论文部分内容阅读
对于20世纪的国际法而言,最富戏剧性的时刻之一便是在1999年英国上议院否决了智利前独裁者皮诺切特的豁免请求。~[1]这个“惊人的”~[2]判决对西班牙国内的法院审理针对皮诺切特当政期间的酷刑行为所提出的指控扫清了道路。通过限制豁免,上议院的裁决将世界变得“天翻地覆”~[3],并进入了当事人应对其严重侵犯人权的行为承担责任的新时代。至少这是一种主导性的解释,认为这个案件将国际法上的豁免与责任承担相对立,皮诺切特案是这一对立的分水岭。~[4]但是,至少在关于豁免这一法律核心问题,关于该案的这种主导性解释正受到越
One of the most dramatic moments for international law in the twentieth century was the rejection by the British Lords in 1999 of the Pinochet exemption request made by the former dictators of Chile. This “surprising” ~ [2] ruling cleared the way for allegations of torture in Spain during court hearings against Pinochet. By limiting the exemption, the ruling of the House of Lords has turned the world into a “paradox” [3] and entered a new era in which the parties should be held responsible for their grave violations of human rights. At least this is a dominant explanation, arguing that the case contrasts the immunities of international law with the burden of responsibility and that the Pinochet case is the opposite watershed. However, at least as regards the core issue of exemption, this dominant interpretation of the case is being overcome