四 结语

《罗马规约》第18条和第19条的管辖权和可受理性质疑程序都是确保国际刑事法院补充性管辖原则得到落实的重要手段，它们能够确保对情势或案件有管辖权的国家能够有机会向国际刑事法院主张自己具有优先管辖有关国际严重犯罪的权利和责任，与此同时，它也确保有关个人有机会向国际刑事法院主张自己有不受一罪二审行为的侵害以及优先在国内接受调查、起诉和审判的权利。第18条专门针对情势调查阶段缔约国提交之情势和检察官自行启动调查之情势的可受理性质疑所作的程序性规定，在很多方面都有别于第19条规定的可受理性和管辖权质疑程序，这种区别能够适应不同诉讼阶段以及不同情势类型的特点，从而既能保证补充性管辖原则的落实，同时有利于国际刑事法院的调查和起诉乃至审判工作的顺利进行。目前国际刑事法院已经出现的可受理质疑司法实践表明，总体而言，有关国家在行使其在调查和起诉国际严重犯罪的优先权利和责任方面并没有像原先设想的那么积极，也正因如此，迄今为止只有个别国家提出了可受理性质疑。此外，基于各种原因个人提出可受理性管辖权质疑的情况也不是很多。不过，考虑到2012年6月为止国际刑事法院才调查了7个情势和15个案件，这些有限的可受理性质疑司法案例也可以算是一个不错的开始了。

The Procedure and Practice of International Criminal Court in Dealing with the Challenges to Admissibility and Jurisdiction

Yang Liu

Abstract： The article 18 and 19 of Rome Statute are the embodiment of complementarity principle of ICC. They provide the procedures to deal with the challenges to admissibility made by some states at the initial stage of investigation of crime situations and challenges to admissibility and jurisdiction made by relevant states and individuals during the investigation，prosecution and trial of cases respectively. The procedures of challenges in the different two stages of lawsuit are quite different in terms of the subject and scope of challenge as well as the powers and duties of the prosecutor and chambers of ICC. There are several cases in ICC where challenges to admissibility of cases were made by relevant states and individuals so far.

Key Words：Rome Statute；Challenges to the Admissibility；Challenges to the Jurisdiction

---

[1] 杨柳，法学博士，中国政法大学博士后研究人员。

[2] Otta Triffterer（ed.），Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court：Observers’ Notes，Article by Article（Baden-Baden：Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft，1999），p.397.

[3] M.Cherif Bassiouni，Introduction to International Criminal Law（New York：Transnational Publishers，Inc.，2003），p.516.

[4] 〔加〕威廉·A.夏巴斯：《国际刑事法院导论》（第二版），黄芳译，中国人民公安大学出版社，2006，第152页。

[5] 李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》，北京大学出版社，2006，第233页。

[6] Triffterer，Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court，pp.407-408.

[7] Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya，ICC-01/09-19，para.44.

[8] Triffterer，Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court，p.407.

[9] Prosecutor v.Tadic，Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction，Case No.IT-94-1-AR72，Appeals Chamber，ICTY，2 Oct.1995，para.18.

[10] Triffterer，Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court，p.408.

[11] Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya，ICC-01/09-19，para.44.

[12] Triffterer，Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court，pp.397-398.

[13] 李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》，第236页。

[14] Triffterer，Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court，p.418.

[15] 李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》，第237页。

[16] Triffterer，Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court，p.417.

[17] Wasil Ali，Sudan Rules out Plans to Challenge ICC Jurisdiction over Darfur，http：//www.sudantribune.com/ Sudan-rules-out-plans-to-challenge，20845.

[18] 这两起案件分别是：The Prosecutor v.William Samoei Ruto，Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sangand和The Prosecutor v.Francis Kirimi Muthaura，Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali。

[19] Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19（2）（b）of the Statute，ICC-01/09-01/11-101，paras.13-16.

[20] Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19（2）（b）of the Statute，ICC-01/09-01/11-101，paras.17-19.

[21] Ibid.paras.43-70.

[22] 上诉分庭有一位法官（Judge Anita USacka）对上诉分庭的裁决提出了不同意见，她认为，《罗马规约》允许国家在审判之前提出可受理性质疑，这说明在此之前，国家的主权具有优先性，但预审分庭没有考虑到补充性管辖原则允许肯尼亚在可受理性质疑审理程序进行期间开始采取调查性的步骤或者起诉案件，预审分庭也没有让可受理性质疑审理程序适应这种变化的形势，使得肯尼亚的主权没有得到应有的尊重。此外，在解释第17条第1款有关“案件”含义的过程中，预审分庭过多考虑诉讼的速度。她据此认为，应该推翻预审分庭的裁定。参见Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of 30 May 2011 entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19（2）（b）of the Statute”，Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka，ICC-01/09-01/11-336，paras.20-32.

[23] The Prosecutor v.Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui（situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo），ICC.

[24] Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v.The Prosecutor v.Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui，Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case（Article 19 of the Statute），ICC-01/04-01/07-1213-tENG，para.59.

[25] Ibid.paras.82-89.

[26] Ibid.paras.76-81.

[27] The Prosecutor v.Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo（situation in the Central African Republic），ICC.

[28] Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges，ICC-01/05-01/08-802，para.74.

[29] Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges，ICC-01/05-01/08-802，paras.101-103.

[30] Ibid.para.261.

[31] The Prosecutor v.Joseph Kony，Vincent Otti，Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen（situation in Uganda），ICC.

[32] Decision on the admissibility of the case under article 19（1）of the Statute，ICC-02/04-01/05-377，paras.27-28.

[33] Ibid.para.23.

[34] Ibid.paras.49-52.