、危害人類罪、種族屠殺罪、侵略罪和其他具有類似性質(zhì)的犯罪的實(shí)踐中，不斷發(fā)展出融合各國司法制度的嶄新的審判模式。無論是紐倫堡審判、東京審判，還是前南斯拉夫國際問題刑事法庭、盧旺達(dá)問題國際刑事法庭的實(shí)踐，乃至國際刑事法院的成立，都不斷地推動(dòng)著人類社會(huì)對和平與尊嚴(yán)——這個(gè)關(guān)乎世界各國人民福祉與正義的國際法最高目標(biāo)的實(shí)現(xiàn)。 混合法庭是一種實(shí)現(xiàn)過渡性正義的新生事物。它是在國際社會(huì)和罪行發(fā)生地國家的共同努力下建立，由國際社會(huì)所公認(rèn)的檢察官、法官和一國國內(nèi)的司法人員共同組成，對一國國家特定時(shí)期內(nèi)所發(fā)生的一系列罪行進(jìn)行調(diào)查、起訴、審判的機(jī)構(gòu)。它們主要通過聯(lián)合國與犯罪發(fā)生地國簽訂協(xié)約而設(shè)立，，具有與犯罪發(fā)生地聯(lián)系緊密、促進(jìn)當(dāng)?shù)厮痉ǖ陌l(fā)展及靈活性等優(yōu)勢，其自產(chǎn)生以來便得到各國的廣泛采用，并在國際司法實(shí)踐中呈現(xiàn)出多樣的形態(tài)。 目前，隨著前南刑庭與盧旺達(dá)刑庭進(jìn)入遺留機(jī)制，特設(shè)臨時(shí)國際法庭逐步退出歷史舞臺(tái)，而國際刑事法院歷經(jīng)十年方作出其首個(gè)判決的事實(shí)則注定了其無法獨(dú)自擔(dān)當(dāng)起國際刑事審判的重任。因此，探討混合法庭能否成為實(shí)現(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)型正義的最好方式，它的理論與實(shí)踐之間所存在的差距以及各法庭在實(shí)踐中所面臨的獨(dú)特困境，將對國際刑事司法制度的發(fā)展具有深遠(yuǎn)的意義。 本文首先對一般刑事程序意義上的國家法庭與混合法庭進(jìn)行理論上的梳理，繼而對混合法庭的證據(jù)搜集制度、審判程序和執(zhí)行制度分別進(jìn)行探討，并進(jìn)一步將其與國際刑事法院、臨時(shí)性國際法庭和加卡卡法庭的相關(guān)程序進(jìn)行比較，從而揭示出混合法庭在這三方面的特殊性。 之后，本文通過選取塞拉利昂特別法庭、柬埔寨特別法庭和黎巴嫩特別法庭作為個(gè)例，對它們在實(shí)踐中所面臨的困境進(jìn)行具體剖析，指出混合法庭在回應(yīng)不同國家的需要進(jìn)行設(shè)置時(shí)所出現(xiàn)的挑戰(zhàn)。最后，本文總結(jié)出混合法庭不僅是對國際法庭與國內(nèi)法庭的重要補(bǔ)充，還是今后國際社會(huì)實(shí)現(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)型正義最具前途與最靈活的機(jī)制。
[Abstract]:In order to address the question of the lawlessness and impunity of international criminal justice, the international community is responding to the practice of prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, aggression and other crimes of a similar nature, Constantly developing a new trial model that integrates the judicial systems of various countries. Whether it is the Nuremberg trial, the Tokyo trial, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, or the establishment of the International Criminal Court, Are constantly promoting the realization of peace and dignity, the supreme goal of international law, which concerns the well-being and justice of the peoples of the world. Mixed court is a new thing to realize transitional justice. It was established through the joint efforts of the international community and the State in which the crime was committed, and is composed of prosecutors, judges and the judiciary of a State recognized by the international community, A body that conducts investigations, prosecutions, and trials of a series of crimes committed during a given period of time in a country. They were established mainly through the signing of a treaty between the United Nations and the country where the crime took place, and have the advantages of being closely linked to the place where the crime occurred and promoting the development and flexibility of local justice, which has been widely used by States since its inception, And presents various forms in the international judicial practice. At present, as ICTY and ICTR enter the legacy mechanism, the ad hoc interim International Tribunal gradually withdraws from the historical stage. The fact that the ICC handed down its first verdict after a decade is doomed that it cannot take on the task of international criminal justice alone. Exploring, therefore, whether hybrid tribunals can be the best way to achieve transformational justice, the gaps between their theory and practice and the unique difficulties faced by the tribunals in practice, It will be of great significance to the development of international criminal justice system. This article firstly combs the national court and the mixed court in the sense of general criminal procedure, and then discusses the evidence collection system, trial procedure and execution system of the mixed court, respectively. Furthermore, it is compared with the relevant procedures of the International Criminal Court, the temporary International Tribunal and the Gacaca Court, thus revealing the particularity of the mixed Court in these three aspects. After that, this paper takes the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Special Court for Cambodia and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon as examples to analyze the difficulties they face in practice. The challenges faced by the mixed courts in responding to the needs of different countries are pointed out. Finally, this paper concludes that the hybrid court is not only an important supplement to the international and domestic courts, but also the most promising and flexible mechanism for the international community to realize the transitional justice in the future.
【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】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D997.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 賈海龍,賈海濤;初探塞拉里昂特別法庭[J];河北法學(xué);2004年12期

2 王秀梅;;黎巴嫩特別法庭初探[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年06期

3 劉海方;;盧旺達(dá)的蓋卡卡傳統(tǒng)法庭[J];西亞非洲;2006年03期

本文編號(hào)：1936186