【摘要】：人類和平和國際社會(huì)正義需要國際刑事法院的保障。為保障國際人權(quán)、打擊國際刑事犯罪而于1998年開放簽署的《國際刑事法院羅馬規(guī)約》(下稱《羅馬規(guī)約》),是國際刑事訴訟一個(gè)嶄新的里程碑。截至2016年,國際社會(huì)已有124個(gè)國家成為《羅馬規(guī)約》的締約國。隨著國際刑法的發(fā)展,證據(jù)制度在審判實(shí)踐中逐漸形成了自己的特色。本論文分為四大部分:第一部分,國際刑事證據(jù)規(guī)則概述,主要闡述幾個(gè)基本概念及國際刑事證據(jù)制度的歷史發(fā)展。本文在國際法框架下對(duì)國際刑法和其他學(xué)科進(jìn)行了定義和詮釋,從歷史角度探尋證據(jù)制度發(fā)展的脈絡(luò),主要是以幾次國際刑事審判為內(nèi)容說明國際刑事法院證據(jù)規(guī)則形成的理論和實(shí)踐基礎(chǔ)。第二部分,國際刑事法院混合式證據(jù)規(guī)則。首先是對(duì)《羅馬規(guī)約》程序與證據(jù)規(guī)則的概述,其次介紹國際刑事法院證據(jù)規(guī)則的幾個(gè)基本特點(diǎn),主要包括檢察官的證據(jù)披露義務(wù)、法官在證據(jù)審查中的地位和作用和預(yù)審分庭對(duì)證據(jù)的獨(dú)特調(diào)查權(quán)。本部分的重點(diǎn)是國際刑事法院混合式證據(jù)模式,主要探尋兩大法系證據(jù)制度的區(qū)別、國際刑事法院對(duì)兩者優(yōu)秀經(jīng)驗(yàn)的采納及其本身證據(jù)模式的形成,深刻剖析國際刑事法院混合式證據(jù)模式形成的原因,從而確認(rèn)國際刑事證據(jù)規(guī)則從最初僅體現(xiàn)英美法系證據(jù)模式轉(zhuǎn)化為兼顧大陸法系證據(jù)自由心證的混合式證據(jù)模式。在國際刑事法院的司法實(shí)踐中,一方面堅(jiān)持了證據(jù)自由原則,同時(shí)賦予了審判庭選擇權(quán)。國際刑事法院的證據(jù)規(guī)則不是完全遵循英美法系對(duì)證據(jù)是否可采納采取嚴(yán)格的限定模式,而其本身是對(duì)證據(jù)是否可采采取寬容的態(tài)度,這種做法是向大陸法系傾斜。也就是說,對(duì)證據(jù)是否可采納法院的自由裁量權(quán)較大。第三部分,國際刑事法院證據(jù)規(guī)則的適用,主要闡述證人制度、采用特別手段作證規(guī)則,從不同角度介紹了國際刑事法院證據(jù)規(guī)則的適用。第四部分,國際刑事法院證據(jù)規(guī)則對(duì)中國刑事證據(jù)制度發(fā)展的借鑒。從中國現(xiàn)行刑事證據(jù)制度的現(xiàn)狀出發(fā),探尋國際刑事法院的優(yōu)秀做法,且指出當(dāng)前應(yīng)從立法角度完善和建立具有中國特色的刑事證據(jù)制度。
[Abstract]:Peace for mankind and justice for the international community need the guarantees of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter referred to as the Rome Statute), which was opened and signed in 1998 to protect international human rights and combat international criminal crimes, is a new milestone in international criminal proceedings. By 2016, 124 countries had become parties to the Rome Statute. With the development of international criminal law, evidence system has gradually formed its own characteristics in trial practice. This paper is divided into four parts: the first part, the introduction of international criminal evidence rules, mainly expounds several basic concepts and the historical development of international criminal evidence system. This paper defines and interprets international criminal law and other disciplines under the framework of international law, and explores the development of evidence system from the historical point of view. It mainly explains the theoretical and practical basis of the formation of the rules of evidence of the International Criminal Court (ICC) by taking several international criminal trials as the content. The second part, the mixed evidence rules of the International Criminal Court. The first part is an overview of the rules of procedure and evidence of the Rome Statute, followed by an introduction of several basic features of the rules of evidence of the International Criminal Court, including the obligation of the Prosecutor to disclose evidence. The position and role of the judges in the examination of evidence and the unique investigative power of the Pre-Trial Chamber in respect of evidence. This part focuses on the mixed evidence model of the International Criminal Court, mainly explores the differences between the two legal systems, the International Criminal Court's adoption of the two outstanding experience and the formation of its own evidence model. This paper deeply analyzes the reasons for the formation of the mixed evidence model of the International Criminal Court, and thus confirms that the international criminal evidence rules have changed from the evidence model of the Anglo-American legal system to the mixed evidence model which takes into account the evidence free evidence in the continental law system. In the judicial practice of the International Criminal Court, on the one hand, the principle of freedom of evidence is adhered to, at the same time, the trial court is given the right to choose. The rules of evidence of the International Criminal Court do not follow the strict restrictive mode of admissibility of evidence in Anglo-American law system, but it is a tolerant attitude towards admissibility of evidence, which is inclined to continental law system. That is to say, the discretion of the court on admissibility of evidence is greater. The third part, the application of the rules of evidence of the International Criminal Court, mainly expounds the system of witnesses, uses special means to testify rules, and introduces the application of the rules of evidence of the International Criminal Court from different angles. The fourth part, the evidence rules of the International Criminal Court for the development of China's criminal evidence system. Starting from the present situation of China's current criminal evidence system, this paper explores the excellent practice of the International Criminal Court, and points out that the criminal evidence system with Chinese characteristics should be perfected and established from the angle of legislation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D997.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 施鵬鵬;;刑事訴訟中的證據(jù)自由及其限制[J];浙江社會(huì)科學(xué);2010年06期

2 宋英輝;;兩大法系國家刑事訴訟改革中的趨同性[J];人民檢察;2010年11期

3 熊秋紅;;刑事證人作證制度之反思——以對(duì)質(zhì)權(quán)為中心的分析[J];中國政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2009年05期

4 王秀梅;;國際刑事審判的司法理念——透視國際刑事法院審理的第一案[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2007年06期

5 朱文奇;;中國是否應(yīng)加入國際刑事法院(上)[J];湖北社會(huì)科學(xué);2007年10期

6 喻貴英;;析美國反對(duì)常設(shè)國際刑事法院的理由和舉措[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年04期

7 朱淑麗;;紐倫堡審判面臨的困境及其解決[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年03期

8 任鳴 ,李國慧;國際刑事審判機(jī)構(gòu)中的“電子法庭”——訪前南國際刑庭劉大群法官[J];法律適用;2005年05期

9 龍宗智;國際刑事法院檢察官的地位與功能研究[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2003年03期

10 凌巖;盧旺達(dá)國際法庭印象——一位中國女學(xué)者的工作札記[J];法律與生活;2000年09期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王桂s，

本文編號(hào)：2287055