【作者】 陆静；

【导师】 周洪钧；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 国际法， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 国际刑事审判的生命力在于将抽象的国际正义进行物化，而国际检察官及其裁量权的行使恰是这一物化过程的关键因素。国际检察官是在国际刑事审判机构中独立承担着调查、起诉等职能的一种特殊形式的检察官，因此只有国际刑事审判机构（具体而言包括纽伦堡国际军事法庭、东京国际军事法庭、前南斯拉夫国际刑事法庭、卢旺达国际刑事法庭以及国际刑事法院等）所在的场域，才会有国际检察官及其裁量权的存在。值得注意的是，虽然近年来国际国内混合型法庭也发展得如火如荼，但其无论是法庭名称、机构性质、组成人员还是适用法律，都掺杂着国际国内的“混合性”而非纯粹的“国际性”，因此至多只能算作“准”国际刑事审判机构，而其中的非国内检察官当然也只能算是“准”国际检察官，故本文不欲将之纳入探讨范畴。人们对于国际检察官的关注度是随着国际刑事司法的发展而日益增强的。尤其当《罗马规约》赋予检察官自行调查权以及2003年4月国际刑事法院任命首位检察长之后，有关国际检察官裁量权问题的争论更是被推向了风口浪尖。在这样的背景下，笔者围绕国际检察官行使裁量权过程中的若干问题进行了探讨，拟通过厘定国际检察官裁量权的若干概念、回顾国际刑事审判机构及国际检察官的历史发展、阐释其行使裁量权的基本要求、分析其裁量权的内容与表现及问责与监督等，对当前存在的问题和现状提出建议与意见，并就国际检察官和我国的关系进行回顾与展望。本文除导言和结语外共被分为六章：第一章系国际检察官裁量权相关概念的分析。该章分为三个部分：一是有关国际检察官概念的阐释，包括对国际检察官的来源——两大法系检察官职责与宗旨的分析，以及国际检察官称谓、内涵、外延的厘定；二是有关裁量权概念的阐释，包括裁量权的定义、检察官裁量权的含义以及检察官裁量权与法官裁量权的比较；三是国际检察官裁量权属性的界定，主要将之与国内检察官裁量权进行比较，并对其异同进行了阐释。本章旨在通过对国际检察官裁量权所涉概念的全面解释，为后文进一步分析铺陈蓄势、夯实基础。第二章系国际刑事审判机构类型与国际检察官。该章针对纽伦堡国际军事法庭、东京国际军事法庭、前南斯拉夫国际刑事法庭、卢旺达国际刑事法庭以及国际刑事法院的结构、成立背景以及检察官体制和权力等进行了系统的比较和分析。本章的结论是：一方面，国际刑事审判机构的演变过程决定了国际检察官的发展方向——即纽伦堡、东京审判早已化作尘土，前南斯拉夫、卢旺达国际刑事法庭也即将画上句号，唯有国际刑事法院检察官仍然继续肩负着使命和重任；另一方面，国际刑事审判机构设立的历史背景、法律体系乃至检察官体制的模式，同样也深刻地影响着国际检察官裁量权的行使。因此，国际刑事法院检察官及其裁量权将是本文的研究重点。第三章系国际检察官行使裁量权的基本要求。该章包括三个部分：一是独立性问题。独立性不仅是国际检察官行使裁量权的基本要求，也是国际检察官裁量权本身的重要特征。独立性包括身份独立和职务独立。身份独立的意义在于确保国际检察官的法律地位，使其在行使裁量权时不受任意调职或免职的影响；而职务独立的核心内容是“不受指示权”，其涵盖整个国际刑事诉讼程序，包括调查前、调查和提起诉讼的各个阶段。二是公正性问题。公正既包括“实际”的公正，又包括被“感知”的公正；“实际”的公正是指国际检察官行使裁量权应当具备实体公正与程序公正两个方面；被“感知”的公正则是指人们对检察官公正性的外部感知。只有两者兼具，才是真正意义上的公正性。三是效率问题。犯罪者被快捷地指控、逮捕并审判，对于联合国特设刑事法庭及国际刑事法院的顺利运转至关重要，对于国际检察官裁量权的正确行使也意义深远。国际社会也因此提出很多要求，然而理想预期和国际指控的现状之间却也难免存在矛盾。本章旨在说明：这些基本要求被赋予了特殊的、具体的、重要的含义，贯穿于国际检察官裁量权行使的整个过程，也深刻地影响着其权力体系的总体运作与发展。第四章系国际检察官裁量权的内容与表现。本章分为两个部分：一是调查裁量权。调查裁量权存在于调查权之中，但并非所有的调查权都是裁量权。其中，启动调查权、申请逮捕证等使当事人权利义务产生影响或潜在影响的权力才是裁量权的表现；国际检察官制定的锁定对象、案件的调查战略也同样体现了裁量内容。二是起诉裁量权。起诉裁量权除了提出起诉的裁量权之外，也包括修改或撤销起诉的裁量权。起诉裁量权的行使主体是负责案件审查起诉的检察官；运行对象是已经进入审查起诉阶段的刑事案件；其核心内容是在法律的范围内酌情决定是否对相关案件提出起诉以及如何起诉（包括确定案由、事实、对象等）。此外，无论行使调查裁量权还是起诉裁量权，国际检察官都面临着一定的困境，如检察官的邀请提交情势策略、选择性调查的边缘化、选择性起诉的歧视性以及和平的干扰性等。本章旨在通过对国际检察官裁量权内容和表现的深入阐释，提出其中存在的一些困惑与难题并作梳理归纳。第五章系国际检察官裁量权的问责与监督。该章首先探讨了检察官裁量权问责性产生和发展的原因，主要包括现实因素和一般原则。现实因素有国际检察官行为失当的现实性、国际检察官裁量权的扩张、国际检察官独立性的增强以及法治观念的养成与人权保护的重视等；一般原则是指权力原则、委托原则、伤害原则等。其次介绍了国际检察官问责性的主要内容，包括问责性的概念与分类、责任主体、责任对象等。最后阐释了国际检察官裁量权的制约机制，包括司法监督、政治制衡、行政监督等方面，全面涵盖了国际刑事审判目前存在的各种监督制约方式。本章旨在通过对国际检察官问责与监督机制的分析，寻求抑制其权力滥用的最佳方式和更好办法。第六章系国际检察官裁量权的完善及中国的对策。本章分为三个部分：一是国际检察官行使裁量权准则的订立。针对裁量标准过于随意的现状，笔者提出制定国际检察官行使裁量权准则的建议，这既是国际检察官独立性、公正性与问责性的现实需要，也是其裁量权规范化进程的重要体现。二是国际检察官行使裁量权过程中的问题思考。针对裁量过程中出现的公正与和平、正义与效率以及独立与监督等几对矛盾体的冲突，由于其有着深刻的历史政治原因，目前不可能存在彻底化解或解决这些矛盾的途径，所以笔者只能就缓解这些矛盾的角度提出一些粗浅的意见。首先是推行有条件承认特赦的制度。承认特赦是新建立的政权或转型中的国家恢复和平的一个有效手段，而坚持起诉却可以预防将来再次出现国际犯罪，以及增强人们对法律以及新政府的尊敬。因此笔者认为可以采用折中的方式——即有条件承认特赦来缓解这一矛盾。其次是构建有限制的诉辩交易制度。诉辩交易是英美法系国家比较常见的一种模式，在前南斯拉夫、卢旺达国际刑事法庭中也进行了实践，笔者认为该制度具有向国际刑事领域进一步拓展的优势，但必须有所限制。再次是建立与完善有第三方参与的独立监督机制。为了确保包括检察官办公室在内的内部机构的问责性，国际刑事法院致力于建立一种内部的监督机制——独立监督机制。一方面，该机制的诞生加强了对检察官权力滥用的防范，但另一方面，有关设立该机制的最初建议又对检察官独立性有所冲击。因此，为了让该机制更为合理化，笔者的建议构建有第三方参与的独立监督机制。三是中国与国际检察官裁量权。鉴于国际检察官最终会归结为国际刑事法院检察官这一种形式，我国与国际检察官裁量权的关系最终也将归结为与国际刑事法院的关系。因此，笔者通过分析我国在国际检察官制度发展中的角色和作用，进一步阐释我国对国际刑事法院及其检察官裁量权的应有态度以及应对策略。更多还原

【Abstract】 The vitality of international criminal justice exists in thematerialization of international justice, where internationalprosecutors and their discretion are key elements. Internationalprosecutors are the persons that have powers of investigation andprosecution in international criminal judicial institutionsindependently and play an important role in international criminaljustice. It’s the international criminal judicial institutions thatinternational prosecutors come from, including Nuremberg InternationalMilitary Tribunal, Tokyo International Military Tribunal, InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, International CrimininalTribunal for Rwanda and International Crimininal Court. It’s noted thatthe hybrid tribunals have developed these years, which have hybridcharacteristics, but the author thinks they’re “quasi” internationalcriminal judicial institutions rather than real ones, therefore thenon-national prosecutors in them are “quasi” international prosecutorsinstead of real ones too.With development of international criminal justice, internationalsociety has more and more interests in international prosecutors. Inparticular, the investigation proprio motu provided by Rome Statute andthe appointment in April2003of the first Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court no doubt brought into the foreground the importance of thediscretionary powers attributed to international prosecutors. In thecontext, this article aims to illustrate the definitions, the history,the basic requirements, the constitution, as well as the accountabilityand supervision of international prosecutorial discretion, then to putforward some advice to improvement of international prosecutorialdiscretion, and to retrospect and prospect the relationship betweeninternational prosecutors and China.There are six chapters in this article aside from introduction andconclusion remarks.Chapter One is on the analysis of the conceptions of internationalprosecutorial discretion. There are three parts in this chapter. The firstpart elaborates and illustrates the definition of internationalprosecutor, including its history, title, intension and extension. Thesecond part analyses the definition of discretion, including its meaning,the meaning of prosecutorial discretion, and the cmparison with jucicialdiscretion. The third part explains the attribute of internationalprosecutorial discretion, by comparing the prosecutorial discretionbetween international and national levels.Chapter Two is on the development of international judicialinstitutions and international prosecutors. This chapter centres on theconstitution, backgrounds of Nuremberg International Military Tribunal,Tokyo International Military Tribunal, International Criminal Tribunalfor the Former Yugoslavia, International Crimininal Tribunal for Rwandaand International Crimininal Court, as well as their prosecutorialsystems and powers, and then concludes that all the above-mentionedelements have impacts on international prosecutorial discretion and itsfuture.Chapter Three is on the basic requirements of internationalprosecutorial discretion. There are three parts in this chapter. First of all is about independence, which the author devides into independenceof the status and that of the employment. The second is about impartiality,which includes real impartiality and perceived impartiality. And the lastbut not the least is about efficiency. These requirements are vested withspecific, concrete and important implications, which run through theexercise of international prosecutorial discretion, and influence theoperation and development of the prosecutorial powers’ architecture.Chapter Four is on the content and representation of internationalprosecutorial discretion. There are two parts in this chapter. The firstpart elaborates discretion in investigation, which consists in but notequals to investigation powers. The second part is about discretion inprosecution, which is the core of prosecutorial discretion. In addition,the author brings forward the conflicts in the exercise of discretion,for instance, the policy of inviting referrals, peripherization ofselective investigation, discrimination of selective prosecution, andinterference of peace process.Chapter Five is on the accountability and supervision ofinternational prosecutorial discretion. There are three parts in thischapter. The first are the reasons why accountability of prosecutorialdiscretion has emerged and developed. On the one hand, the practicalreasons are the misconducts of international prosecutors, their expandingdiscretion and independence, and cultivation of rule of law as well asprotection of human rights; on the other hand, the theoretical reasonsare power principle, delegation principle, harm principle. The secondpart construes accountability of international prosecutors, includingthe definition, classification, subjects and objects of accountability,ets. And in the last part the author analyzes the supervision ofinternational prosecutorial discretion consisting of judicialsupervision, policital balance and administrative intendance.Chapter Six is on the improvement of international prosecutorial discretion and China’s measures. There are three parts in this chapter.The first part is on the guidelines of the prosecutorial discretion, whosenecessity have been embodied in normalization of internationalprosecutorial powers. Secondly, the author puts forward some advice onimprovement of prosecutorial discretion, such as the establishment ofconditional admitted amnesty, limited plea bargain andthe-third-party-involved independent oversight mechanism. Finally sheanalyzes the relationship between China and international prosecutors.She concludes the role of China in international criminal justice by itsparticipation in international prosecutorial work, and conceives themeasures for prosecutorial discretion in International Crimininal Courtsince China will take part in it sooner or later.更多还原