不能以我们的名义!国际刑事司法中的社区愿景

Milena Tripkovic
{"title":"不能以我们的名义!国际刑事司法中的社区愿景","authors":"Milena Tripkovic","doi":"10.5040/9781509919475.ch-008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores how international criminal justice conceives of the relevant ‘communities’ as the authors and owners of criminal justice that is administered by international criminal courts. To do so, it contrasts the traits of relevant communities on the national and international levels. While there is only one relevant community on the national level – the domestic community – that oversees punishment, there are in fact two relevant communities at the international level – the ‘domestic’ community from which the perpetrators prosecuted before the international tribunals come, and the international community in whose name the perpetrators are punished before the international tribunals. This duality of communities at the supranational level creates tensions, because while the international community can be considered as both the creator and recipient of international justice, the ‘domestic’ community is merely its addressee, but hardly plays any other role. Thus, even if crimes over which international criminal courts have jurisdiction are universally condoned, the way in which international justice operates alienates and excludes the domestic community, while punishment at the international level does little to strengthen the domestic moral order. The chapter argues that it is this problem – more than issues of geographical distance or the lack of outreach – which accounts for why international trials fail to achieve beneficial effects and offers some insights into whether this problem could be resolved.","PeriodicalId":313322,"journal":{"name":"Breaking the Cycle of Mass Atrocities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Not in Our Name! Visions of Community in International Criminal Justice\",\"authors\":\"Milena Tripkovic\",\"doi\":\"10.5040/9781509919475.ch-008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter explores how international criminal justice conceives of the relevant ‘communities’ as the authors and owners of criminal justice that is administered by international criminal courts. To do so, it contrasts the traits of relevant communities on the national and international levels. While there is only one relevant community on the national level – the domestic community – that oversees punishment, there are in fact two relevant communities at the international level – the ‘domestic’ community from which the perpetrators prosecuted before the international tribunals come, and the international community in whose name the perpetrators are punished before the international tribunals. This duality of communities at the supranational level creates tensions, because while the international community can be considered as both the creator and recipient of international justice, the ‘domestic’ community is merely its addressee, but hardly plays any other role. Thus, even if crimes over which international criminal courts have jurisdiction are universally condoned, the way in which international justice operates alienates and excludes the domestic community, while punishment at the international level does little to strengthen the domestic moral order. The chapter argues that it is this problem – more than issues of geographical distance or the lack of outreach – which accounts for why international trials fail to achieve beneficial effects and offers some insights into whether this problem could be resolved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":313322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Breaking the Cycle of Mass Atrocities\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Breaking the Cycle of Mass Atrocities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509919475.ch-008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breaking the Cycle of Mass Atrocities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509919475.ch-008","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

本章探讨国际刑事司法如何将相关“社区”视为由国际刑事法院管理的刑事司法的作者和所有者。为此,它在国家和国际两级比较了有关社区的特点。虽然在国家一级只有一个相关的社区- -国内社区- -监督惩罚,但实际上在国际一级有两个相关的社区- -在国际法庭上被起诉的肇事者来自“国内”社区,以及肇事者在国际法庭上受到惩罚的国际社会。这种超国家层面的社区二元性造成了紧张关系,因为虽然国际社会可以被认为是国际正义的创造者和接受者,但“国内”社区仅仅是它的接受者,而几乎没有扮演任何其他角色。因此,即使国际刑事法院有管辖权的罪行得到普遍宽恕,国际司法运作的方式也疏远和排斥国内社会,而国际一级的惩罚对加强国内道德秩序几乎没有作用。这一章认为,正是这个问题——而不是地理距离或缺乏外延的问题——解释了为什么国际试验未能取得有益的效果,并提供了一些关于这个问题是否可以解决的见解。
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
Not in Our Name! Visions of Community in International Criminal Justice
This chapter explores how international criminal justice conceives of the relevant ‘communities’ as the authors and owners of criminal justice that is administered by international criminal courts. To do so, it contrasts the traits of relevant communities on the national and international levels. While there is only one relevant community on the national level – the domestic community – that oversees punishment, there are in fact two relevant communities at the international level – the ‘domestic’ community from which the perpetrators prosecuted before the international tribunals come, and the international community in whose name the perpetrators are punished before the international tribunals. This duality of communities at the supranational level creates tensions, because while the international community can be considered as both the creator and recipient of international justice, the ‘domestic’ community is merely its addressee, but hardly plays any other role. Thus, even if crimes over which international criminal courts have jurisdiction are universally condoned, the way in which international justice operates alienates and excludes the domestic community, while punishment at the international level does little to strengthen the domestic moral order. The chapter argues that it is this problem – more than issues of geographical distance or the lack of outreach – which accounts for why international trials fail to achieve beneficial effects and offers some insights into whether this problem could be resolved.
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
Not in Our Name! Visions of Community in International Criminal Justice Punishment in Transition: Empirical Comparison of Post-Genocide Sentencing Practices in Rwandan Domestic Courts and at the ICTR Agents and Agency in International Criminal Law: Intent and the ‘Special Part’ of International Criminal Law Social Identity and International Crimes: Legitimate and Problematic Aspects of the ‘Ordinary People’ Hypothesis International Criminalisation as a Pragmatic Institutional Process: The Cases of Dominic Ongwen at the International Criminal Court and Thomas Kwoyelo at the International Crimes Division in the Situation in Uganda
×
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