最后,国家一级法院开始审理“种族灭绝”这一最大罪行。

William A. Schabas
{"title":"最后,国家一级法院开始审理“种族灭绝”这一最大罪行。","authors":"William A. Schabas","doi":"10.58823/jham.v2i2.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 1948 Genocide  Convention contemplates prosecution  by the national courts of the  territory where  the crime  took place,  and by an international criminal court. The  drafters of  the  Convention meant   to exclude universal jurisdiction, although courts  have since  tended   to interpret Article  VI of the Convention as being  merely permissive, and in no way a prohibition of universal jurisdiction. Finally,  within  the past  decade, the  national courts  of  the  territory  where  genocide was committed, other  national courts  and the international tribunals  created  by the Security Council have  undertaken genocide prosecutions. Alongside the activities of  the  two ad hoc  international tribunals,   national courts  in Rwanda,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina, Croatia  and  Kosovo  have  held  trials  based  on  the provisions of  the  Convention. The  Rwandan trials now  number in the  thousands, but  those  in the other  jurisdictions  have  been  essentially symbolic.  As for  universal  jurisdiction, the  mere  handful  of genocide prosecutions {for instance in Germany,  Switzerland, and Belgium) show  that  it can fill  the gaps  in the Convention. The problems appear  to be political rather  than judicial.","PeriodicalId":404941,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Hak Asasi Manusia","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Akhirnya Pengadilan Tingkat Nasional Muiai Menyidangkan, Kejahatan Terbesar: \\\"Genosida\\\"\",\"authors\":\"William A. Schabas\",\"doi\":\"10.58823/jham.v2i2.23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The 1948 Genocide  Convention contemplates prosecution  by the national courts of the  territory where  the crime  took place,  and by an international criminal court. The  drafters of  the  Convention meant   to exclude universal jurisdiction, although courts  have since  tended   to interpret Article  VI of the Convention as being  merely permissive, and in no way a prohibition of universal jurisdiction. Finally,  within  the past  decade, the  national courts  of  the  territory  where  genocide was committed, other  national courts  and the international tribunals  created  by the Security Council have  undertaken genocide prosecutions. Alongside the activities of  the  two ad hoc  international tribunals,   national courts  in Rwanda,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina, Croatia  and  Kosovo  have  held  trials  based  on  the provisions of  the  Convention. The  Rwandan trials now  number in the  thousands, but  those  in the other  jurisdictions  have  been  essentially symbolic.  As for  universal  jurisdiction, the  mere  handful  of genocide prosecutions {for instance in Germany,  Switzerland, and Belgium) show  that  it can fill  the gaps  in the Convention. The problems appear  to be political rather  than judicial.\",\"PeriodicalId\":404941,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Hak Asasi Manusia\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Hak Asasi Manusia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.58823/jham.v2i2.23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Hak Asasi Manusia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58823/jham.v2i2.23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1948年《灭绝种族罪公约》考虑由罪行发生地的国家法院和国际刑事法院起诉。《公约》起草者的用意是排除普遍管辖权,尽管法院后来倾向于把《公约》第六条解释为仅仅是允许的,而决不是禁止普遍管辖权。最后,在过去十年中,发生种族灭绝的领土的国家法院、其他国家法院和安全理事会设立的国际法庭都进行了种族灭绝起诉。除了两个特设国际法庭的活动外,卢旺达、波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那、克罗地亚和科索沃的国家法院也根据《公约》的规定进行了审判。卢旺达的审判现在有数千人,但其他司法管辖区的审判基本上是象征性的。至于普遍管辖权,少数种族灭绝起诉(例如在德国、瑞士和比利时)表明它可以填补《公约》的空白。问题似乎是政治上的,而不是司法上的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Akhirnya Pengadilan Tingkat Nasional Muiai Menyidangkan, Kejahatan Terbesar: "Genosida"
The 1948 Genocide  Convention contemplates prosecution  by the national courts of the  territory where  the crime  took place,  and by an international criminal court. The  drafters of  the  Convention meant   to exclude universal jurisdiction, although courts  have since  tended   to interpret Article  VI of the Convention as being  merely permissive, and in no way a prohibition of universal jurisdiction. Finally,  within  the past  decade, the  national courts  of  the  territory  where  genocide was committed, other  national courts  and the international tribunals  created  by the Security Council have  undertaken genocide prosecutions. Alongside the activities of  the  two ad hoc  international tribunals,   national courts  in Rwanda,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina, Croatia  and  Kosovo  have  held  trials  based  on  the provisions of  the  Convention. The  Rwandan trials now  number in the  thousands, but  those  in the other  jurisdictions  have  been  essentially symbolic.  As for  universal  jurisdiction, the  mere  handful  of genocide prosecutions {for instance in Germany,  Switzerland, and Belgium) show  that  it can fill  the gaps  in the Convention. The problems appear  to be political rather  than judicial.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Inkorporasi Hak-Hak Fair Trial dalam Rancangan Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana Mencari Titik Temu antara Pendidikan HAM dan Transformasi Konflik: Refleksi Pengalaman dari Lapangan Hak atas Pelindungan Data Pribadi pada Proses Penegakan Hukum Pidana ODHIV dan Penerapan Pendekatan Bersentra Kebutuhan Individu/Person-Centered Approach di Layanan HIV (Studi Kasus Enam ODHIV Terkait Pemenuhan Hak atas Kesehatan) Upaya Memutus Rantai Impunitas dan Tantangannya
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1