对国际刑事法院检察官近期“甄选决定”的思考

T. O. Hansen
{"title":"对国际刑事法院检察官近期“甄选决定”的思考","authors":"T. O. Hansen","doi":"10.1163/18757413-90000082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Taking the starting point in an assessment of three major “selection decisions” made by the ICC Prosecutor in the situation in Mali, this article provides for a discussion of the key challenges relating to explaining how the ICC Prosecutor undertakes its “selection decisions”. First, the article explores the Prosecutor’s justifications for acting positively on Mali’s self-referral to the ICC. Second, it examines how the Prosecutor justifies that some crimes, but not others, will be subject to further investigation. Third, it provides for a discussion of how the Prosecutor selects suspects for further investigation. These three “selection decisions” are examined in light of the governing law and policies as well as the Prosecutor’s earlier practice and the scholarly debate. Some of the broader legitimacy challenges facing the Court are also discussed. In contrast to what the Prosecutor suggests, the article concludes that the Office of the Prosecutor does appear to treat self-referrals as a special category of cases where different standards apply. The article also concludes that it is doubtful that the gravity concept provides a clear framework for making “selection decisions”.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflections on the ICC Prosecutor’s Recent “Selection Decisions”\",\"authors\":\"T. O. Hansen\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18757413-90000082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Taking the starting point in an assessment of three major “selection decisions” made by the ICC Prosecutor in the situation in Mali, this article provides for a discussion of the key challenges relating to explaining how the ICC Prosecutor undertakes its “selection decisions”. First, the article explores the Prosecutor’s justifications for acting positively on Mali’s self-referral to the ICC. Second, it examines how the Prosecutor justifies that some crimes, but not others, will be subject to further investigation. Third, it provides for a discussion of how the Prosecutor selects suspects for further investigation. These three “selection decisions” are examined in light of the governing law and policies as well as the Prosecutor’s earlier practice and the scholarly debate. Some of the broader legitimacy challenges facing the Court are also discussed. In contrast to what the Prosecutor suggests, the article concludes that the Office of the Prosecutor does appear to treat self-referrals as a special category of cases where different standards apply. The article also concludes that it is doubtful that the gravity concept provides a clear framework for making “selection decisions”.\",\"PeriodicalId\":167092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413-90000082\",\"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/10.1163/18757413-90000082","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文以评估国际刑事法院检察官在马里局势中做出的三个主要“选择决定”为起点,讨论与解释国际刑事法院检察官如何执行其“选择决定”有关的关键挑战。首先,本文探讨了检察官对马里自我提交国际刑事法院采取积极行动的理由。第二,它审查检察官如何证明某些罪行,而不是其他罪行,将受到进一步调查。第三,它规定讨论检察官如何选择嫌疑人进行进一步调查。这三个“选择决定”是根据有关法律和政策以及检察官以前的做法和学术辩论加以审查的。还讨论了法院面临的一些更广泛的合法性挑战。与检察官的建议相反,该条的结论是,检察官办公室似乎确实把自己提交的案件视为适用不同标准的一类特殊案件。文章还得出结论,重力概念是否为做出“选择决策”提供了一个清晰的框架,这一点值得怀疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reflections on the ICC Prosecutor’s Recent “Selection Decisions”
Taking the starting point in an assessment of three major “selection decisions” made by the ICC Prosecutor in the situation in Mali, this article provides for a discussion of the key challenges relating to explaining how the ICC Prosecutor undertakes its “selection decisions”. First, the article explores the Prosecutor’s justifications for acting positively on Mali’s self-referral to the ICC. Second, it examines how the Prosecutor justifies that some crimes, but not others, will be subject to further investigation. Third, it provides for a discussion of how the Prosecutor selects suspects for further investigation. These three “selection decisions” are examined in light of the governing law and policies as well as the Prosecutor’s earlier practice and the scholarly debate. Some of the broader legitimacy challenges facing the Court are also discussed. In contrast to what the Prosecutor suggests, the article concludes that the Office of the Prosecutor does appear to treat self-referrals as a special category of cases where different standards apply. The article also concludes that it is doubtful that the gravity concept provides a clear framework for making “selection decisions”.
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