指挥官责任适用中的三个疑难问题  

The Three Difficult Problems of Command Responsibility in Practice

作　　者：冷新宇[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学法学院,北京100083

出　　处：《西安政治学院学报》2017年第1期99-106,共8页Journal of Xi'an Politics Institute

摘　　要：指挥官责任源自于习惯法的实践,1977年《第一附加议定书》用条约文本界定了含义。联合国特设法庭与国际刑事法院因法律依据等不同,对指挥官责任的适用存在着重大的不同。特别是晚近适用中的难题不断在实践层面显现:一是对于继任指挥官的责任问题;二是指挥官的不作为与下级的犯罪行为因果关系是否存在及如何界定;三是指挥官责任属于何种性质,在国际司法和国内司法层面存在截然不同的认识思路。未来,国际刑事法院对指挥官责任机制的运用,仍然有待澄清。Command Responsibility,originating from customary law practices since WWII trials,was clearly defined and included in the relevant provisions of Additional Protocol I 1977 to the Geneva Conventions 1949. The ICC inasmuch applies a distinct norm from the ad hoc Tribunals jurisprudence. There emerged great difficulties in the late practices of international criminal justice,namely：（1） whether the successor command should assume responsibility prior to whose term of occupancy as a superior the crimes in question were committed;（2） whether the causality exists as an element of this mode of liability,and how should the law define the causality;（3） international criminal justice and domestic practices diverged as per the very nature of command responsibility. Challenges or vagueness still remain in the ICC and are far from crystallization.

关 键 词：指挥官责任 继任指挥官 因果关系 

分 类 号：D995[政治法律—国际法学]