西班牙普遍管辖权的安魂曲

Q4 Social Sciences
J. Moltó
{"title":"西班牙普遍管辖权的安魂曲","authors":"J. Moltó","doi":"10.7202/1079905AR","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The two relevant legislative reforms that universal jurisdiction was subjected to have been a serious blow to the fight against impunity in Spain. The reasons for this de facto repeal of universal justice can only be explained by political interference of foreign governments whose citizens were cornered by Spanish justice. However, with regard to the 2014 reform, there was the possibility that the Constitutional Court might declare that the reform violated some articles of the Spanish Constitution. This last hope evaporated when this court recently rejected the appeals. First, the ruling on 20 December 2018 rejected the Socialist MPs’ arguments. Then, with this precedent, in 2019 the vast majority of cases pursuing international crimes – Tibet, Falun Gong, Rwanda, Guantanamo, the Ashraf refugee camp in Iraq, Couso – were definitively closed. After having exhausted all Spain’s internal options, now the different appeals before the European Court of Human Rights are being rejected. Meanwhile, universal jurisdiction has only survived in the Spanish courts if it involves pursuing a few cases of terrorism, leaving those who were being investigated for war crimes and genocide to go scot-free.","PeriodicalId":39264,"journal":{"name":"Quebec Journal of International Law","volume":"33 1","pages":"55-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Requiem for Universal Jurisdiction in Spain\",\"authors\":\"J. Moltó\",\"doi\":\"10.7202/1079905AR\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The two relevant legislative reforms that universal jurisdiction was subjected to have been a serious blow to the fight against impunity in Spain. The reasons for this de facto repeal of universal justice can only be explained by political interference of foreign governments whose citizens were cornered by Spanish justice. However, with regard to the 2014 reform, there was the possibility that the Constitutional Court might declare that the reform violated some articles of the Spanish Constitution. This last hope evaporated when this court recently rejected the appeals. First, the ruling on 20 December 2018 rejected the Socialist MPs’ arguments. Then, with this precedent, in 2019 the vast majority of cases pursuing international crimes – Tibet, Falun Gong, Rwanda, Guantanamo, the Ashraf refugee camp in Iraq, Couso – were definitively closed. After having exhausted all Spain’s internal options, now the different appeals before the European Court of Human Rights are being rejected. Meanwhile, universal jurisdiction has only survived in the Spanish courts if it involves pursuing a few cases of terrorism, leaving those who were being investigated for war crimes and genocide to go scot-free.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39264,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quebec Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"55-84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quebec Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7202/1079905AR\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quebec Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1079905AR","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对普遍管辖权进行的两项有关立法改革对西班牙打击有罪不罚现象的斗争造成了严重打击。这种普遍正义事实上被废除的原因只能用外国政府的政治干预来解释,这些政府的公民被西班牙司法逼得走投无路。然而,就2014年的改革而言,宪法法院有可能宣布该改革违反了《西班牙宪法》的某些条款。这最后的希望在法院最近驳回上诉后消失了。首先,2018年12月20日的裁决驳回了社会党议员的论点。然后,有了这个先例,2019年绝大多数涉及国际犯罪的案件——西藏、法轮功、卢旺达、关塔那摩、伊拉克的阿什拉夫难民营、库索——都最终结案了。在西班牙用尽了所有的内部选择之后,现在欧洲人权法院驳回了不同的上诉。与此同时,西班牙法院只有在涉及少数恐怖主义案件时才保留普遍管辖权,而那些因战争罪和种族灭绝而受到调查的人则逍遥法外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Requiem for Universal Jurisdiction in Spain
The two relevant legislative reforms that universal jurisdiction was subjected to have been a serious blow to the fight against impunity in Spain. The reasons for this de facto repeal of universal justice can only be explained by political interference of foreign governments whose citizens were cornered by Spanish justice. However, with regard to the 2014 reform, there was the possibility that the Constitutional Court might declare that the reform violated some articles of the Spanish Constitution. This last hope evaporated when this court recently rejected the appeals. First, the ruling on 20 December 2018 rejected the Socialist MPs’ arguments. Then, with this precedent, in 2019 the vast majority of cases pursuing international crimes – Tibet, Falun Gong, Rwanda, Guantanamo, the Ashraf refugee camp in Iraq, Couso – were definitively closed. After having exhausted all Spain’s internal options, now the different appeals before the European Court of Human Rights are being rejected. Meanwhile, universal jurisdiction has only survived in the Spanish courts if it involves pursuing a few cases of terrorism, leaving those who were being investigated for war crimes and genocide to go scot-free.
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
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