联合国国际调查机制评估证据:国际刑事法院面临的新挑战?

Eleni Micha
{"title":"联合国国际调查机制评估证据:国际刑事法院面临的新挑战?","authors":"Eleni Micha","doi":"10.1163/15718123-bja10140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"International criminal courts and tribunals have faced a number of challenges with respect to the assessment of evidence. For the International Criminal Court (icc) there are pressing questions regarding the best interpretation of the relevant provisions in the Rome Statute (rs). To this point, the assessment of documentary evidence conveyed by the UN Independent Investigative Mechanisms (iims) constitutes a rather unexplored area. Accordingly, the present study will reflect upon the challenges posed for the icc, in case the Court proceeds to evaluate the evidence collected by those mechanisms. Special focus will be upon the working methodology of the IIM on Syria and Myanmar. Based on the Court’s recent case-law and, in particular on the Ongwen judgment, the study will further analyze the applicability of the three-prong test of Article 69(4)rs with a view to clarifying the evidentiary standard-setting of the Court.","PeriodicalId":55966,"journal":{"name":"International Criminal Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Evidence by the UN International Investigative Mechanisms: a New Challenge for the International Criminal Court?\",\"authors\":\"Eleni Micha\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718123-bja10140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"International criminal courts and tribunals have faced a number of challenges with respect to the assessment of evidence. For the International Criminal Court (icc) there are pressing questions regarding the best interpretation of the relevant provisions in the Rome Statute (rs). To this point, the assessment of documentary evidence conveyed by the UN Independent Investigative Mechanisms (iims) constitutes a rather unexplored area. Accordingly, the present study will reflect upon the challenges posed for the icc, in case the Court proceeds to evaluate the evidence collected by those mechanisms. Special focus will be upon the working methodology of the IIM on Syria and Myanmar. Based on the Court’s recent case-law and, in particular on the Ongwen judgment, the study will further analyze the applicability of the three-prong test of Article 69(4)rs with a view to clarifying the evidentiary standard-setting of the Court.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Criminal Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Criminal Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10140\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Criminal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国际刑事法院和法庭在评估证据方面面临许多挑战。对于国际刑事法院(icc)来说,关于《罗马规约》相关条款的最佳解释存在着紧迫的问题。在这一点上,对联合国独立调查机制提供的书面证据的评估是一个相当未探索的领域。因此,本研究将反思国际刑事法院面临的挑战,以防法院继续评估这些机制收集的证据。将特别关注IIM在叙利亚和缅甸问题上的工作方法。根据法院最近的判例法,特别是Ongwen的判决,该研究将进一步分析第69条第(4)款三叉测试的适用性,以澄清法院的证据标准制定。
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
Evaluating the Evidence by the UN International Investigative Mechanisms: a New Challenge for the International Criminal Court?
International criminal courts and tribunals have faced a number of challenges with respect to the assessment of evidence. For the International Criminal Court (icc) there are pressing questions regarding the best interpretation of the relevant provisions in the Rome Statute (rs). To this point, the assessment of documentary evidence conveyed by the UN Independent Investigative Mechanisms (iims) constitutes a rather unexplored area. Accordingly, the present study will reflect upon the challenges posed for the icc, in case the Court proceeds to evaluate the evidence collected by those mechanisms. Special focus will be upon the working methodology of the IIM on Syria and Myanmar. Based on the Court’s recent case-law and, in particular on the Ongwen judgment, the study will further analyze the applicability of the three-prong test of Article 69(4)rs with a view to clarifying the evidentiary standard-setting of the Court.
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Thus there is also a need for criminological, sociological and historical research on the issues of ICL. The Review publishes in-depth analytical research that deals with these issues. The analysis may cover: • the substantive and procedural law on the international level; • important cases from national jurisdictions which have a bearing on general issues; • criminological and sociological; and, • historical research.
期刊最新文献
Positive Complementarity in Action: International Criminal Justice and the Ongoing Armed Conflict in Ukraine International Criminal Law, Complementarity and Amnesty Within the Context of Transitional Justice: Lessons from Uganda Atrocity Crime Responses in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Navigating Tensions in Multifaceted Approaches Trajectories of Contestation: Motivational Dynamics in Repressive Regimes Corruption: From International Law and Ethics to Realpolitik and Amoralism
×
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