违反国际人道法犯罪的个人刑事责任研究

【作者】 颜海燕；

【导师】 周洪钧；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 国际法学， 2011， 博士

【副题名】以特设国际刑事法庭和国际刑事法院的理论与实践为视角

【摘要】 国际人道法是为处于武装冲突中的人们提供最低限度人权保障的法律,对于维护人类的和平与安全具有重要作用。但是国际人道法被违反、被破坏的例子屡见不鲜,由此造成的人道主义灾难震僳了人们的良知。为惩治这些背离人类基本道德、破坏国际社会基础价值的暴行,国际法不仅将严重违反国际人道法的行为认定为犯罪,而且确立了追究犯罪人个人刑事责任的原则。但是违反国际人道法犯罪的集合性与刑事责任的个人化之间存在某种程度的冲突,要将犯罪所产生的后果恰当地归责于每个罪行参与人,并非易事。论文以联合国特设国际刑事法庭和国际刑事法院的理论与实践为研究视角,探讨了违反国际人道法犯罪的个人刑事责任问题,包括个人刑事责任的实质、正犯与共犯的区分标准、各种具体责任形式的要件以及个人刑事责任的排除理由等,以期为解决违反国际人道法犯罪的归责问题提供若干启示。论文共分五章。第一章为违反国际人道法的犯罪与个人刑事责任。国际法关于战争或武装冲突的规定包含两个部分,其一是有关国家诉诸战争权力的规定,其二是对作战方式和手段的规定。国际人道法属于后者,是指在武装冲突中保护战争受难者,并对作战的手段和方法加以限制的规则。它围绕“尊重和保护人权”、“限制作战方式”、“区分军事与民事目标”等原则构建规则体系,是在武装冲突中保护最基本人权的最后屏障。严重违反国际人道法的行为对全人类的和平与安全造成极大破坏。为了与这些行为作斗争,国际法发展出了两大“有力武器”。一是将这些行为犯罪化；二是建立了个人刑事责任原则。依据现行国际刑法,违反国际人道法的犯罪不仅是国际犯罪,而且属于“整个国际社会关注的最严重犯罪”和“国际核心罪行”的范畴。违反国际人道法的犯罪主要包括战争罪,以及在武装冲突中发生的危害人类罪与灭绝种族罪。依据个人刑事责任原则,实施或参与违反国际人道法的犯罪,应负个人刑事责任。违反国际人道法犯罪的个人刑事责任的实质与个人意思自治相关。它是指具有相对意志自由的行为人,在具备适法行为选择可能性时,选择了违反国际人道法的行为,因而被国际刑法规范施加的非难可能性。在国际刑法中,罪行的成立与责任的成立并非同步。罪行的成立仅为责任提供了依据,责任的成立尚需满足积极的责任要件,并考察是否存在消极的责任排除理由。由于违反国际人道法犯罪的集体、广泛与系统犯罪的特点,此种罪行中个人刑事责任的确定成为了一个困难却至关重要的问题。为恰当处理归责问题,国际刑法建立了违反国际人道法犯罪的个人刑事责任等级体系,将责任分为正犯责任、共犯责任和不作为犯责任这三类责任程度依次递减的责任类别,每一类责任中均包含若干种具体的责任形式,而每一种责任形式均有其不同的要件。第二章为违反国际人道法犯罪的正犯责任。违反国际人道法犯罪的正犯责任是最严重的责任形式。在特设国际刑事法庭中,正犯责任是“实施犯罪”的责任,包括直接实行与团伙共同犯罪两种具体的责任形式。虽然团伙共同犯罪并未在法庭的规约中出现,但是法庭的案例法认为此种责任形式包含在规约规定的“实施犯罪”的涵义之内,也存在于习惯国际法中。团伙共同犯罪责任是一种基于“共同目的”的责任：只要证明犯罪参与人有促成共同犯罪目的的故意,则不必考察他对该罪所起的确切作用,即可认定他对该罪承担正犯责任。团伙共同犯罪责任的运用,表明特设国际刑事法庭采纳主观标准来区分正犯与共犯。团伙共同犯罪包括基本型、系统型和扩展型三种。基本型团伙犯罪是指一伙人基于共同的犯罪故意,共同执行一项共同犯罪计划；系统型团伙共同犯罪是指一伙人明知拘留所或集中营的存在或性质,仍基于促进该组织犯罪目的的故意,在该组织内执行共同计划内的犯罪；扩展型团伙共同犯罪是指一伙人达成一项共同犯罪计划,其中一些人犯下的罪行虽然在共同犯罪目的之外,但属执行共同犯罪计划自然和可以预见的结果。在国际刑事法院中,确定正犯责任的方法与特设国际刑事法庭不同。国际刑事法院采用了兼具客观因素与主观因素的控制标准来区分正犯与共犯,将控制了罪行的实施,并且知道自己拥有这种控制的人认定为正犯。根据《国际刑事法院规约》第25条第3款第1项的规定和国际刑事法院的案例法,正犯责任包括直接实行、间接实行、共同实行和间接共同实行责任。直接实行是指行为人实际实行了罪行的物质要件；间接实行是指行为人控制了实际实行了罪行物质要件的人的意志,从而控制了犯罪的实施；共同实行是指行为人通过完成分派给他的核心任务,与其他人一起控制罪行；间接共同实行是指行为人利用他人完成分派给他的核心任务,从而与其他人一起控制罪行。根据国际刑事法院的案例法,间接实行还包括行为人通过控制组织实施犯罪的形式。以上这些责任形式均要求行为人满足了所诉罪行的所有心理要件,且知道自己对犯罪拥有控制或共同控制。第三章为违反国际人道法犯罪的共犯责任。违反国际人道法犯罪的共犯责任轻于正犯责任。在特设国际刑事法庭中,共犯责任包括计划、命令、唆使以及帮助与教唆的责任。计划犯罪是指行为人策划了一项行为,且他的行为实质性地促进了犯罪。唆使犯罪是指行为人促使他人执行一项行为,且他的行为实质上促进了罪行的实施。命令犯罪是指行为人向他人发出了执行一项行为的权威性指令,且他的行为直接和实质性地促进了罪行的实施。计划、唆使、命令责任均要求行为人有使罪行得到实施的直接故意或间接故意。帮助与教唆犯罪是指行为人知道实际实行人犯罪意图,却故意向实际实行人提供了实际的协助、鼓励或道德支持,且他的行为对实际实行人实施犯罪产生了实质影响。在国际刑事法院中,共犯责任共有三个等级,分别规定于规约第25条第3款第2项至第4项,其责任程度逐级递减,体现出良好的体系性。第一等级的共犯责任规定在规约第25条第3款第2项,包括命令、唆使、引诱犯罪的责任。命令犯罪是指行为人向他人发出一项实施犯罪的指令；唆使犯罪是指行为人敦促或促使他人实施犯罪；引诱犯罪是指行为人以某种利益诱使他人犯罪。在这三种情形中,行为人均有使犯罪实施的故意,他的行为对犯罪的实施有促进作用。此外,犯罪是否既遂对行为人的责任成立没有影响。第二等级的共犯责任规定在规约第25条第3款第3项,包括帮助、教唆以及以其他方式协助犯罪的责任。帮助、教唆、协助犯罪是指行为人出于便利实施犯罪的目的,故意向一项犯罪或犯罪企图提供实际的协助、鼓励或道德支持等,包括为其提供犯罪工具,且他的行为对犯罪的实施或准备有促进。第三等级的共犯责任规定在规约第25条第3款第4项,是指支助团伙犯罪的责任。这是一种兜底的共犯责任形式。支助团伙犯罪是指行为人为了促进团伙的共同犯罪目的,或者明知团体实施犯罪的意图,故意以规约第25条第3款第1-3项之外的方式支助团伙的一项共同犯罪,且对实施犯罪发挥了作用。根据国际刑事法院适用的控制原则,共犯对罪行的实施没有控制,但是他们对罪行何种程度的促进才是对其施加责任的最低门槛,尚需法院在实践中加以明确。第四章为违反国际人道法犯罪的不作为犯责任——上级责任。违反国际人道法犯罪中的上级责任是由上级的消极不作为而引发的责任,它的责任程度较正犯责任与共犯责任更轻。上级责任概念出现的历史较早,它的法理基础在于上级负有对下级进行有效控制与管理的义务。上级责任在二战后对德、日战犯的审判中被大量运用,并在特设国际刑事法庭和国际刑事法院中得到了进一步的发展。特设国际刑事法庭中的上级责任是指上级事实上知道或者有理由知道下级即将实施、正在实施或已经实施犯罪,但其未能采取必要且合理的措施防止或惩罚下级的犯罪行为,由此而引发的责任。国际刑事法院中的上级责任区分军事上级和平民上级,采取了不同的标准,前者的入责门槛低于后者。军事上级责任是在军事上级知道或者理应知道,由于他未适当行使控制,在他有效控制下的部队正在实施或即将实施犯罪,但他未采取权力范围内的一切必要而合理的措施,防止或制止犯罪的实施,或将罪行提交调查和起诉时,对他施加的责任。平民上级责任则是在平民上级未适当行使控制,导致在他有效控制下的下级犯下涉及他有效控制下活动的罪行,且未采取权力范围内的一切必要而合理的措施,防止或制止犯罪或将罪行提交调查和起诉时,对他施加的责任,前提是该上级人员知道下级人员正在实施或即将实施犯罪,或故意不理会明确反映这一情况的情报。第五章为排除个人刑事责任的理由。排除个人刑事责任的理由是指行为人的行为虽造成了一定的危害结果或已经具有造成一定危害结果的危险,但却因具备某种特定因素而不构成犯罪,或者因特定的事实因素的存在,而不应负刑事责任或不追究刑事责任的情况。国际刑法规定了排除个人刑事责任理由对维护正义、保障犯罪人人权有重要意义。在国际刑法中,排除个人刑事责任的理由有实体性排除个人刑事责任的理由与程序性排除个人刑事责任理由之分。实体性排除个人刑事责任的理由又可分为行为正当化理由与责任减免理由。在涉及违反国际人道法犯罪的情况下,排除个人刑事责任的行为正当化理由包括正当防卫、紧急避险。减免个人刑事责任的理由则包括精神障碍、醉态、事实错误与法律错误、上级命令和军事必要。程序性排除个人刑事责任的理由则有年龄因素、官方身份、时效等。更多还原

【Abstract】 International humanitarian law is a set of rules which provides the most basic protection for persons in armed conflict and plays an important role in maintaining peace and security for all mankind. However, fragrant acts in violation of international humanitarian law and astounding humanitarian catastrophes have never disappeared. Such atrocities are serious deviation from the basic moral rules of human beings and unacceptable attack on the basic values of the worldl community. As a defensive response, international law classifies acts seriously violating international humanitarian law as international crimes and sets the principle of individual criminal responsibility as the legal basis for punishing these crimes. However, due to the implicit tension between the collective criminality of crimes in violation of international humanitarian law and the individualized criminal responsibility, precise attribution of criminal responsibility to each participant of such crimes has become a constant request. Relying on the abundant practice and enlightening case law of UN ad hoc Tribunals and International Criminal Court (ICC), this dissertation addresses certain pertinent issues concerning individual criminal responsibility for violation of international humanitarian law, including the essence of individual criminal responsibility, criteria for differentiating principals and accessories, elements of specific responsibility forms and grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility, and tries to give a few cues for tackling the difficult task of responsibility ascription.The dissertation is composed of five chapters.Chapter 1 is titled as Crimes in Violation of International Humanitarian Law and Individual Criminal Responsibility.With respect to war or armed conflict, international law has developed two different but interrelated categories of law, i.e. jus ad bellum and jus in bello. International humanitarian law belongs to the latter category. It is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict and protect persons who are not or no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. It is constructed. on several essential principles such as ’respect for and protection of human rights’,’restriction on the means and methods of warfare’ and ’differentiation between military and civil objects’, and serves, in armed conflicts, as the last shield for the most fundamental human rights.Offences in serious violation of international humanitarian law do great harm to the peace and security of human society. In order to fight with them, international law has two powerful weapons. One is the criminalization of these offences and the other is the establishment of the principle of individual criminal responsibility.According to current international criminal law, crimes in violation of international humanitarian law are not only international crimes, but also belong to the scope of’the most serious crimes of concern to the international community’ and ’core international crimes’. Generally speaking, crimes in violation of international humanitarian law consist of genocide crimes and crimes against humanity committed in armed conflict, and war crimes.According to the principle of individual criminal responsibility, anyone who commits or participates in a crime in violation of international humanitarian law shall be imposed criminal responsibility. The essence of individual criminal responsibility for crimes in violation of international humanitarian law relates to autonomy of personal will. It refers to the impugnment imposed by international criminal law to a person of proper capacity for his choice of acts violating international humanitarian law, on the condition that at the time of action he actually has another choice which conforms to the law. In international criminal law, crime and responsibility shall be assessed separately. The establishment of a crime only provides a basis, for responsibility. If a crime is established, individual criminal responsibility can be set up, provided that he meets the elements of a specific mode of responsibility and lacks defenses which exclude his responsibility. Considering the collective, widespread and systematic context of crimes in violation of international humanitarian law, assigning of responsibility in such crimes is a difficult but crucial task. In order to resolve this problem, international criminal law has constructed a hierarchical system of responsibility, which includes three classes of responsibility, i.e. responsibility for principals, responsibility for accessories and responsibility for omission. Under this system, the responsibility descends by class. Each class consists of some specific forms of responsibility and each specific form of responsibility has different elements.Chapter 2 explains Responsibility of Principals for Crimes in Violation of International Humanitarian Law.With respect to crimes in violation of international humanitarian law, a principal shall assume the most severe responsibility.Under ad hoc Tribunals, a principal is a person who ’committed’ a crime of the Statute shall be individually responsible for the crime. In accordance to the case law of ad hoc Tribunals,’committing’ encompasses not only physical perpetration of a crime, but also participation in a joint criminal enterprise (JCE), and JCE is a form of responsibility in customary international law, even though that term does not expressly appear anywhere in the Statute. JCE is a theory of common-purpose liability:it permits the imposition of individual criminal responsibility on an accused for his knowing and voluntary participation in a group acting with a common criminal purpose or plan. Ad hoc Tribunals’employment of the JCE theory demonstrates that they have adopted a subjective criterion to determine principals. The jurisprudence of the ad hoc Tribunals distinguished three categories of JCE:(ⅰ) the basic form, where the participants act on the basis of a ’common design’ or ’common enterprise’ and with a common ’intention’;(ⅱ) the systemic form, i.e. the so-called concentration camp cases where crimes are committed by members of military or administrative units such as those running concentration or detention camps on the basis of a common plan;(ⅲ) the so-called ’extended’ joint enterprise where one of the co-perpetrators actually engages in acts going beyond the common plan but his or her acts still constitute a ’natural and foreseeable consequence’ of the realization of the plan.Under ICC, a different criterion—control criterion, which combines subjective and objective elements, has been adopted to differentiate principals and accessories. According to this approach, only those who have control over the commission and are aware of having such control may be principals. Considering Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute together with the case law of ICC, persons acting in the following modes shall be imposed responsibility as principals:direct perpetration, indirect perpetration, co-perpetration, and indirect co-perpetration. Direct perpetrators physically carry out the objective elements of the offence; indirect perpetrators control the will of those who carry out the objective elements of the offence; co-perpetrators have, along with others, control over the offence by reason of the essential tasks assigned to them; indirect co-perpetrators have joint control with others over the crime by accomplishing the assigned essential tasks through others. The jurisprudence of ICC interprets the concept of indirect perpetration as including the indirect perpetrator committing the crime through another by means of control over an organization. Under all the modes of responsibility of principals, the perpetrators must carry out the subjective elements of the crime, and are aware of the factual circumstances enabling them to control the crime or control the crime jointly.Chapter 3 elaborates Responsibility of Accessories for Crimes in Violation of International Humanitarian Law.With respect to crimes in violation of international humanitarian law, an accessory incurs responsibility less severe than a principal.Under ad hoc Tribunals, the forms of responsibility of accessories cover: planning, instigating, ordering and aiding and abetting. The planner designs an act or omission and his conduct substantially contributes to the perpetration of a crime; the instigator prompts another to engage in an act or omission and his conduct substantially contributes to the perpetration of a crime; under the mode of ordering the person instructs another person under his authority to engage in an act or omission and his conduct has a direct and substantial effect on perpetration of a crime. Under these three modes of responsibility, the person shall conduct with the direct and indirect intent that a crime be committed. The aidor and abettor intentionally lends practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support to the physical perpetrator, with the awareness of the crime and the perpetrator’s mental state, and his conduct has a substantial effect on the commission of the crime.Under ICC, the forms of responsibility of accessories are respectively stipulated in Article 25(3)(b)-(d) of the Rome Statute and their culpability descend accordingly.The first grade of accessory responsibility is set in Article 25(3)(b) of the Rome Statute and embodies ordering, soliciting and inducing. Under these responsibility forms, the person respectively instructs, prompts or entices another to commit a crime, with the intent and knowledge that the crime be committed, and his conduct contributes to the commission of a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted.The second grade of accessory responsibility is provided in Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute and enbraces aiding and abetting and otherwise assisting. Under these responsibility modes, the person provides practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support to the physical perpetrator of a commited or attempted crime, including providing the means for its commission, with the intent to facilitate the commission of s a crime.The third grade of accessory responsibility is formulated in Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute and refers to the subsidiary form of accessory responsibility contributing to joint commission of a crime. Under this responsibility form, the person, in any other way than those listed in Article 25(3)(a)-(c) of the Rome Statute, contributes the joint commission or attemption of a crime, with the intent to further common criminal purpose or with the knowledge of common criminal purpose.Acoording to the control criterion applied in ICC, an accessory has no control over the commission of a crime. However, so far as contribution is concerned, the triggering standard for accessory responsibility still need to be developed in the future jurisprudence of the court.Chapter 4 discusses Responsibility for Omission for the Crimes in Violation of International Humanitarian Law-Superior Responsibility.With respect to crimes in violation of international humanitarian law, superior responsibility derives from the superior’s culpable omission and introduces a responsibility with lower threshold than both principal and accessory responsibility.The roots of superior responsibility can be found in ancient international law and its rationale lies in the concept that the positions of superior entail duties. Due to the post second world war trials and the jurispreduce of ad hoc tribunals, the doctrine of superior responsibility has experienced great historical evolution. After the establishment of the ICC, its development continues.Under ad hoc Tribunals, superior responsibility refers to the responsibility imposed on the superior, if he knew or had reason to know that his subordinates were commiting or about to commit a crime or had commited a crime, but failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his material ability to prevent the subordinates from or punish their for engaging in the criminal conduct in question.Under ICC, military superior responsibility is differentiated from civil superior responsibility, the threshold of the former is lower than the latter. Military superior responsibility refers to the responsibility imposed on the military superior, if he knew or should have known that, as a result of his failure to exercise control properly, the forces under his effective control were committing or about to commit a crime, but failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter for investigation and prosecution. Civil superior responsibility refers to the responsibility imposed on the civil superior, if he knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that as a result of his failure to exercise control properly, the subordinates under his effective control were committing or about to commit a crime concerning activities within his effective responsibility and control, but failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter for investigation and prosecution.The theme of Chapter 5 is Grounds for Excluding Individual Criminal Responsibility.Grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility refer to a range of factors that justifies or excuses the person’s act which has already produced harmful consequence.The recognition of grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility by international criminal law is a requirement for maintaining justice and protecting the human rights of defendants.Grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility can be differentiated as substantial ones and procedural ones. Substantial grounds for excluding individual criminal responsibility consist of two categories:justification grounds and excusing grounds. The former covers legitimate defense, necessities and duress. The latter includes mental disease or defect, intoxication, mistake of fact and mistake of law, superior command and military necessity. Procedural grounds usually refer to such grounds preventing the investigation of the individual criminal responsibility as under-age, official capability and limitation etc.更多还原