重新审视国际法院对特别重大指控的证明标准

Amanda Bills
{"title":"重新审视国际法院对特别重大指控的证明标准","authors":"Amanda Bills","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02601008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe International Court of Justice has consistently required a stricter standard of proof for ‘charges of exceptional gravity’. The Bosnia Genocide and Croatia Genocide cases saw the Court require the high standard of ‘fully conclusive’ evidence across all elements of the allegations of genocide. Despite the difficulties associated with obtaining the necessary evidence of the intent of the perpetrators to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group to establish the commission of genocide, the Court allowed little flexibility in the application of that standard in what may have been a departure from its previous cases relating to grave charges. The Court emphasized the gravity of the allegations and the high stigmatization attached to a finding of responsibility for genocide, suggesting a strong emphasis on the consequences of a finding of responsibility for the wrongdoing State over other interests that may also have been present in the proceedings. The Court has yet to explain the rationale for the high standard of proof applied to charges of exceptional gravity in international judicial proceedings, or why it required a particularly stringent standard of proof in the Genocide cases. This raises questions about the Court’s approaches to the standard of proof and the process by which it balances different interests in judicial proceedings. As States seek out the Court’s jurisdiction for serious breaches of international law – including, for example, the pending Rohingya Genocide case – the Court’s strict approach to the standard of proof risks imposing a high bar to the enforcement of these obligations.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting the Standard of Proof for Charges of Exceptional Gravity before the International Court of Justice\",\"authors\":\"Amanda Bills\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18757413_02601008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe International Court of Justice has consistently required a stricter standard of proof for ‘charges of exceptional gravity’. The Bosnia Genocide and Croatia Genocide cases saw the Court require the high standard of ‘fully conclusive’ evidence across all elements of the allegations of genocide. Despite the difficulties associated with obtaining the necessary evidence of the intent of the perpetrators to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group to establish the commission of genocide, the Court allowed little flexibility in the application of that standard in what may have been a departure from its previous cases relating to grave charges. The Court emphasized the gravity of the allegations and the high stigmatization attached to a finding of responsibility for genocide, suggesting a strong emphasis on the consequences of a finding of responsibility for the wrongdoing State over other interests that may also have been present in the proceedings. The Court has yet to explain the rationale for the high standard of proof applied to charges of exceptional gravity in international judicial proceedings, or why it required a particularly stringent standard of proof in the Genocide cases. This raises questions about the Court’s approaches to the standard of proof and the process by which it balances different interests in judicial proceedings. As States seek out the Court’s jurisdiction for serious breaches of international law – including, for example, the pending Rohingya Genocide case – the Court’s strict approach to the standard of proof risks imposing a high bar to the enforcement of these obligations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":167092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02601008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02601008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国际法院一贯要求对“特别严重的指控”采取更严格的举证标准。在波斯尼亚种族灭绝和克罗地亚种族灭绝案件中,法院要求对种族灭绝指控的所有要素提供高标准的“完全确凿”证据。尽管很难取得必要的证据,证明犯罪者有意全部或部分摧毁一个受保护群体,以确立灭绝种族罪,但法院在适用这一标准方面几乎没有给予任何灵活性,因为这可能与其以往有关重大指控的案件有所不同。法院强调了指控的严重性和对种族灭绝责任的调查结果的高度污名化,这表明强烈强调了对不法行为国的责任的调查结果对诉讼程序中可能存在的其他利益的影响。法院尚未解释在国际司法程序中对非常严重的指控适用高证明标准的理由,或为什么在种族灭绝案件中需要特别严格的证明标准。这就使人们对法院处理证明标准的方法和在司法程序中平衡不同利益的程序产生疑问。随着各国就严重违反国际法的行为寻求法院的管辖权,例如,包括未决的罗兴亚种族灭绝案,法院对举证标准的严格做法可能会对执行这些义务设置很高的门槛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Revisiting the Standard of Proof for Charges of Exceptional Gravity before the International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice has consistently required a stricter standard of proof for ‘charges of exceptional gravity’. The Bosnia Genocide and Croatia Genocide cases saw the Court require the high standard of ‘fully conclusive’ evidence across all elements of the allegations of genocide. Despite the difficulties associated with obtaining the necessary evidence of the intent of the perpetrators to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group to establish the commission of genocide, the Court allowed little flexibility in the application of that standard in what may have been a departure from its previous cases relating to grave charges. The Court emphasized the gravity of the allegations and the high stigmatization attached to a finding of responsibility for genocide, suggesting a strong emphasis on the consequences of a finding of responsibility for the wrongdoing State over other interests that may also have been present in the proceedings. The Court has yet to explain the rationale for the high standard of proof applied to charges of exceptional gravity in international judicial proceedings, or why it required a particularly stringent standard of proof in the Genocide cases. This raises questions about the Court’s approaches to the standard of proof and the process by which it balances different interests in judicial proceedings. As States seek out the Court’s jurisdiction for serious breaches of international law – including, for example, the pending Rohingya Genocide case – the Court’s strict approach to the standard of proof risks imposing a high bar to the enforcement of these obligations.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信