2004-01-03 23:28:48 | 人氣(2,046) | 回應(0) | 上一篇 | 下一篇

美國對國際刑事法院的態度(2001.5)

推薦 0 收藏 0 轉貼0 訂閱站台

這也是一篇舊作。當時還沒發生911,更沒看到911後美國怎樣踐踏國際法。911後,很多論述都說,國際法就是美國的實踐。

如果真是如此,那這種法真是不要也罷。國際法的論者連理論上的強硬都不做不到,而承認what the U.S. says is international law?只能幫強權抹粉,或讓強權來踐踏,這算什麼「法」?

**************************


美國人在國際事務上的作風,有時真的是挺扯的。

國際間正在推動設立「國際刑事法院」(International Criminal Court)以懲罰戰犯之類的人員。美國前總統柯林頓在條約上簽署加入,現在布希政府和部份國會議員就在那兒跳腳。他們擔心這個具有強制管轄權的國際法院將會使美國派駐海外的軍人受到審判。其實濫訴的問題,條約中已經有很嚴格的控制機制,包括管轄權僅限於最嚴重的戰犯行為,管轄權的發動以窮盡被告之本國司法途徑為限,而被選任的法官當然也都是國際公認的優秀人選。可是美國人就是不信任,一副「老子非當戰犯不可」的態勢。

你反對也就算了,大不了就像布希片面宣告退出京都議定書一樣,簽字當放屁。居然還要向國際發動壓力,叫其他已簽署的國家也退出。眾議院近日通過一個法案,對於簽署該項條約的國家,美國將撤回軍事協助,除非他們願意承諾絕不移送美國人上國際刑事法院。該法案還規定五角大廈可以動用武力拯救被送審的美國人,甚至包括直接攻上荷蘭(國際刑事法院預定地點)上演「劫法場」!真是什麼跟什麼啊?這個法案應該不會在參議院過關,否則美國實在太太太丟臉了。不過共和黨保守派好像一向不在意國際名聲,他們反對這個法院的原因其實就在於拒絕受國際法如此強力的拘束。下面附的紐約時報社論,就是在談這個現象。

最近也讀到二篇美國學者與外國學者相互交換意見的文章(分別刊登于 2 Theoretical Inquiries L. 323 (2001)以及 2 Theoretical Inquries L. 337 (2001),不過這個期刊台灣不知道找得到嗎?我有Westlaw的word檔案),非常有趣而且跟前面的問題相關。他們探討美國法律學界對於諸如歐盟法院(European Court of Justice)甚至WTO仲裁程序這類國際強制性法律秩序的形成,對於美國國內公法學界可能產生的影響。

第一篇是加州柏克萊大學法學院的著名教授Rober Post所撰。他認為,美國法律學界,特別是憲法與行政法,所關切的議題是「民主正當性」,所以相當的「歷史—脈絡取向」。他們認為法律是公共決策,就必須受到「可辨認的人民群體之意志」(the will of an identifiable demos勉強這麼翻譯...,還是看英文吧)的拘束。而國際法恰恰找不到一個「可辨認的人民群體之意志」。簡單來說,法律是「民主目的的實現」(achievement of democratic purposes),請問國際法實現的是「誰」的「目的」?無論是歐盟法院、歐洲人權法院、擬議中的國際刑事法院,甚至WTO的仲裁程序,在美國人來說都有同樣的問題——Post稱之為「民主赤字」(democratic deficit)。Post更進一步指出,美國法律界受了Legal Realist Movement的影響,基本上是很難接受純粹的「自然法」理論。即使是如Ronald Dworkin這樣的法理學家兼憲法學者,他的論證也必須站在某種特定的「民主」觀上。換句話說,別純拿那一套什麼「自然正義」、「一般法律原則」的話來壓我,給我「民主正當性」(無論何種版本)否則免談!因此,你要美國人,尤其是法律人接受國際法院引用國際法審判,或是像我們台灣學者一樣動輒援用「比較法」,在他們來說都是很困難的。(當然,這是純「理論」層面的理由,「實際」上的理由可能還是前面紐約時報談的那些東西)

回應的文章是一個以色列台拉維夫大學的法學教授Aeyal M. Gross。他首先指出,雖然Legal Realist Movement影響美國深遠,可是美國法律裡面有些概念之僵硬仍然很嚴重。例如雖然美國沒有如大陸法系般那麼明確地區分公法與私法,可是對於「公/私」領域之劃分,實際上卻比歐陸還嚴格。這種「死都不願意干預私領域」的態度就是遲遲不肯簽訂許多人權公約,即便簽署並批准了「消弭種族歧視公約」,還要加上一堆保留的原因。Gross同時也指出,其實比較法或國際法的研究,可以讓美國人知道,有些美國法的規範,與大多數民主國家相差有多麼遠!美國憲法學隔離於國際法與外國法的程度,更是民主先進國家所未見!這種偏離與隔離,使美國公法界喪失了許多機會去結構性地檢討自己的問題。他舉了「死刑」以及「同性戀者權利」二個例子說明,美國實在不見得是保障人權比較周延的國家。

與美國相比之下,台灣可能是另一個極端。亟亟於把自己融入國際社會與全球化潮流,甚至到了有點兒欠缺反省的地步。比較法的濫用,有時候也會讓人心驚膽戰。我在美國上憲法課或是讀憲法文獻,法院、學者在考慮把新的「憲法權利」加上權利系譜,或是運用比較法時,似乎比我們謹慎得多了。不過近年來也開始有不少學者,甚至一些法官,開始重視比較法或國際規範。這也許會是一個新的開始,不過距離成氣候還早得很呢。

趕寫論文中卻手癢想打中文字的 元豪

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/21/opinion/21MON3.html

May 21, 2001
Attack on the International Court
Attack on the International Court

Unhappy that President Clinton signed the global treaty creating an international criminal court, some officials in the Bush administration and some members of Congress are trying to get Washington to pressure other countries to reject it. This effort would strain America's already uneasy relations with its allies and limit the administration's flexibility on important national security matters. The Bush administration would better serve American interests by trying to change the provisions of the court it considers harmful.

The international criminal court will be able to prosecute those accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty establishing the court has been signed by 139 nations, and so far 31 have ratified it. When 60 countries ratify, which is likely over the next few years, the court will begin work.

Several top Pentagon officials fear that American troops serving in countries that have ratified the treaty might be arrested on false charges and sent to The Hague for trial. While it is important to guard against politically motivated prosecutions, the court already has numerous safeguards to ensure that it deals only with the most serious cases, is staffed by respected and reasonable judges, and would take jurisdiction of a case only after a suspect's own national court system had exhausted its own options.

Opponents of the court would like an ironclad guarantee that the court would never try an American. Absent such a commitment, they want to block creation of the court by pressing countries not to ratify the treaty. This position may prevail in the administration, although more moderate officials would prefer to see Washington simply renounce its own signature of the treaty. The House, for its part, recently passed a bill that would require America to cut off military aid to most countries that ratify the treaty, unless they pledge never to surrender an American to the court. The bill also authorizes Washington to use force to rescue Americans — even from the Netherlands, where the court will be based.

The administration's wisest course is not to try to undermine the court. It probably cannot stop 29 more nations from ratifying the treaty, and to attempt to do so would further alienate allies that are already wary of President Bush's desire to build a missile shield and his decision to withdraw the United States from the Kyoto agreement on global warming.

America would also lose its remaining influence in shaping the court, and there are upcoming decisions that matter to Washington, such as the definition of new crimes and selection of judges. The international criminal court is going to be a reality. If the Bush administration feels the safeguards protecting Americans from show trials are inadequate, it should try to strengthen them, not waste global influence in a futile attempt to prevent the court's establishment.

台長: 布魯斯
人氣(2,046) | 回應(0)| 推薦 (0)| 收藏 (0)| 轉寄
全站分類: 藝文活動(書評、展覽、舞蹈、表演)

是 (若未登入"個人新聞台帳號"則看不到回覆唷!)
* 請輸入識別碼:
(有*為必填)
TOP
詳全文