论文部分内容阅读
国际刑事法院自行断定案件可受理性时的广泛裁量权的行使,构成法院核心理念补充性原則的实施机制之一。实践表明,嫌疑人缺席时其“免受司法先决利益”是法院行使此载重权的重要考量.而作为评估依据的规约第17(1)条中法定事由是否可变是该利益是否受损的关键。这一裁量逻辑与法院所辖案件天然的政治性、管辖权启动方式以及“国家调查和起诉”的前提条件——“相同的人和相同行为”的客现审查标准结合后,事实上使规约第19(1)条第二句形同虚设.即要么根本无法启动该机制,要么即使启动了也很难以案件不具可受理性而排除管辖。法院可以通过调整对嫌疑人缺席时免受司法先决的裁决逻辑放宽法院裁量权的行使空间。
The exercise of extensive discretion of the ICC in determining the admissibility of a case on its own constitutes one of the implementing mechanisms for complementing the core concept of the court. Practice shows that when the suspect is absent, his / her “immunity from judicial foreclosure interest” is an important consideration for the court to exercise this right of loading, and whether the statutory provision in Article 17 (1) of the Statute as the basis for assessment is whether the interest is affected The key to loss. This discretionary logic, combined with the natural political nature of the jurisdiction of courts, the way in which jurisdictions have been activated, and the preconditions for “state investigation and prosecution” - “the same human and the same act” In fact, the second sentence of article 19 (1) of the statute is null and void, that is, either the mechanism can not be activated at all or, even if it is initiated, it is difficult to exclude the jurisdiction from the case of inadmissibility. The court may relax the exercise of discretion of the court by adjusting the logic of the ruling from the judicial precedent in the absence of the suspect.