查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 國際刑法國內法化之規範取向分析--以德國模式為借鏡=The Analysis of Model for Domestic Execution of International Criminal Law--Refer to "German Code of Crimes against International Law in 2002" |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 陳顯武; 蔡浩志; | 書刊名 | 軍法專刊 |
卷期 | 55:2 2009.04[民98.04] |
頁次 | 頁51-80 |
分類號 | 579.95 |
關鍵詞 | 國際刑法; 國際犯罪; 國際法國內法化; 國際人權法; 德國國際刑法典; 國際刑事法院; 國際刑事法院規約; 國際刑法典草案; 國際人道法; International criminal law; International crimes; Domestic legislation of international law; Domestic legislation execution of international law; International human rights law; German code of crimes against international law; International criminal court; ICC; Rome statute of the international criminal court; A draft of international criminal code; International humanitarian law; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 「國際人權法典」(International Bill of Human Rights)與各國國內法規範間之調和與落實,已是當前重要的國際人權議題,亦為西元(以下同)1992年「巴黎原則」(Paris Principles)所揭示各國「國家人權委員會(National Human Rights Commission)」之主要職責,同時表現在1993年「維也納 維也納宣言和行動綱領 (Vienna Declaration and Program of Action) 」的實質內容,亦係國際社會持續關注並為現階段聯合國實踐人權普世價值的重點工作。 為突破我國自1971年退出聯合國後與國際人權體系間之疏離,並重新與國際人權公約接軌,法務部早在2001年3月13日即已完成「人權保障基本法草案」,採取「訂定人權法案」的途徑,試圖將國際人權標準與理念置入國內法規範的框架內。行政院研考會亦於2003年6月撰擬「國際人權公約國內法化之方法與策略」研究報告,明確提出「國際人權法入憲」、「憲法增修條文」、「憲法解釋」等國內法化(Domestic Execution / Legislation)途徑。 此外,我國亦遵循前述「巴黎原則」持續推動成立「國家人權委員會」,亦係以「依據憲法及國際人權標準,審查研究國內既有法規及立法草案,提出修正、改進及立法、入憲的建議」為創設宗旨之一,加上「台灣人權促進會」(Taiwan Association of Human Right)與「國際特赦組織」(Amnesty National)等民間團體的推動,國內對於國際人權議題的重視早已雙軌反應於官方政策與民間參與,並實已開始關注於國際刑法此新興領域的開展。 國際刑事法院(International Criminal Court,ICC)於2002年7月1日經60個國家批准後正式成立,作為一個常設化的獨立國際司法機構,導引國際刑法此嶄新而尚待整合的國際法部門蛻變發展,透過禁止規定與刑罰制裁,呈現其與國際人權法制的交錯關係,並作為體現國際人權保障的重要規範實踐。ICC據以成立國際刑事法院的國際刑事法院規約(Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,The ICC statute,1998)經由揭示「管轄實體罪名」及相關訴訟程序與組織設置等規定,更針對國際犯罪具體明文化,將「滅絕種族罪(Genocide)」、「違反人類罪(Crimes against humanity)」、「戰爭罪」(War Crimes)及「侵略罪」(Crime of aggression)列舉為國際刑事法院具有「普遍管轄權(universal jurisdiction)」、「強制管轄權(compulsory jurisdiction)」及「固有管轄權(inherent jurisdiction)」罪行。 然而,國際刑法體系的整體發展,並非僅侷限在將前述四種罪刑法定於規約內而已,「國際刑法協會」(The International Association of Penal Law)於1979提出並持續討論至今的「國際刑法典草案」(A Draft of International Criminal Code),彙整100多年來32個國家的1800多種國際法文件與著作,參照各類國際公約內所明文確認之國際犯罪,將國際刑法實體罪名類型增加至25種以上,堪稱最值得重視的國際刑事法典。從而,「國際犯罪之明文化」與「國際刑法的法典化」,除以國際刑事法院的相關法制進展為主要核心外,自以將其他蘊含有刑法性質的國際公約視為重要淵源為宜。 本文首先關注於將國際犯罪區分為「危害人類和平與安全而違反國際人道法與國際刑事法院規約之犯罪」、「除違反國際人道法與國際刑事法院規約之外,侵害基本人權與破壞國際秩序之恐怖活動犯罪」及「前述兩種國際犯罪之外,危害國際社會利益之犯罪」等三大類別之具體類型化標準,並用以作為區別各種國際犯罪國內法化密度及規範取向差異之判準,亦係理解國際犯罪實體罪質之依歸。 進而,本文並將研究目的設定於國際人權公約國內法化的思維指引下,歸納當前國際刑法之體系規範現狀,並分析國際刑法在我國國內法架構內實踐模式,同時參酌研考會前揭研究報告內建議之各種國內法化模式,鑑於「國內立法」已成為我國實踐國際公約之重要途徑之一,進一步援引德國於2002年訂定之「德國國際刑法典(German Code of Crimes Against International Law)」作為借鏡,期待就國際刑法國內法化的理念思維與取徑刻度提供建議方向。 |
英文摘要 | How to adjust domestic laws and regulations to International law such as International Bill of Human Rights is currently momentous subject of debate worldwide。The responsibility for National Human Rights Commission is practicing universal value of human rights。Both “Paris Principles(1992)” and “Vienna Declaration and Program of Action(1993)”paid close attention to “Domestic Execution/ Legislation” of international Human Law。 In order to break through isolation since 1971 between Taiwan and International Human Rights System and connect with various International conventions afresh,our Government proceeded with research which selected way to attempted legislating for Fundamental Human Rights In 2003。Moreover , another feasibility study tended towards proposed revising or interpreting Constitution。 Furthermore,Taiwan kept on giving an impetus to establish National Human Rights Commission according to Paris Principles。Many organizations devoted to inspect domestic legislation or draft of law , and then conformed domestic enactments to international standards。Not only official policies promoted,but civil society participated in assignments of Domestic Execution/ Legislation of international Law。Including both “Taiwan Association of Human Right” and “Amnesty National” took notice of the developments of a burgeoning field - International Criminal Law。 International criminal court(ICC)which set up in 2002 was a permanent and independent international judiciary institution。ICC integrated International Criminal Law into International Human Rights System by means of punishment for international crimes。ICC enabled category of international crimes proclaimed in writing,moreover confirmed that “Genocide” ,”Crimes against humanity “,”War Crimes” and ”Crime of aggression” were accusation which ICC was provided with universal, compulsory and inherent jurisdiction。 Nevertheless, the evolution of International Criminal Law was not restricted within foregoing four crimes。”The International Association of Penal Law” offered to draw up “A Draft of International Criminal Code”,and suggested that there were more than 25 types of international crimes must be augmented。 We drew a conclusion that international crimes could be divided into three categories thereinafter: (1) Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind(Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law and Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court); (2) Crimes Against Fundamental Human Rights(Terroristic means Against International Order)(Except International Humanitarian Law and Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court); (3) Crimes Against International Social Interests(Except International Humanitarian Law、Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court、 Crimes Against Fundamental Human Rights and Terroristic means Against International Order)。 Neither “Vergangenheitsbewaltigung (overcome past)” or “Transitional Justice”,they appeal to achieve international society’s common consensus that concept of Justice need to be finally realized。This article undertook a intention to comprehend what is present situations of International Human Rights / Criminal Law,and analyzed practicable models for Domestic Execution of International norms。We are deliberating whether or not to adopt “Domestic Legislation model” refer to “German Code of Crimes Against International Law in 2002 ”,so that supplying opinions about “Domestic Execution/ Legislation Principle” in Taiwan。 |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。