论文部分内容阅读
在利比亚情势中,国际刑事法院第一预审分庭对赛义夫·卡扎菲和阿布都拉·赛努西提出的可受理性异议作出了完全相反的决定。通过分析第一预审分庭的两个可受理性异议决定,可以发现案件事实的区别主要在于国家是否获得被告人,这是《罗马规约》第17条第3款中规定的可以确定国家“不能够”切实进行诉讼程序的标准之一。同时,案件可受理性的确定隐含了国际刑事法院的补充性管辖原则的要求。
In the Libyan situation, Pre-Trial Chamber I held the exact opposite of the admissibility challenge filed by Saif al-Qaddafi and Abdullah Sehrnud. By analyzing the two pre-Trial Chamber admissibility decisions, it can be found that the difference in the facts of the case lies mainly in whether the State has obtained the accused, as defined in article 17, paragraph 3, of the Rome Statute, Can not "one of the criteria for effective litigation proceedings. At the same time, the determination of the admissibility of the case implicitly requires the ICC’s principle of complementary jurisdiction.