【作者】 喻贵英；

【导师】 贾宇；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 刑法学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 罪责自负原则是现代世界各国国内刑法中的普适原则。任何人对于自己所实施的犯罪行为都应当承担刑事责任,不得以任何借口逃避法律的制裁；同时犯罪人只对自己所犯的罪行承担刑事责任,而不对其他人的犯罪行为承担刑事责任。个人对国际犯罪负刑事责任原则奠定于二战后的纽伦堡审判和东京审判,它所针对的是灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪和战争罪等不同于一般普通犯罪的特定犯罪。研究国际刑法中的共同犯罪行为,让个人对国际犯罪负刑事责任,特别是高级军政上级对国际犯罪的刑事责任,梳理、改造、构建合理的关于国际犯罪的理论学说,进而完善有效打击严重国际犯罪的法理基础,以此来保证有罪必罚原则能够落到实处；同时也可在国际社会有关个人对国际犯罪负刑事责任方面构建一个相互交融的平台：横向观之,可比较各国的理论与实践；纵向观之,则可将各国的理论与实践与国际条约、特别法庭规约、国际刑事法院规约和国际审判相比较。过去几年国际刑法所经历的重大发展,都是将高级军政上级认定为大规模的、有系统的国际犯罪中的主犯,让他们承担最重的刑事责任。在正犯与共犯之间的区分方法,以及全面反映高级军政上级在大规模、有系统的国际犯罪中作为主犯的共同犯罪体概念和犯罪控制概念之作用等问题上,前南问题国际刑事法庭和卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭的案例法与《罗马规约》有着不同的选择。《罗马规约》以国际刑事法院的制度为基准,部分地继承了国际刑事法庭案例法演进过程中的国际刑法理念,较之特别国际刑事法庭各自的实体法规定看,《罗马规约》第10条、第21条和第22条第3款明确了国际刑事法院的特有制度。论文共包括5章。第1章强调国际犯罪和国际刑法中的共同犯罪行为特征,以及高级军政上级在大规模和有系统的国际犯罪中的核心作用。当犯罪发生时,高级军政上级通常都远离犯罪现场,与犯罪组织中以自己的身体动静实施犯罪的下级人员没有直接接触。这样,如果运用国内犯罪行为的传统概念,似乎因为缺少高级军政上级的直接犯罪行为而难以追究与其所犯罪行严重程度相适应的刑事责任。针对这一难题,国际刑法专注于特定概念的发展,其中犯罪控制和共同犯罪体即是体现国际犯罪中高级军政上级核心作用的概念。不过,这些概念并非国际刑法的原创,而是国内刑法本身所固有的概念,只不过国际刑法将其发展并整合适用于国际犯罪的某些特定情况。第2章着墨于负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯之间的区别。正犯,是指其刑事责任独立于其他共犯的人；共犯,则是指其刑事责任源于正犯的人。该章首先提出的问题是国际刑法是否采纳了这种区别,在分析总结了二战后国际刑法的演进之后,笔者得出了肯定的回答,与此同时,笔者还详细论证了正犯与共犯刑事责任之间的区别。共同犯罪体概念,是以主观说区别负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯的概念；犯罪控制概念,则是以实质客观说区别负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯的概念。继探讨了主观说和实质客观说的通常地位之后,该章得出的结论认为,尽管有前南问题国际刑事法庭上诉庭关于Tadic案的判决,且现在的趋势是广泛接受犯罪控制概念,但习惯国际法尚未就负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯之间的区别形成默契。第3章论证了直接正犯和间接正犯的概念。在直接正犯概念中,特别强调了不作为概念,以及这种形式的不作为与负共犯刑事责任或根据上级责任原则所确定的不作为之间的区别。该章还论证了《罗马规约》第25条第3款第1项所规定的“通过不论是否负刑事责任的另一人”实施犯罪的间接正犯概念。该部分特别强调了权力组织结构体所必须具有的使间接正犯概念得以适用的特征。间接正犯不适用于小规模的准军事组织或恐怖集团,因为人数的有限性使得小规模团体的人员不具有替换性,或者说从组织结构上看,这样的团体只具有横向而非纵向的特征。在继这些分析之后,该部分认为,另外几种与间接正犯概念相关的负共犯刑事责任的行为形式——命令、教唆和计划,可在间接正犯概念不能适用时予以采用。最后两章论证了共同正犯概念,共同正犯概念必须与界分负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共同犯罪一般原则相一致。第4章详细论证了共同犯罪体原理,分析了前南法庭上诉庭关于Tadic案判决的三种共同犯罪体形式,以及它们与负共犯刑事责任的协助煽动行为之间的关系。该章强调了根据Radoslav Brdanin和Momcilo Krajisnik案发展而来的针对身居要职者对国际犯罪负刑事责任的原则。论文将共同犯罪体分为两种模式：一种是在“传统的共同犯罪体”情况下,高级军政上级策划犯罪,下级人员实施犯罪,上级和下级人员均为同一犯罪体的成员；另一种是“上级层面的共同犯罪体”,只有计划和将计划付诸实施的最高层的政治和军事官员是犯罪体的成员,以自己的身体动静实施犯罪的下级是上级的犯罪工具。前南法庭依据主观说界分负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯,这是一种欠佳的抉择,事实上,这里的第二种模式对于追究高级军政上级的刑事责任比较可取。第5章分析了共同控制犯罪基础上的共同正犯行为概念,其中特别指出,一旦有某个共同正犯没有完成分配的任务,就会使共同犯罪计划“流产”。该部分还分析了作为共同正犯的高级军政上级,通过权力组织结构体(军事组织、警察部队和/或政治团体)在完成其必要的“角色任务”时的犯罪情况,通过借助间接共同正犯概念,使得“上级层面的共同犯罪体”模式的缺陷得以消解。更多还原

【Abstract】 The doctrine of bearing criminal responsibility solely for ones is an universal principle in the modern domestic criminal law in the world. Anyone should be held criminally liable for their criminal acts committed without any pretext to escape legal punishment. An offender bears criminal responsibility only for his own crimes rather than those of others. The principle of individual criminal responsibility is laid on the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Trials after World WarⅡfor the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes which are different from ordinary crimes.To study, comb, transform and construct individual criminal responsibility for international crimes, in particular the criminal responsibility of the senior political and military leaders is the legal basis for effectively combating serious international crime. And if so, no impunity principle can be implemented; a global platform for interacting with each other on individual criminal responsibility for international crimes can be built, which can be used to compare theories and practices among different countries from horizontal point and theories and practices of different countries with international treaties, the Ad hoc Tribunal Statutes, the Rome Statute and international trials from vertical point.The important evolution of international criminal law experiences in the past few years is that the senior political and military leaders are held the principals and bear the heaviest criminal responsibility for large-scale and systematic international crimes. The Rome Statue has a different choice to the distinction between the principal and accessorial liability, the notion of joint criminal enterprise and the notion of control of crime for the principal role of senior political and military leadersin the large-scale and systematic international crimes to the ICTY and ICTR Case Law.The drafter of the Rome Statute, based on the ICC system, does not completely inherit the ICTY and ICTR Case Law in the evolution of international criminal law. Compared to the substantive provisions of ICTY and ICTR Statutes, Article 10, Article 21 and paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Rome Statute provide a clearly unique system for the ICC.The thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 emphasizes international crimes, the specific characters of individual criminal responsibility for international crimes and the central role of the senior political and military leadersin the large-scale and systematic international crimes. When the crimes occur, the senior political and military leaders are usually far away from the crime scene and have no direct contact with their subordinates who physically commit the crimes. If we apply the domestic traditional concepts of criminal responsibility, it seems hard to reflect the correspondingly grave criminal responsibility of the senior political and military leadersbecause of their lacking of direct criminal behaviors. In response to this problem, international criminal law focuses on the development of the specific concepts of crimes. Control of the crime and joint criminal enterprise are two concepts to reflect the central role of the senior political and military superiors. However, these concepts are not coined by the international criminal law, but are inherent in the domestic criminal law, which are developed and adjusted to certain circumstances of international crimes.Chapter 2 focuses the distinction between perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility. Perpetrators are those whose criminal responsibility is independent of other accessories. Accessories are those whose criminal responsibility comes from perpetrators’criminal responsibility. The chapter firstly mentions the question whether international criminal law has adopted this distinction. After analyzing the evolution of international criminal law after World War II, the thesis obtains an affirmative answer and at the same time discusses the different actions respectively by perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility.The notion of joint criminal enterprise distinguishes the different actions respectively by perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility based on subjective approach, while the notion of control of crime distinguishes the different actions respectively by perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility based on material-objective approach. Having discussed the usual positions of subjective approach and material-objective approach, the author obtains the conclusion that despite the Appeals Chamber Judgment on the Tadic Case by the ICTY and the present trend of widely accepting the notion of control of crime, customary international law has not yet formed agreement on the distinction of the different actions respectively by perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility.Chapter 3 demonstrates the notions of direct and indirect perpetration. The notion of omission and distinction between the omission of this form and the omission under accessories’criminal responsibility or under the doctrine of superior responsibility are particularly emphasized.The chapter also demonstrates the notion of indirect perpetration, defined in article 25(3)a of the Rome Statute as the commission of a crime through another person. The chapter emphasizes the specific characters of organized structure of power which makes the notion of indirect perpetration applicable. The notion of indirect perpetration does not apply to small-scale paramilitary units or terrorist groups because the limited staff number makes the members of the small-scale groups irreplaceable, or it may be said that these groups have only horizontal but not vertical characters from the view of structure. Following these analyses, the chapter has the conclusion that the several other forms of action, such as ordering, instigation and planning, that bearing secondary criminal responsibility, can be available when the notion of indirect perpetration does not apply.The last two chapters demonstrate the notion of co-perpetration. The notion must be consistent with the general principle of joint crime for the distinction between the perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility.Chapter 4 demonstrates in detail the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise, analyzes the three forms of joint criminal enterprise in the Appeals Chamber Judgment on the Tadic Case by the ICTY, and their relationship with the act form of aid and abet.The chapter emphasizes the principle developed from Radoslav Brdanin case and Momcilo Krajisnik case to the act of persons with high level position. The joint criminal enterprise in the thesis is divided into two modes. The first is the "traditional joint criminal enterprise" in which senior political and military leadersplot crimes and the low level persons commit crimes. They all belong to the same joint criminal enterprise. The second is "joint criminal enterprise at the leadership level", in which only senior political and military leaderswho plots and put the crimes into action are the members of the joint criminal enterprise, the low level persons who physically commit the crimes are the crime tool used by the senior political and military leadersto secure the crimes. ICTY distinguishes between perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility according to subjective approach. It is a not good choice. The second mode is actually a not bad choice.Chapter 5 analyzes the notion of co-perpetration based on the notion of control of crime. If one of the co-perpetrators does finishes his task entrusted to him, the common criminal plan will fail. This chapter does also analyze the situation where the senior political and military leadersas co-perpetrators through organized structure of power finish their own essential tasks. The defects of the mode of "joint criminal enterprise at the leadership level" can be resolved through indirect perpetrators.更多还原