论文部分内容阅读
在Lubanga确认指控判决方面,国际刑事法院(ICC)的预审分庭(PTC)强调了若干关于刑法“国际刑事法院规约”总则部分的一些重要事项。就方法论而言,预审分庭申明犯罪要素可以提供比《规约》本身建议条款更低的定罪标准。依据事实,PTC拒绝了辩护——Lubanga受制于法律错误的影响。判决的核心是共犯概念(《国际刑事法院规约》第25条第(3)款第(1)项)及其主客观要件。在一开始时,PTC拒绝正犯范围内共同犯罪的概念。作为一个客观要件,PTC认为各位共同正犯在共同计划中承担“重要的”任务,同时在实施共同犯罪计划中,他或她通过退出参与行动会导致共同计划失败。正犯责任的主观要件是对客观行为要件导致的实质风险的明知。然而,值得怀疑的是,PTC事实上是否将其阐明的标准正确应用到了实际的判决中。
In Lubanga’s confirmation of allegations, the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) highlighted a number of important issues concerning the general part of the Penal Code Statute of the International Criminal Court. In methodology, the Pre-Trial Chamber affirmed that the element of criminality can provide a lower standard of conviction than the one proposed by the Statute itself. Based on the facts, PTC refused to defend - Lubanga is subject to legal errors. The core of the judgment is the concept of accomplice (article 25 (3) (i) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court) and its subjective and objective elements. At the outset, PTC rejected the notion of joint crime within the scope of the offender. As an objective element, PTC believes that all of your common guilty conscientious undertakes “important” tasks in the joint plan, and that his or her participation in the implementation of the joint crime plan can lead to a failure of the joint plan by withdrawing from the engagement. The subjective element of the responsibility to be guilty is the knowledge of the substantial risk caused by the objective elements of conduct. However, it is questionable whether PTC actually applied the standard it set out to the actual verdict.