前南斯拉夫國際刑事法庭的轉型正義功能探析：論其對波士尼亞─黑塞哥維納刑事司法體系改革之影響

Abstract

聯合國於1993年為因應南斯拉夫內戰中所發生的各種戰爭罪、種族滅絕與「反人類罪」（crimes against humanity），而設立了「前南斯拉夫國際刑事法庭」（International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, ICTY）。本論文將使用Goodman & Jinks（2013a）所提出的三種社會影響機制作為分析途徑，以討論ICTY如此在國際層次成形的轉型正義機制，如何將已逐漸成為國際規範的轉型正義導入波黑國內使之順從，進而影響其國內的戰爭罪起訴和刑事司法體系改革。 本論文會先概述《岱頓和平協議》（Dayton Peace Accords）後的波黑政治架構和ICTY的成立，以奠定後續討論的背景基礎，之後便將聚焦於討論以下三大研究問題：第一，轉型正義在國際層次如何成為一項國際共享的規範？而ICTY與該轉型正義規範的關係又為何？第二，ICTY在其成立前期與成立後期的政策是如何影響波黑國內的戰爭罪審判與刑事司法體系的改革與建設？第三，在促進轉型正義在地化的過程中，ICTY如何透過「推廣計畫」（Outreach program）與在地互動，建立與當地的連結關係？而波黑的當地社會對法治和課責性的實踐又有何自主倡議以展現在地的能動性？ 本論文結論認為，轉型正義於國際層次的發展在冷戰結束後踏入穩定發展的階段，並且在與聯合國的「和平建設」（peacebuilding）掛勾後重新強調法治和課責性的建立，因而引導了後續一系列國際刑事法庭和混合法庭的設立。而作為體現該轉型正義國際規範的試金石，ICTY於成立前期的「路徑規則計畫」（Rules of the Road）政策雖然減緩了波黑國內泛政治化的任意拘捕問題，但該政策在使用物質誘因機制與層級權威時的缺陷卻也削弱了波黑國內進行戰爭罪審判和刑事司法改革的動機；然而到了成立後期，ICTY案件下放至國內的「完成策略」（Completion Strategy）開始讓波黑有基於涵化與物質誘因的動機進行改革，而在地混合式法庭的建設（波黑法院及其戰爭庭）不僅有利於國際社會透過說服機制將國際規範導入波黑，也開始帶動波黑國內相關刑事司法機構與機制的能力建設。 最後，在轉型正義在地化的過程中，ICTY的推廣計畫強調透過知識、資訊、意見、與經驗的交換分享，期望以說服機制的方式影響波黑在地人民對ICTY的觀感與認同，進而因此接納ICTY所傳達的規範價值。而在波黑當地社會的自主倡議方面，人民持著《岱頓和平協議》所賦予的法律框架作為工具，以訴訟為手段向應對斯雷布雷尼察大屠殺負責者課責。這不僅本身有利於法治與課責性風氣於當地的培植，其也將反向有利於營造波黑內部推動戰爭罪審判和進行刑事司法改革的背景氛圍。

From 1991 to 1995, a bloody civil war in former Yugoslavia shocked whole world. Given that many war crimes, genocides, and crimes against humanity raged in the former Yugoslavia, the United Nations Security Council adopted the Resolution 827 in 1993 to establish the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to deal with these atrocities. With three mechanisms of social influence proposed by Goodman & Jinks in 2013 as theoretical tools, the study tries to analyze how this transitional justice mechanism imposed from the international level can have impact on war crimes prosecutions and criminal judicial reforms in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH). After outlining the background of political structure in the post-war BiH and the establishment of the ICTY, this study focuses on three research questions: first, how has transitional justice become a norm shared in international community? And how did the norm lead to the establishment of the ICTY? Second, how did the policies imposed by the ICTY in the early stage and the later stage respectively influence war crimes prosecutions and criminal judicial reforms in BiH? Third, in the process of localizing transitional justice, how did the ICTY utilize the “Outreach” program to establish connection with the Bosnian local societies? And what were the efforts that the local societies themselves made to fulfill the purpose of rule of law and accountability? In the conclusion, the study finds that the development of transitional justice became stable after the end of the Cold War. The content of transitional justice in this period re-emphasized the importance of individual criminal accountability and rule of law, leading to the establishment of a series of ad hoc international tribunals and hybrid courts worldwide. As the exemplification of this norm trend, the ICTY played a significant role to promote rule of law and individual criminal accountability in BiH. In the early stage, although the policy “Rules of the Road” imposed by the ICTY ameliorated the problem of arbitrary detention, the drawbacks in using the material inducement mechanism and the hierarchical authority weakened BiH’s motivation to prosecute war crimes and to reform its criminal judicial system. However, when the ICTY turned to “Completion Strategy” in the later stage, the policy transferring cases to domestic level gave BiH incentives, which resulted from the acculturation mechanism and were strengthened by the material inducement mechanism, to begin criminal judicial reforms. In addition, designing the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its War Crimes Chamber in a hybrid way initially contributed not only to deepening international norms in BiH via persuasion mechanism, but also to promoting capacity building in domestic criminal judicial institutions. Finally, in order to localize transitional justice, the Outreach program performed by the ICTY put its emphasis on exchanging and sharing knowledge, information, opinions, and experiences with local societies. By applying such persuasion-centered strategy, the ICTY might foster positive atmosphere which makes Bosnian people accept the values it carried more easily. As for the local mobilization, the Dayton Peace Accords empowered people with many legal frameworks. To those who should be responsible for the Srebrenica massacre, Bosnian people used the leverage of litigation to ask for justice and truth. If these practices can keep going, they will not merely deepen the root of individual criminal accountability and rule of law in local societies, but create positive climate for BiH to promote war crimes prosecutions and criminal judicial reforms domestically as well.