國際刑法中的合法性原則AutoDisplay

國際刑法中的合法性原那么

PrincipleofLegalityinInternationalCriminalLawNullumcrimensinelege,nullapoenasinelege目次1國內(nèi)刑法罪刑法定原那么之回憶〔比較對象〕2國際刑法中合法性原那么之歷史〔比較語境〕3國際刑法中合法性原那么之特性〔比較結(jié)論〕我的觀點

國際刑法不需要罪行法定

合法性原那么只是審判者的自我正當(dāng)化罪刑法定價值之論證路徑：罪刑法定→其上位概念即法治原那么→目的為防止專制者、寡頭或多數(shù)人之恣意擅斷→以從根本上保障個體權(quán)利與自由1.作為儀式的審判——在嚴(yán)重失序中恢復(fù)法治2.勝利者裁判的事實存在與自我約束3.“兩種犯罪〞的異質(zhì)性與不必要的擔(dān)憂1國內(nèi)刑法罪刑法定原那么

之回憶1.1開展歷史1.2思想淵源1.3下位原那么1.4中國命運1.1開展歷史1.1.1普通法1.1.1.1英國大憲章〔1215年〕*MagnaCartaalsocalledMagnaCartaLibertatumorTheGreatCharteroftheLibertiesofEngland普通法中替代法定主義之正當(dāng)程序淺析***Jescheck/Weigend,1996,AT5,15/II.1**Bassiouni,2003,IICL,p.1911.1.1.1a大憲章相關(guān)條文文本39.Nullusliberhomocapiatur,velimprisonetur,autdisseisiatur,aututlagetur,autexuletur,autaliquomododestruatur,necsupereumibimus,necsupereummittemus,nisiperlegalejudiciumpariumsuorumvelperlegemterre.39.Nofreemanshallbecaptured,orimprisioned,ordispossessed,oroutlawed,orexiled,orinanywaydestroyed,norwillwegouponhim,norwillwesenduponhim,exceptingbythelegaljudgementofhispeersorbythelawsoftheland.39.凡自由人，除經(jīng)其同儕之合法裁判或依國家法律，不得被逮捕、收監(jiān)、罰沒、褫權(quán)、驅(qū)逐或以任何方式踐踏，吾等亦不得動用武力或派遣軍隊對待之。ACopyExhibitedintheBritishLibrary1.1.1.2美國憲法中的禁止事后法Art.1§9(3)

NoBillofAttainderorexpostfactoLawshallbepassed.第一條第九款第三項不得通過褫奪公權(quán)法案或事后法。Art.1§10(1)NoStateshall...passanyBillofAttainder,expostfactoLaw...第一條第十款第一項各州不得……通過任何褫奪公權(quán)法案、事后法……TheOriginalExhibitedintheNARA1.1.1.2a大憲章之傳承——權(quán)利法案正當(dāng)程序條款A(yù)rticletheseventh(AmendmentVDueProcessClause)Nopersonshallbeheldtoanswerforacapital,orotherwiseinfamouscrime,unlessonapresentmentorindictmentofaGrandJury,exceptincasesarisinginthelandornavalforces,orintheMilitia,wheninactualserviceintimeofwarorpublicdanger;norshallanypersonbesubjectforthesameoffencetobetwiceputinjeopardyoflifeorlimb;norshallbecompelledinanycriminalcasetobeawitnessagainsthimself,norbedeprivedoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflaw;norshallprivatepropertybetakenforpublicuse,withoutjustcompensation.第七條〔第五修正案正當(dāng)程序條款〕非依大陪審團(tuán)之起訴意見或公訴書，任何人不得受死罪或其他重大罪行之審判；惟于戰(zhàn)爭或社會動亂時期中，正在服役的陸海軍或民兵中發(fā)生的案件，不在此例；人民不得為同一罪行而兩次被置于危及生命或身體之處境；不得被強迫在任何刑事案件中自證其罪，不得不經(jīng)正當(dāng)法律程序而被剝奪生命、自由或財產(chǎn)；人民私有產(chǎn)業(yè)，如無合理賠償，不得被征為公用。TheOriginalExhibitedintheNARA1.1.2法國1.1.2.1法國人權(quán)宣言〔1789年〕DéclarationdesDroitsdel’HommeetduCitoyenVII.Nulhommenepeutêtreaccusé,arrêténidétenuquedanslescasdéterminésparlaLoi,etselonlesformesqu’elleaprescrites.Ceuxquisollicitent,expédient,exécutentoufontexécuterdesordresarbitraires,doiventêtrepunis;maistoutCitoyenappeléousaisienvertudelaLoi,doitobéiràl’instant:ilserendcoupableparlarésistance.VII.除非在法律所規(guī)定的情況下并按照法律所指示的手續(xù)，不得控告、逮捕或拘留任何人。凡動議、發(fā)布、執(zhí)行或令人執(zhí)行專斷命令者應(yīng)受處分；但根據(jù)法律而被傳喚或被扣押的公民應(yīng)當(dāng)立即服從；抗拒那么構(gòu)成犯罪。ARepresentationbyJean-Jacques-Fran?oisLeBarbier1.1.2.2法國1791年刑法典——絕對法定刑DEUXIèMEPARTIE-Descrimesetdeleurpunition.TITREII-Crimescontrelesparticuliers.SECTIONI-Crimesetattentatscontrelespersonnes.Article8L'homicidecommissanspréméditationseraqualifiémeurtre,etpunidelapeinedevingtannéesdefers.Article9Lorsquelemeurtreseralasuited'uneprovocationviolente,sanstoutefoisquelefaitpuisseêtrequalifiéhomicidelégitime,ilpourraêtredéclaréexcusable,etlapeineseradedixannéesdegêne.第二編各罪及刑罰第二章針對個人的犯罪第一節(jié)侵犯人身犯罪第八條無預(yù)謀的殺人稱作兇殺，處二十年禁錮。第九條當(dāng)兇殺由暴力挑釁引起，但不能被視作合法殺人的，或可予寬宥，處十年監(jiān)禁。1.1.3Feuerbach之表述〔1801年〕PaulJohannAnselmRittervonFeuerbach現(xiàn)行德國普通刑法教科書Lehrbuchdesgemeinen,inDeutschlandgeltendenpeinlichenRechts無法無刑，無罪無刑，無刑法無罪Nullapoenasinelege.Nullapoenasinecrimine.Nullumcrimensinepoenalegali.*無事先刑法，無罪無罰Nullumcrimen,nullapoenasinepraevialegepoenali.1813年巴伐利亞刑法典BayerischenStrafgesetzbuchesvon1813*Feuerbach,1801,S.20,§241.2思想根底1.2.1沿革意義*1.2.1.1心理強制說**Feuerbach,TheoriedespsychologischenZwangs1.2.1.2三權(quán)分立學(xué)說***Montesquieu,TriasPolitica1.2.1.3啟蒙時期自然法思想*****此提法見張明楷，2021，刑法學(xué)四版，第51頁**Feuerbach,1801,S.15ff.,§§17~22***Montesquieu,1748,DeL'espritDesLois,XI/6****Roxin,1997,ATI3,5/131.2.2現(xiàn)代意義1.2.2.1司法考試觀點*1.2.2.1.1民主主義1.2.2.1.2尊重人權(quán)主義〔自由主義〕*2021年司法考試輔導(dǎo)用書〔第二卷〕，第3頁1.2.2.2現(xiàn)代刑法學(xué)觀點*1.2.2.2.1政治自由主義DerpolitischeLiberalismus1.2.2.2.2民主與分權(quán)DemokratieundGewaltenteilung1.2.2.2.3一般預(yù)防Generalpr?vention1.2.2.2.4罪責(zé)原那么DasSchuldprinzip*Roxin,1997,ATI3,5/18ff.1.3下位原那么1.3.1通說觀點*1.3.1.1嚴(yán)格〔stricta〕1.3.1.2成文〔scripta〕1.3.1.3事前〔praevia〕1.3.1.4確定〔certa〕*Roxin,1997,ATI3,5/7ff.;Jescheck/Weigend,1996,AT5,15/III~IV1.3.2實質(zhì)側(cè)面？1.3.2.1實質(zhì)側(cè)面的內(nèi)容*1.3.2.1.1條文明確性1.3.2.1.2適正性禁止處分不當(dāng)罰行為，禁止殘虐不均衡刑罰1.3.2.3反對意見**1.3.2.4德國學(xué)者的類似表述****山口厚，2021，總論，第19頁以下**王世洲，2021，總論，第41頁以下***Jescheck/Weigend,1996,AT5,4/II.1~21.4中國命運1.4.1積極的罪刑法定？*必罰主義之隱憂1.4.2幾種解釋**1.4.3聯(lián)系新刑訴法的一點思考****曲新久，2021，刑法學(xué)2版，第35頁以下**陳興良，2021，教義，第46頁以下；張明楷，2021，刑法學(xué)4版，第53頁以下***陳光中，2021，刑訴，第306頁，第414頁以下2國際刑法中合法性原那么

之歷史2.1一戰(zhàn)后2.2二戰(zhàn)后2.3冷戰(zhàn)中2.4冷戰(zhàn)后2.5跨世紀(jì)2.1.1一戰(zhàn)后的凡爾賽條約〔1919年〕TreatyofVersailles2.1.1.1條約文本相關(guān)條文PartVIIPenaltiesArticle227.TheAlliedandAssociatedPowerspubliclyarraignWilliamIIofHohenzollern,formerlyGermanEmperor,forasupremeoffenceagainstinternationalmoralityandthesanctityoftreaties.Aspecialtribunalwillbeconstitutedtotrytheaccused,therebyassuringhimtheguaranteesessentialtotherightofdefence.Itwillbecomposedoffivejudges,oneappointedbyeachofthefollowingPowers:namely,theUnitedStatesofAmerica,GreatBritain,France,ItalyandJapan.Initsdecisionthetribunalwillbeguidedbythehighestmotivesofinternationalpolicy,withaviewtovindicatingthesolemnobligationsofinternationalundertakingsandthevalidityofinternationalmorality.Itwillbeitsdutytofixthepunishmentwhichitconsidersshouldbeimposed.TheAlliedandAssociatedPowerswilladdressarequesttotheGovernmentoftheNetherlandsforthesurrendertothemoftheex-Emperorinorderthathemaybeputontrial.譯文：第七章刑罰第二百二十七條協(xié)約諸國以違反國際道德及條約神圣性之極大罪行，公開控告霍恩索倫家族〔王朝〕威廉二世，前德國皇帝。為審判被告人，將成立特別法庭，以向其確保必要的辯護(hù)權(quán)利。該法庭由五名法官組成，以下諸國各任命一名，即：美利堅合眾國、大不列顛、法蘭西、意大利、日本。在決定中法庭將受國際政策之至高意圖為指引，并以確證國際承諾之神圣義務(wù)及國際道德之有效為目的。確定其認(rèn)為當(dāng)科之刑罰為其義務(wù)。協(xié)約諸國將向尼德蘭〔荷蘭〕政府提出引渡前德皇之請求，以令其接受審判。2.1.1.2荷蘭方面回應(yīng)2.2.1紐倫堡審判〔1945年~1946年〕NuremburgTrial2.2.1.1作為審判依據(jù)的倫敦憲章LondonCharteroftheInternationalMilitaryTribunalatNuremburgII.JURISDICTIONANDGENERALPRINCIPLESArticle6.TheTribunalestablishedbytheAgreementreferredtoinArticle1hereofforthetrialandpunishmentofthemajorwarcriminalsoftheEuropeanAxiscountriesshallhavethepowertotryandpunishpersonswho,actingintheinterestsoftheEuropeanAxiscountries,whetherasindividualsorasmembersoforganizations,committedanyofthefollowingcrimes.Thefollowingacts,oranyofthem,arecrimescomingwithinthejurisdictionoftheTribunalforwhichthereshallbeindividualresponsibility:(a)CRIMESAGAINSTPEACE:namely,planning,preparation,initiationor

wagingofawarofaggression,orawar

inviolationofinternationaltreaties,

agreementsorassurances,orparticipationinacommonplanorconspiracyfor

theaccomplishmentofanyoftheforegoing;(b)WARCRIMES:namely,violationsofthelawsorcustomsofwar.Such

violationsshallinclude,butnotbe

limitedto,murder,ill-treatmentordeportation

toslavelabororforanyotherpurposeofcivilianpopulationoforin

occupied

territory,murderorill-treatmentofprisonersofwarorpersonsontheseas,

killingofhostages,plunderof

publicorprivateproperty,wantondestructionof

cities,townsorvillages,ordevastationnotjustifiedbymilitary

necessity;(c)CRIMESAGAINSTHUMANITY:namely,murder,extermination,

enslavement,deportation,andother

inhumaneactscommittedagainstany

civilianpopulation,beforeorduringthewar;orpersecutionsonpolitical,

racial

orreligiousgroundsinexecutionoforinconnectionwithanycrimewithinthe

jurisdictionoftheTribunal,

whetherornotinviolationofthedomesticlawofthecountrywhereperpetrated.

Leaders,organizers,instigatorsandaccomplices

participatingintheformulationorexecutionofacommonplanor

conspiracytocommitanyoftheforegoingcrimesareresponsibleforallactsperformedbyanypersonsinexecution

ofsuchplan.譯文：第二章管轄權(quán)及總原那么第六條法庭在第一條提及之協(xié)定根底上為使歐洲軸心國主要戰(zhàn)犯受審及受罰而設(shè)立，其應(yīng)有權(quán)審理及懲罰為軸心國利益行動而觸犯下述罪名之個人或組織成員。下述諸行為，或其任一局部，皆為法庭管轄權(quán)內(nèi)之犯罪，實施者應(yīng)承擔(dān)個人責(zé)任：(a)違反和平罪：即，方案、準(zhǔn)備、發(fā)動或進(jìn)行侵略戰(zhàn)爭，或違反國際條約、協(xié)定、承諾之戰(zhàn)爭，或為實現(xiàn)上述內(nèi)容參與共謀或陰謀；(b)戰(zhàn)爭罪：即，違反戰(zhàn)爭法或慣例。此種違反響含而不僅限于謀殺、虐待、奴役或因其他原因放逐屬于占領(lǐng)區(qū)或在其內(nèi)的平民，謀殺或虐待戰(zhàn)俘或公海上的人，殺害人質(zhì)，掠奪公私財產(chǎn)，任意毀壞城市、鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)或農(nóng)村，或不能被軍事需要正當(dāng)化的破壞；(c)危害人類罪：即，在戰(zhàn)爭前或戰(zhàn)爭中針對平民人口實施的謀殺、滅絕、奴役、放逐及其他不人道行為；或在法庭管轄權(quán)內(nèi)的犯罪的實行或關(guān)聯(lián)行為中，因政治、種族、宗教原因進(jìn)行迫害，無論是否觸犯行為地國內(nèi)法。在為實現(xiàn)上述犯罪的共謀或因陰謀中參與謀劃或?qū)嵭械念I(lǐng)導(dǎo)者、組織者、教唆者、幫助者，對實行犯罪方案的任何人所為之所有行為負(fù)責(zé)。2.2.1.2判決書分析2.2.1.2.1法庭管轄權(quán)合法性LegitimacyoftheJurisdictionoftheTribunalThejurisdictionoftheTribunalisdefinedintheAgreementandCharter...ThemakingoftheCharterwastheexerciseofthesovereignlegislativepowerbythecountriestowhichtheGermanReichunconditionallysurrendered;andtheundoubtedrightofthesecountriestolegislatefortheoccupiedterritorieshasbeenrecognizedbythecivilizedworld.TheCharterisnotanarbitraryexerciseofpoweronthepartofthevictoriousnations,butintheviewoftheTribunal,aswillbeshown,itistheexpressionofInternationalLawexistingatthetimeofitscreation;andtothatextentisitselfacontributiontoInternationalLaw...Indoingso,theyhavedonetogetherwhatanyoneofthemmighthavedonesingly;foritisnottobedoubtedthatanynationhastherightthustosetupspecialcourtstoadministerlaw.WithregardtotheconstitutionoftheCourt,allthatthedefendantsareentitledtoaskistoreceiveafairtrialonthefactsandlaw.譯文：本法庭管轄權(quán)由協(xié)定及憲章賦予……制定憲章乃接受德意志帝國無條件投降諸國最高立法權(quán)之運用；文明世界對諸國為占領(lǐng)區(qū)立法之權(quán)力殆無疑問。憲章并非戰(zhàn)勝國一方權(quán)力之恣意行使，相反依本法庭將予釋明之觀點，乃是對制定當(dāng)下現(xiàn)存國際法之表述；且在此范圍內(nèi)本身亦是對國際法之奉獻(xiàn)……由此，諸國攜手完成原本可能由其任一單獨完成之工作；因為任一國家有權(quán)設(shè)立特別法庭執(zhí)行法律此點無可置疑。關(guān)于法庭之組建，諸被告人有權(quán)要求的便僅是基于事實和法律得到一個公正的審判。2.1.1.2.2辯護(hù)方意見TheDefendents'OpinionItwasurgedonbehalfofthedefendantsthatafundamentalprincipleofalllaw-internationalanddomestic-isthattherecanbenopunishmentofcrimewithoutapre-existinglaw."Nullumcrimensinelege,nullapoenasinelege."Itwassubmittedthatexpostfactopunishmentisabhorrenttothelawofallcivilizednations,thatnosovereignpowerhadmadeaggressivewaracrimeatthetimethattheallegedcriminalactswerecommitted,thatnostatutehaddefinedaggressivewar,thatnopenaltyhadbeenfixedforitscommission,andnocourthadbeencreatedtotryandpunishoffenders.被告方強烈主張，包含國際法和國內(nèi)法的所有法律，都有一項根本原那么，即沒有先在之法便不得有刑罰?！盁o法無罪，無法無罰。〞其認(rèn)為，事后刑罰乃是對所有文明國家法律之背棄，所謂犯行被實施時并無主權(quán)國家將侵略戰(zhàn)爭規(guī)定為犯罪，并無律條已界定侵略戰(zhàn)爭，實施該行為之刑罰未曾被限定，且審判及懲罰犯罪人之法院亦未被設(shè)曾立。2.2.1.2.3法庭意見TheViewoftheTribunalInthefirstplace,itistobeobservedthatthemaxim“nullumcrimensinelege〞isnotalimitationofsovereignty,butisingeneralaprincipleofjustice.ToassertthatitisunjusttopunishthosewhoindefianceoftreatiesandassuranceshaveattackedneighbouringStateswithoutwarningisobviouslyuntrue,forinsuchcircumstancestheattackermustknowthatheisdoingwrong,andsofarfromitbeingunjusttopunishhim,itwouldbeunjustifhiswrongwereallowedtogounpunished.OccupyingthepositionstheydidintheGovernmentofGermany,thedefendants,oratleastsomeofthem,musthaveknownofthetreatiessignedbyGermany,outlawingrecoursetowarforthesettlementofinternationaldisputes;theymusthaveknownthattheywereactingindefianceofallInternationalLawwhenincompletedeliberationtheycarriedouttheirdesignsofinvasionandaggression.Onthisviewofthecasealone,itwouldappearthatthemaximhasnoapplicationtothepresentfacts.譯文：首先，應(yīng)注意到無法無罪之格言并非對主權(quán)的限制，而在總體上是一項正義原那么。聲稱懲罰那些藐視條約和承諾不予警示地攻擊鄰國的人是不公正的，這顯然不真實，因為在此種情境下攻擊者必然知道他正在作惡，懲罰他非但不是不公正，甚至如果他的惡行被允許不受懲罰才是不公正。身處德國政府中的要職，諸被告人，或至少其中一些，必然知曉德國所簽訂之條約，禁止訴諸戰(zhàn)爭解決國際爭端；當(dāng)他們經(jīng)過深思熟慮將侵略和攻擊的方案付諸實施時，他們必然知曉他們正在藐視國際法。關(guān)于此案僅以此種觀點，似乎上述格言在現(xiàn)有事實上并無適用余地。...(I)tmustberememberedthatInternationalLawisnottheproductofaninternationallegislature,andthatsuchinternationalagreementsasthePactofParishavetodealwithgeneralprinciplesoflaw,andnotwithadministrativemattersofprocedure.Thelawofwaristobefoundnotonlyintreaties,butinthecustomsandpracticesofStates,whichgraduallyobtaineduniversalrecognition,andfromthegeneralprinciplesofjusticeappliedbyjuristsandpractisedbymilitarycourts...Indeed,inmanycasestreatiesdonomorethanexpressanddefineformoreaccuratereferencetheprinciplesoflawalreadyexisting.…必須謹(jǐn)記國際法并非由國際立法機關(guān)制定，如巴黎非戰(zhàn)公約一類之國際協(xié)定只規(guī)定一般法律原那么而非執(zhí)行事務(wù)之程序。戰(zhàn)爭法并非只在條約中，亦在國家間習(xí)慣與實踐中，慢慢獲得世界性認(rèn)同，并來源于法官所適用的，以及軍事法院所實施的一般正義原那么…必然的，在許多案件中條約僅表達(dá)和定義已經(jīng)存在的法律原那么，以便更精確的引述。2.2.1.3國際法根底摘錄2.2.1.3.1海牙公約〔1899年及1907年〕HagueConventions1899年海牙公約之國際爭端和平解決PacificSettlementofInternationalDisputes(B)eforeanappealtoarms...tohaverecourse,asfarascircumstancesallow,tothegoodofficesormediationofoneormorefriendlyPowers.在訴諸武力前，只要情勢允許，即應(yīng)利用一個或多個友好國家的斡旋或調(diào)解。1907年海牙公約之關(guān)于公開戰(zhàn)爭行為之公約ConventionRelativetotheOpeningofHostilitiesThecontractingPowersrecognizethathostilitiesbetweenthemmustnotcommencewithoutapreviousandexplicitwarning,intheformofeitheradeclarationofwar,givingreasons,oranultimatumwithaconditionaldeclarationofwar.協(xié)議各方認(rèn)同發(fā)生于彼此間之戰(zhàn)爭行為不得不經(jīng)事前明確示警，或以給出原因之宣戰(zhàn)形式，或以最后通牒方式有條件地宣戰(zhàn)。2.2.1.3.2凡爾賽條約〔1919年〕TreatyofVersaillesBreachesofcertainprovisions:PartIII.PoliticalClausesforEuropeSectionIII.LeftBankoftheRhine(§§42~44)SectionVI.Austria(§80)SectionVII.Czecho-SlovakState(§81)SectionX.Memel(§99)SectionXI.FreeCityofDanzig(§100)特定條款之違反：第三章歐洲政治條款第三節(jié)撤離萊茵河畔〔第四十二至四十四條〕第六節(jié)奧地利〔第八十條〕第七節(jié)捷克斯諾伐克國〔第八十一條〕第十節(jié)梅梅爾〔第九十九條〕第十一節(jié)但澤自由城〔第一百條〕2.2.1.3.3國際聯(lián)盟盟約〔1919年〕CovenantoftheLeagueofNationsTHEHIGHCONTRACTINGPARTIES...bytheacceptanceofobligationsnottoresorttowar...agreetothisCovenant...Art.11Anywar...is...amatterofconcerntothewholeLeague,andtheLeagueshalltakeanyactionthatmaybedeemedwiseandeffectualtosafeguardthepeace...Art.12TheMembersoftheLeagueagree...innocasetoresorttowaruntilthreemonthsaftertheawardbythearbitratorsorthereportbytheCouncil.諸締約國…在接受不訴諸戰(zhàn)爭之義務(wù)根底上…同意此盟約…第十一條任何戰(zhàn)爭…皆為…整個聯(lián)盟嚴(yán)重關(guān)切之事態(tài)，聯(lián)盟將采取一切被認(rèn)為明智而有效的行為以守護(hù)和平第十二條聯(lián)盟成員同意…在仲裁或理事會報告裁定后三個月內(nèi)絕不訴諸戰(zhàn)爭。2.2.1.3.4羅加諾公約〔1925年〕LocarnoTreatiesTreatiesofmutualguaranteewithBelgium,France,GreatBritainandItaly.ArbitrationtreatieswithCzechoslovakia,BelgiumandPoland.(ArbitrationTreaties)ArticleIAlldisputesofeverykindbetweenGermanyandPoland...whichitmaynotbepossibletosettleamicablybythenormalmethodsofdiplomacy,shallbesubmittedfordecisiontoanarbitraltribunal...與比利時、法國、大不列顛和意大利簽訂互相擔(dān)保條約，與捷克斯諾伐克、比利時和波蘭簽訂仲裁條約。仲裁條約第一條德國與波蘭等國間所有類型任何爭議假設(shè)無法以正常外交方式友善解決，那么應(yīng)向仲裁法庭申請裁決。2.2.1.3.5巴黎非戰(zhàn)公約〔1928年〕TheGeneralTreatyfortheRenunciationofWarof27thAugust,1928,knownasthePactofParisortheKellogg-BriandPactPreambleTHEPRESIDENTOFTHEGERMANREICH,THEPRESIDENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,HISMAJESTYTHEKINGOFTHEBELGIANS,THEPRESIDENTOFTHEFRENCHREPUBLIC,HISMAJESTYTHEKINGOFGREATBRITAINIRELANDANDTHEBRITISHDOMINIONSBEYONDTHESEAS,EMPEROROFINDIA,HISMAJESTYTHEKINGOFITALY,HISMAJESTYTHEEMPEROROFJAPAN,THEPRESIDENTOFTHEREPUBLICOFPOLANDTHEPRESIDENTOFTHECZECHOSLOVAKREPUBLIC,Deeplysensibleoftheirsolemndutytopromotethewelfareofmankind;persuadedthatthetimehascomewhenafrankrenunciationofwarasaninstrumentofnationalpolicyshouldbemadetotheendthatthepeacefulandfriendlyrelationsnowexistingbetweentheirpeoplesshouldbeperpetuated...allchangesintheirrelationswithoneanothershouldbesoughtonlybypacificmeans...thusunitingcivilisednationsoftheworldinacommonrenunciationofwarasaninstrumentoftheirnationalpolicy...前言譯文：德意志帝國總統(tǒng)、美利堅合眾國總統(tǒng)、比利時國王陛下、法蘭西共和國總統(tǒng)、大不列顛愛爾蘭及英屬海外領(lǐng)地國王暨印度皇帝陛下、意大利國王陛下、日本天皇陛下、波蘭共和國總統(tǒng)、捷克斯洛伐克共和國總統(tǒng)，因深刻領(lǐng)會促進(jìn)人類福祉之莊嚴(yán)使命；相信真誠放棄將戰(zhàn)爭作為國家政策手段之時刻已終于來臨，各國人民間現(xiàn)存之和平友好關(guān)系應(yīng)當(dāng)永存；認(rèn)諾彼此關(guān)系之任何變化應(yīng)以溫和手段尋求，并作為一和平有序過程之結(jié)果，今后任何訴諸戰(zhàn)爭以尋求促進(jìn)其國家利益之簽署國，其條約利益應(yīng)不被成認(rèn)。希望在簽署國典范之鼓勵下，世上其他各國亦參與此人道努力，待該條約生效即參加之，以帶著其人民進(jìn)入其仁慈的條款范圍，從而聯(lián)合世界文明國家，普遍拒絕將戰(zhàn)爭作為國家政策工具。正文第一、二條及譯文：ARTICLEITheHighContractingPartiessolemlydeclareinthenamesoftheirrespectivepeoplesthattheycondemnrecoursetowarforthesolutionofinternationalcontroversies,andrenounceit,asaninstrumentofnationalpolicyintheirrelationswithoneanother.第一條各締約國以各自人民之名義莊嚴(yán)宣布，諸國譴責(zé)訴諸戰(zhàn)爭解決國際爭端，并在彼此交往中，拒絕將其作為國家政策工具。ARTICLEIITheHighContractingPartiesagreethatthesettlementorsolutionofalldisputesorconflictsofwhatevernatureorofwhateverorigintheymaybe,whichmayariseamongthem,shallneverbesoughtexceptbypacificmeans.第二條各締約國同意，可能發(fā)生在諸國間的所有爭議或沖突，無論何種性質(zhì)，無論出于何種原因，其解決或處理僅得尋求和平手段。2.2.1.3.6其他國際法根底〔宣示而非約束〕：國際聯(lián)盟1924年國際爭端和平解決議定書TheLeagueofNations1924ProtocolforthePacificSettlementofInternationalDisputes(A)warofaggressionconstitutesaviolationofthissolidarityandisaninternationalcrime.國際聯(lián)盟1927年9月24日大會宣言DeclarationofAssemblyoftheLeagueofNationson24thSeptember,1927(A)warofaggressioncanneverserveasameansofsettlinginternationaldisputes,andisinconsequenceaninternationalcrime...2.2.2東京審判〔1946年~1948年〕TokyoTrial2.2.2.1作為審判依據(jù)的遠(yuǎn)東國際軍事法庭憲章CharteroftheInternationalMilitaryTribunalfortheFarEastIIJURISDICTIONANDGENERALPROVISIONSArticle5.JurisdictionOverPersonsandOffenses.TheTribunalshallhavethepowertotryandpunishFarEasternwarcriminalswhoasindividualsorasmembersoforganizationsarechargedwithoffenseswhichincludeCrimesagainstPeace.Thefollowingacts,oranyofthem,arecrimescomingwithinthejurisdictionoftheTribunalforwhichthereshallbeindividualresponsibility:(a)CrimesagainstPeace:Namely,theplanning,preparation,initiationorwagingofadeclaredorundeclaredwarofaggression,orawarinviolationofinternationallaw,treaties,agreementsorassurances,orparticipationinacommonplanorconspiracyfortheaccomplishmentofanyoftheforegoing;(b)ConventionalWarCrimes:Namely,violationsofthelawsorcustomsofwar;(c)CrimesagainstHumanity:Namely,murder,extermination,enslavement,deportation,andotherinhumaneactscommittedagainstanycivilianpopulation,beforeorduringthewar,orpersecutionsonpoliticalorracialgroundsinexecutionoforinconnectionwithanycrimewithinthejurisdictionoftheTribunal,whetherornotinviolationofthedomesticlawofthecountrywhereperpetrated.Leaders,organizers,instigatorsandaccomplicesparticipatingintheformulationorexecutionofacommonplanorconspiracytocommitanyoftheforegoingcrimesareresponsibleforallactsperformedbyanypersoninexecutionofsuchplan.譯文：第二章管轄權(quán)及總規(guī)定第五條對人與犯罪之管轄權(quán)法庭應(yīng)有權(quán)力審判并懲罰遠(yuǎn)東戰(zhàn)犯，他們作為個人或組織成員被以包括違反和平罪在內(nèi)的罪名起訴。下述諸行為，或其任一局部，皆為法庭管轄權(quán)內(nèi)之犯罪，實施者應(yīng)承擔(dān)個人責(zé)任：(a)違反和平罪：即，方案、準(zhǔn)備、發(fā)動或進(jìn)行宣戰(zhàn)或不宣戰(zhàn)的侵略戰(zhàn)爭，或違反國際條約、協(xié)定、承諾之戰(zhàn)爭，或為實現(xiàn)上述內(nèi)容參與共謀或陰謀；(b)普通戰(zhàn)爭罪：即，違反戰(zhàn)爭法或習(xí)慣；(c)危害人類罪：即，在戰(zhàn)爭前或戰(zhàn)爭中針對平民人口實施的謀殺、滅絕、奴役、放逐及其他不人道行為；或在法庭管轄權(quán)內(nèi)的犯罪的實行或關(guān)聯(lián)行為中，因政治、種族原因進(jìn)行迫害，無論是否觸犯行為地國內(nèi)法。在為實現(xiàn)上述犯罪的共謀或因陰謀中參與謀劃或?qū)嵭械念I(lǐng)導(dǎo)者、組織者、教唆者、幫助者，對實行犯罪方案的任何人所為之所有行為負(fù)責(zé)。2.2.2.2判決書分析2.2.2.2.1法庭管轄權(quán)合法性LegitimacyoftheJurisdictionoftheTribunalInouropinionthelawoftheCharterisdecisiveandbindingontheTribunal.ThisisaspecialtribunalsetupbytheSupremeCommanderunderauthorityconferredonhimbytheAlliedPowers...Intheexerciseoftheirrighttocreatetribunals...belligerentpowersmayactonlywithinthelimitsofinternationallaw.我們認(rèn)為憲章之法乃決定性的并約束本法庭。本法庭由最高統(tǒng)帥依諸同盟國授予之權(quán)限設(shè)立…在其設(shè)立法庭之權(quán)利行使中…交戰(zhàn)國僅得在國際法界限內(nèi)為任何行為。2.2.2.2.2辯護(hù)方意見TheDefendents'Opinion(1)TheAlliedPowersactingthroughtheSupremeCommanderhavenoauthoritytoincludeintheCharteroftheTribunalandtodesignateasjusticiable"CrimesagainstPeace"(Article5(a));(2)AggressivewarisnotperseillegalandthePactofParisof1928renouncingwarasaninstrumentofnationalpolicydoesnotenlargethemeaningofwarcrimesnorconstitutewarcrime;(3)Waristheactofanationforwhichthereisnoindividualresponsibilityunderinternationallaw;(4)TheprovisionsoftheCharterare"expostfacto"legislationandthereforeillegal;(5)TheInstrumentofSurrenderwhichprovidesthattheDeclarationofPotsdamwillbegiveneffectimposestheconditionthatConventionalWarCrimesasrecognizedbyinternationallawatthedateoftheDeclaration(26July,1945)wouldbetheonlycrimesprosecuted;(6)Killingsinthecourseofbelligerentoperationsexceptinsofarastheyconstituteviolationsoftherulesofwarfareorthelawsandcustomsofwararethenormalincidentsofwarandarenotmurder;(7)SeveraloftheaccusedbeingprisonersofwararetriablebymartialasprovidedbytheGenevaConvention1929andnotbythisTribunal.譯文：〔1〕通過最高統(tǒng)帥行事之諸同盟國并無權(quán)限將違反和平罪納入法庭憲章并稱其應(yīng)受審判；〔2〕侵略戰(zhàn)爭并非實質(zhì)違法，1928年放棄將戰(zhàn)爭作為國家政策手段的巴黎公約并未擴大戰(zhàn)爭犯罪之涵義，亦為明定戰(zhàn)爭犯罪；〔3〕戰(zhàn)爭是國家行為，故而于國際法上并無個人責(zé)任；〔4〕憲章條款乃事后立法故而非法；〔5〕成認(rèn)波茨坦宣言效力之投降書使得在宣言日被國際法正式成認(rèn)的普通戰(zhàn)爭罪應(yīng)為僅有的被訴罪行；〔6〕在交戰(zhàn)行動過程中的殺傷，除構(gòu)成對戰(zhàn)爭規(guī)那么或法律及習(xí)慣之違反，乃是正常戰(zhàn)爭事件而非謀殺；〔7〕一些成為戰(zhàn)俘之被告可被1929年日內(nèi)瓦公約規(guī)定之軍事法庭而非本法庭審判。2.2.2.2.3法庭意見TheViewoftheTribunalThey(theNuremburgTribunal)embodycompleteanswerstothefirstfour...thisTribunalpreferstoexpressitsunqualifiedadherencetotherelevantopinionsoftheNurembergTribunalratherthanbyreasoningthemattersanewinsomewhatdifferentlanguagetoopenthedoortocontroversybywayofconflictinginterpretationsofthetwostatementsofopinions...AggressivewarwasacrimeatinternationallawlongpriortothedateoftheDeclarationofPotsdam...ThelateChiefJusticeStone...said...Part3andArticle63,applyonlytojudicialproceedingsdirectedagainstaprisonerofwarforoffencescommittedwhileaprisonerofwar...他們〔紐倫堡法庭〕對前四個問題作出全面答復(fù)…本法庭寧愿對紐倫堡法庭相關(guān)意見表達(dá)無條件支持而非以略微不同的字句再次推理，從而使人利用兩種意見陳述解釋上的矛盾，敞開爭議之門…侵略戰(zhàn)爭成為國際犯罪遠(yuǎn)早于波茨坦宣言日…前首席大法官斯通說，第三章六十三條僅適用于對犯罪時是戰(zhàn)俘的犯人進(jìn)行的司法程序…2.3.1世界人權(quán)宣言〔1948年〕UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights來自聯(lián)合國大會第三屆會議決議案二一七(三)，代碼A/RES/217(III)第十一條二．任何人在刑事上之行為或不行為，於其發(fā)生時依國家或國際法律均不構(gòu)成罪行者，應(yīng)不為罪。刑罰不得重於犯罪時法律之規(guī)定。Article112.Nooneshallbeheldguiltyofanypenaloffenceonaccountofanyactoromissionwhichdidnotconstituteapenaloffence,undernationalorinternationallaw,atthetimewhenitwascommitted.Norshallaheavierpenaltybeimposedthantheonethatwasapplicableatthetimethepenaloffencewascommitted.2.3.2歐洲人權(quán)公約〔1950年〕EuropeanConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedomsArticle7–Nopunishmentwithoutlaw1.Nooneshallbeheldguiltyofanycriminaloffenceonaccountofanyactoromissionwhichdidnotconstituteacriminaloffenceundernationalorinternationallawatthetimewhenitwascommitted.Norshallaheavierpenaltybeimposedthantheonethatwasapplicableatthetimethecriminaloffencewascommitted.2.Thisarticleshallnotprejudicethetrialandpunishmentofanypersonforanyactoromissionwhich,atthetimewhenitwascommitted,wascriminalaccordingtothegeneralprinciplesoflawrecognisedbycivilisednations.第七條無法無罰1.任何人的作為或不作為，在其發(fā)生時依國內(nèi)法或國際法不構(gòu)成刑事犯罪者，不得認(rèn)定為任何罪行。刑罰不得重于犯罪時可適用的刑罰。2.假設(shè)作為或不作為于行為時據(jù)文明國家所成認(rèn)的一般法律原那么為刑事犯罪者，本條不得阻礙對任何人之作為或者不作為進(jìn)行審判或者予以懲罰。2.3.3公民及政治權(quán)利國際盟約〔1966年〕InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights聯(lián)合國大會一九六六年十二月十六日第２２００Ａ〔ＸＸＩ〕號決議通過並開放給各國簽字、批準(zhǔn)和參加。按照第四十九條的規(guī)定，於一九七六年三月二十三日生效。第十五條一．任何人之行為或不行為，於發(fā)生當(dāng)時依內(nèi)國法及國際法均不成罪者，不為罪。刑罰不得重於犯罪時法律所規(guī)定。犯罪後之法律規(guī)定減科刑罰者，從有利於行為人之法律。二．任何人之行為或不行為，於發(fā)生當(dāng)時依各國公認(rèn)之一般法律原則為有罪者，其審判與刑罰不受本條規(guī)定之影響。Article151.Nooneshallbeheldguiltyofanycriminaloffenceonaccountofanyactoromissionwhichdidnotconstituteacriminaloffence,undernationalorinternationallaw,atthetimewhenitwascommitted.Norshallaheavierpenaltybeimposedthantheonethatwasapplicableatthetimewhenthecriminaloffencewascommitted.If,subsequenttothecommissionoftheoffence,provisionismadebylawfortheimpositionofthelighterpenalty,theoffendershallbenefitthereby.2.Nothinginthisarticleshallprejudicethetrialandpunishmentofanypersonforanyactoromissionwhich,atthetimewhenitwascommitted,wascriminalaccordingtothegeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbythecommunityofnations.2.4.1前南斯拉夫問題國際刑事法庭〔1993年〕TheInternationalCriminalTribunalfortheformerYugoslavia2.4.1.1法庭規(guī)約摘錄SelectiveArticleoftheStatuteoftheICTYArticle4Genocide1.TheInternationalTribunalshallhavethepowertoprosecutepersonscommittinggenocideasdefinedinparagraph2ofthisarticleorofcommittinganyoftheotheractsenumeratedinparagraph3ofthisarticle.2.Genocidemeansanyofthefollowingactscommittedwithintenttodestroy,inwholeorinpart,anational,ethnical,racialorreligiousgroup,assuch:(a)killingmembersofthegroup;(b)causingseriousbodilyormentalharmtomembersofthegroup;(c)deliberatelyinflictingonthegroupconditionsoflifecalculatedtobringaboutitsphysicaldestructioninwholeorinpart;(d)imposingmeasuresintendedtopreventbirthswithinthegroup;(e)forciblytransferringchildrenofthegrouptoanothergroup.3.thefollowingactsshallbepunishable:(a)genocide;(b)conspiracytocommitgenocide;(c)directandpublicincitementtocommitgenocide;(d)attempttocommitgenocide;(e)complicityingenocide.Article5CrimesagainsthumanityTheInternationalTribunalshallhavethepowertoprosecutepersonsresponsibleforthefollowingcrimeswhencommittedinarmedconflict,whetherinternationalorinternalincharacter,anddirectedagainstanycivilianpopulation:(a)murder;(b)extermination;(c)enslavement;(d)deportation;(e)imprisonment;(f)torture;(g)rape;(h)persecutionsonpolitical,racialandreligiousgrounds;(i)otherinhumaneacts.譯文：第4條滅絕種族1．國際法庭應(yīng)有權(quán)對犯有本條第2款定義的滅絕種族罪的人或犯有本條第3款所列舉任何其他行為的人予以起訴。2．滅絕種族指蓄意全部或局部消滅某一個民族、人種、種族或宗教團(tuán)體，犯有以下行為之一：〔a〕殺害該團(tuán)體的成員；〔b〕致使該團(tuán)體的成員在身體上或精神上遭受嚴(yán)重傷害；〔c〕成心使該團(tuán)體處于某種生活狀況下，以消滅其全部或局部的聲明；〔d〕強制實行方法，意圖防止該團(tuán)體內(nèi)的生育；〔c〕強迫轉(zhuǎn)移該