论文部分内容阅读
国际刑事法院与非洲的关系正经历着持续的冲突、不信任和紧张,前者面临着后者的合法性质疑。其一,本文总结了国际刑事法院高法律化的特征,即高义务性、高精确性和高授权性。国际刑事法院的补充性管辖权与官方身份无关性原则容易诱发政治化和法律战。其二,本文根据历届非盟峰会的决议,梳理了非洲国家以非盟为平台围绕着国家元首豁免权问题所发动的三波反对国际刑事法院的浪潮。其三,基于非盟的视角,分析了国际刑事法院存在合法性赤字的原因:一是国际刑事法院的制度设计更多地反映西方世界的法律观念;二是《国际刑事法院罗马规约》的部分条款存在不确定性;三是国际刑事法院与非盟的治理逻辑具有不一致性;四是霸权国家削弱了国际刑事法院的组织效率。其四,本文论述了国际刑事法院通过增强回应力、合法律性、自主性和有效性等方式来捍卫合法性。国际刑事法院的这些实践获得了部分非洲缔约国政府和社会的支持,但未能根本解决合法性赤字问题。
The relationship between the ICC and Africa is experiencing ongoing conflicts, mistrust and tension, and the former is challenged by the latter’s legitimacy. First, the article summarizes the high legal character of the ICC, namely, high compliance, high accuracy and high delegation. The ICC’s principle of complementary jurisdiction, independent of official status, tends to provoke politicization and legal warfare. Second, based on the resolutions of previous AU summits, this article combs the tide of three waves of opposition to the ICC launched by African countries around the platform of AU on the immunity of heads of state. Thirdly, based on the AU perspective, this paper analyzes the reason why the ICC has a deficit of legitimacy: First, the system design of the ICC reflects more the legal concepts of the Western world; second, the part of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court There are uncertainties in the articles; third, there is inconsistency in the logic of governance between the ICC and the AU; fourth, hegemonic countries have weakened the organizational efficiency of the ICC. Fourthly, this article discusses the ICC’s defense of legitimacy by enhancing its response, legality, autonomy and effectiveness. These ICC practices have gained the support of some African Contracting Governments and the community but have failed to solve the issue of the legitimacy deficit at all.