請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72044
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林鈺雄(Yu-Hsiung Lin),張文貞(Wen-Chen Chang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yu-hsiu Hsieh | en |
dc.contributor.author | 謝雨修 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T06:20:34Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-09-01 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-08-21 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-08-19 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、 中日文文獻
(一) 中日文專書 Helmut Satzger(著),王士帆(譯)(2014)。《國際刑法與歐洲刑法》。台北:元照。 姜皇池(2015)。《國際公法導論》,三版。台北:新學林。 高遠菜穗子(2014)。《ぼくのお母さんを殺した大統領をつかまえて。—人権を守る新しいしくみ.国際刑事裁判所—》。東京都:合同。 陳隆志(主編)、黃昭元、李明峻、廖福特(編)(2006)。《國際人權法文獻選集與解說》。台北:前衛。 (二) 中文書之篇章 林碧炤(2008)。〈聯合國的成立、功能及對於世界秩序的貢獻〉,收於:陳隆志、陳文賢(主編),《聯合國:體制、功能與發展》,頁13-59。台北:台灣新世紀文教基金會。 張文貞(2010)。〈國家人權法與內國憲法的匯流:台灣施行兩大人權公約之後〉,收於:社團法人台灣法學會(主編),《台灣法學新課題(八)》,頁1-26。台北:元照。 葉俊榮(2014)。〈東亞法院形貌初探:三種模式的浮現〉,收於:葉俊榮(主編),《轉型中的東亞法院:基本形貌、紛爭解決與行政治理》,頁13-61。台北:臺大出版中心。 (三) 中文期刊文章 Robert Esser(著),林鈺雄、王士帆(譯)(2010)。〈《東協憲章》基礎上的區域人權保護制度之發展-從歐洲觀點看國際法院裁判落實到內國刑事訴訟法〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,148 期,頁65-75。 王效文(2009)。〈國際刑法轉換為我國內國法之必要性〉,《台灣國際法季刊》,6卷3 期,頁97-124。 吳建輝。〈歐盟作為規範性權力:以國際刑事法秩序之建立為例〉,《歐美研究》,43 卷3 期,頁537-593。 林鈺雄(2007)。〈區域性國際人權法院與內國法之互動──以歐洲人權法院裁判對奧地利刑事法之影響與改造為例〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,148 期,頁33-56。 林鈺雄(2016)。〈2015 年刑事程序法裁判回顧:從國際人權公約內國法化的觀點出發〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,45 卷特刊,頁1649-1678。 林雍昇(2005)。〈從國際刑法的發韌到國際刑事法院的成立兼述羅馬規約的主要內容〉,《台灣國際法季刊》,2 卷2 期,頁281-307。 林雍昇(2009)。〈JCE(Joint Criminal Enterprise)概念在國際刑法的實踐與羅馬規約的規範〉,《台灣國際法季刊》,6 卷3 期,頁125-115。 孫國祥(2002)。〈國際刑事法院未來成效之探討--多一點法律少一點政治?〉,《問題與研究》,41 卷1 期,頁105-123。 張文貞(2007)。〈跨國憲政主義的合縱與連橫──歐洲人權法院與內國憲法法院關係初探〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,151 期,頁57-70。 張文貞(2010)。〈跨國法院的權力爭逐與對話—─歐洲人權法院及歐洲法院二件判決評析〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,143 期,頁73-95。 陳貞如(2012)。〈國際刑事司法於轉型社會的功能〉,《國家發展研究》,11 卷2期,頁1-39。 陳重言(2012)。〈德國法規範下國際刑事執行互助基礎架構——兼評我國跨國受刑人移交法草案〉,《法學叢刊》,57 卷4 期,頁45-93。 楊雲驊(2010)。〈國際刑事法院羅馬規約下檢察官的地位與職權〉,《檢查新論》,8 期,頁33-48。 楊雲驊(2017)。〈國際視野下的檢察官--以「國際刑事法院羅馬規約」與「歐盟」為例〉,《法務通訊》,2847 期,頁3-6。 趙彥清(2001)。〈國際刑法與國際刑事法院常設化之新發展〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,76 期,頁206-210。 鄭文中(2009)。〈國際刑法以協商終結程序之趨勢〉,《台灣國際法季刊》,6 卷3期,頁45-96。 鄭文中(2009)。〈被告於國際刑事法院程序之權利--以德國法上之公正程序原則為中心〉,《華岡法粹》,45 期,頁79-119。 藍傳貴(2001)。〈國際刑事法院羅馬規約制定背景與其條文之探討〉,《軍法專刊》,48 卷9 期,頁50-61。 (四) 中文學位論文 吳曜州(2016)。《二戰後國際刑事司法之研究—以四大國際刑事法庭及國際刑事法院為中心》,國立政治大學外交學系戰略與國際事務碩士在職專班碩士論 文(未出版),台北。 李怡俐(2016)。《當代轉型正義的制度與規範脈絡——兼論南韓與臺灣的經驗比較》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所博士論文,台北。 李祖翰(2008)。《羅馬規約和我國刑事法制有關基本法則與被告權利之比較研究》,國立臺灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所碩士論文(未出版),基隆。 邱崇宇(2008)。《歐洲聯盟之區域貿易協定的發展與影響──以EU 與ACP 國家間經貿關係為例(1997-2007)》,淡江大學歐洲研究所碩士班碩士論文(未出版),新北。 姜禮增(2004)。《論國際犯罪及其追訴程序-以國際刑事法院(ICC)羅馬規約為中心》,國立臺灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所碩士在職專班碩士論文(未出版),基隆。 康順興(2016)。《國際刑事法院發展逮捕移交互助整合之研究》,輔仁大學法律學系博士論文(未出版),新北。 陳子珺(2015)。《反核子擴散條約之規範機制:以跨國規範化歷程為分析途徑》,國立臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文(未出版),台北。 陳文葳(2015)。《政府間氣候變遷小組的建構、組織與功能演變:以跨國法制歷程觀點分析》,國立臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文(未出版),台北。 陳紀安(2016)。《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》,國立臺灣大學政治學研究所碩 士論文(未出版),台北。 彭彥凱(2006)。《國際刑法與刑法國際化之調適》,國立臺灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所碩士論文(未出版),基隆。 葉書毓(2011)。《國際刑事法院與我國刑事司法中有關犯罪偵查之人權保障之比較研究》,國立臺灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所碩士論文(未出版),基隆。 二、 英文文獻 (一) 英文專書 Allen, T. (2006). Trial Justice: The International Criminal Court and the Lord’s Resistance Army. London, UK: Zed Books. Ambos, K. (2014). Treatise on international criminal law, vol. 2.: The crimes and sentencing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Baum, L. (2017). Ideology in the Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bosco, D. (2014). Rough justice: The International Criminal Court in a world of power politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dothan, S. (2015). Reputation and judicial tactics: A theory of national and international courts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dutton, Y. (2013). Rules, politics, and the International Criminal Court: Committing to the court. New York, NY: Routledge. Dutton, Y. (2013). Rules, politics, and the International Criminal Court: Committing to the court. New York, NY: Routledge. Feinstein, L. & Lindberg, T. (2011). Means to an end: U.S. interest in the International Criminal Court. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Ginsburg, T. (2015). Judicial reputation: A comparative theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Groppi, T. & Ponthoreau, M. C. (Eds.). (2013). The use of foreign precedents by constitutional judges. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing. Hirata, K. (2002). Civil society in Japan: The growing role of NGOs in Tokyo’s aid development policy. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Hirschl, R. (2004). Towards juristocracy: The origins and consequences of the new constitutionalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lemkin, L. (2005). Axis rule in occupied Europe: Laws of occupation, analysis of government, proposals for redress. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange (Original work published 1944). Nichols, L. (2015). The International Criminal Court and the end of impunity in Kenya. New York, NY: Springer. Nowak, A. (2015). The International Criminal Court: An introduction. New York, NY: Springer. Ralph, J. (2007). Defending the society of states: Why America opposes the International Criminal Court and its vision of world society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Schabas, W. A. (2006). The UN international criminal tribunals: The former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schabas, W. A. (2009). Genocide in international law: The crimes of crimes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schabas, W. A. (2011). An introduction to the International Criminal Court. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schiff, B. N. (2008). Building the International Criminal Court. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Shapiro, M. & Sweet, A. S. (Eds.). (2002). On law, politics and judicialization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Shapiro, M. (1981). Courts: A comparative and political analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Slaughter, A.-M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Struett, M. J. (2008). The politics of constructing the International Criminal Court: NGO, discourse, and agency. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. (一) 英文書之篇章 Bassiouni, M. C. (2008). International crimes: The ratione materiae of international criminal law. In M. Cherif Bassiouni (Ed.), International criminal law, volume 1: Sources, subjects, and contents (pp.129-203). Leiden, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Bergsmo, M., Pejic, J. & Zhu, D. (2016). Article 16. In O. Triffterer & K. Ambos (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A commentary (pp. 770-780). Portland, OR: Hart Publishing. Booth, C. (2003). Prospects and issues for the International Criminal Court: Lessons from Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In P. Sands (Ed.), From Nuremberg to The Hague: The future of international criminal justice (pp. 157-192). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cannock, M. (2016). Strengthening International Criminal Court cooperation – The role of civil society, cooperation and the International Criminal Court: Perspective from theory and practice. In O. Bekou & D. Birkett (Eds.), Cooperation and the International Criminal Court: Perspectives from theory and practice (pp. 318-365). Boston, MA: Brill Nijhoff. Chang, W.-C. & Yeh, J.-r. (2012). Internationalization of constitutional law. In M. Rosenfeld & A. Sajó (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law (pp. 1165-1184). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cottier, M. (2016). Article 8. In O. Triffterer & K. Ambos (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A commentary (pp. 111-126). Portland, OR: Hart Publishing. de Wet, E. (2012). The constitutionalization of public international law. In M. Rosenfeld & A. Sajó (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law (pp. 1209-1230). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Greenwood, C. (2008). Historical development and legal basis. In D. Fleck (Ed.), The Handbook of international humanitarian law (pp. 1-44). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Greenwood, C. (2008). Scope of application of humanitarian law. In D. Fleck (Ed.), The Handbook of international humanitarian law (pp. 45-79). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Jordan, L. (2011). Global civil society, In M. Edwards (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of civil society (pp. 93-105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Raustiala, K. (2013). Institutional proliferation and the international legal order. In J. L. Dunoff & M.A. Pollack (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations: The state of the art (pp. 293-320). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Rothenberg, D. (2005) Genocide. In D. L. Shelton (Ed.), Encyclopedia of genocide and crimes against humanity (pp. 395-397). Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale. Schabas, W. A. & Pecorella, G. (2016). Article 12. In O. Triffterer & K. Ambos (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A commentary (pp. 672-689). Portland, OR: Hart Publishing. Schabas, W. A. & Pecorella, G. (2016). Article 13. In O. Triffterer & K. Ambos (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A commentary (pp. 690-702). Portland, OR: Hart Publishing. Schabas, W. A. (2008). Complementarity in practice: Creative solutions or a trap for the Court?. In M. Politi & F. Gioia (Eds.), The International Criminal Court and national jurisdiction (pp. 25-48). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. Spiro, P. J. (2013). Nongovernmental organizations in international relations (theory). In J. L. Dunoff & M.A. Pollack (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations: The state of the art (pp. 223-243). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Steinitz, M. (2013). Transnational legal process theories. In C. P. R. Romano, K. J. Alter & Y. Shany (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on international adjudication (pp. 339-356). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sunga, L. S. (2015). Has the International Criminal Court unfairly targeted Africa or has Africa unfairly targeted the International Criminal Court?. In T. Mariniello (Ed.), The International Criminal Court in search of its purpose and identity (pp.). von Bogdandy, A. & Venzke, I. (2012). Beyond dispute: International judicial institutions as lawmakers, In A. von Bogdandy & I. Venzke (Eds.), International judicial lawmaking: On public authority and democratic legitimation in global governance (pp. 3-34). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. von Bogdandy, A., Dann, P. & Goldmann, M. (2010). Developing the publicness of public international law: Towards a legal framework for global governance activities. In A. von Bogdandy et al. (Eds.), The exercise of public authority by international institutions: Advancing international institutional law (pp. 3-32). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Zimmermann, A. & Freiburg, E. (2016). Article 15bis. In O. Triffterer & K. Ambos (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A commentary (pp. 741-764). Portland, OR: Hart Publishing. Zimmermann, A. & Freiburg, E. (2016). Article 15ter. In O. Triffterer & K. Ambos (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A commentary (pp. 765-769). Portland, OR: Hart Publishing. Zimmermann, A. (2016). Article 5. In O. Triffterer & K. Ambos (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A commentary (pp. 741-764). Portland, OR: Hart Publishing. (二) 英文期刊文章 Ahmed, A. & Quayle, M. (2009). Can genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes be pardoned or amnestied?. Amicus Curiae, 79, 15-20. Alter, K. J., Helfer, L. R. & Madsen, M. R. (2016). How context shapes the authority of international courts. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79, 1-36. Bekou, O. (2012). Crimes at crossroads: Incorporating international crimes at the national level. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10, 677-691. Bosco, D. (2016). Palestine in The Hague: Justice, geopolitics, and the International Criminal Court. Global Governance, 22, 155-171. Bradley C. A. & Kelley J. G. (2008). The concept of international delegation. Law and Contemporary Problems, 71, 1-36. Chang, W.-C. (2009). An isolated nation with global-minded citizens: Bottom-up transnational constitutionalism in Taiwan. National Taiwan University Law Review, 4, 203-235. Chang, W.-C. (2011). The convergence of constitutions and international human rights: Taiwan and South Korea in comparison. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 36, 593-624. De Silva, N. (2017). Intermediary complexity in regulatory governance: The International Criminal Court’s use of NGOs in regulating international crimes. The ANNALS of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 670(1), 170-188. Dodge, W. S. (1997). The Helms-Burton Act and transnational legal process. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 20, 729-746. Dutton, Y. M. (2011). Explaining state commitment to the International Criminal Court: Strong enforcement mechanisms as a credible threat. Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 10, 477-533. Falk, R. A. (1997). Nuclear weapons, international law and the World Court: A historical encounter. American Journal of International Law, 91, 64-75. Ginsburg, T. & Ganzorig, G. (2001). When courts and politics collide: Mongolia’s Constitutional crisis. Columbia Journal of Asian Law, 14, 309-326. Groenleer, M. (2015). The United States, the European Union, and the International Criminal Court: Similar values, different interests?.International Journal of Constitutional Law, 13(4), 923-944. Groenleer, M. L. P. & van Schaik L. G. (2007). United we stand? The European Union’s international actorness in the Cases of the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(5), 969-998. Haddad, H. N. (2013). After the norm cascade: NGO mission expansion and the Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Global Governance, 19, 187-206. Hernández, G. I. (2014). The judicialization of international law: Reflections on the empirical turn. European Journal of International Law, 25(3), 919-934. Hillebrecht, C. & Straus, S. (2017). Who pursues the perpetrators? State cooperation with the ICC. Human Rights Quarterly, 39(1), 162-188. International Institute for Strategic Studies. (2018). Chapter two: Comparative defence statistics. Military Balance, 118(1), 19-26. Keppler, E. (2012). Managing setbacks for the International Criminal Court in Africa. Journal of African Law, 56(1), 1-14. Koh, H. (2015). The crime of aggression: The United States perspective. American Journal of International Law, 109(2), 257-295. Koh, H. H. (1996). Transnational legal process. Nebraska Law Review, 75, 181-207. Meernik, J. (2013). Justice, power and peace: Conflicting interests and the apprehension of ICC suspects. International Criminal Law Review, 13, 169-190. Melillo, M. (2013). Cooperation between the UN peacekeeping operation and the ICC in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 11, 763-782. Mutyaba, R. (2012). An analysis of the cooperation regime of the International Criminal Court and its effectiveness in the Court’s objective in securing suspects in its ongoing investigations and prosecutions. International Criminal Law Review, 12, 937-962. Mwangi, D. (2016). Deferral and enforcement powers of the United Nations Security Council under the Rome Statute: A case study of Kenya. International Journal of Education and Research, 4(7), 15-26. Nafziger, J. A. R. (1972). Regulation by the International Council of Museums: An example of the role of non-governmental organizations in the transnational legal process. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 2, 231-254. Pearson, Z. (2011). Non-governmental organizations and the International Criminal Court: Changing landscapes of international law. Cornell International Law Journal, 39(2), 243-284. Posner, E. (2004). Transnational legal process and the Supreme Court’s 2003-2004 term: Some skeptical observations. Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law, 12, 23-37. Schabas, W. A. (2004). United States hostility to the International Criminal Court: It’s all about the Security Council. European Journal of International Law, 15(4), 701-720. Shaffer, G. (2012). Transnational legal process and state change. Law and Social Inquiry, 37, 229-264. Short, N. (1999). The role of NGOs in the Ottawa process to ban landmines. International Negotiation, 4(3), 481-500. Slaughter, A.-M. (1994). A typology of transjudicial communication. University of Richmond Law Review, 29, 99-137. Sougens, F. G. (2015). Functions of freedom: Privacy, autonomy, dignity and the transnational legal process. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 48, 471-542. Ssenyonjo, M. (2013). The rise of the African Union opposition to the International Criminal Court’s investigations and prosecutions of African leaders. International Criminal Law Review, 13(2), 385-428. Stevens, C. J. (2012). Hunting a dictator as a transnational legal process: The internationalization problem and the Hissène Habré case. Pace International Law Review, 24, 190-232. Tarracino, J. B. (2007). National implementation of ICC crimes. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 5, 421-440. Tiemessen, A. (2016). The International Criminal Court and the lawfare of judicial intervention. International Relations, 30(4), 409-431. Vilmer, J.-B. J. (2016). The African Union and the International Criminal Court: Counteracting the crisis. International Affairs, 92(6), 1319-1342. Vinjamuri, L. (2016). The International Criminal Court and the paradox of authority. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79, 275-287. Washburn, J. (1999). The negotiation of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and international lawmaking in the 21st Century. Pace International Law Review, 11(2), 361-377. Welch, C. E. & Watkins, A. F. (2011). Extending enforcement: The Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(4), 927-1031. Yeh, J.-r. & Chang, W.-C. (2008). The emergence of transnational constitutionalism: Its features, challenges and solutions. Penn State International Law Review, 27, 89-124. (三) 英文學位論文 Gorzdanic, H. (2010). The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia in a hybrid system: The effects of politics, law and history (Master’s thesis, University of Gothenburg). Retrieved from https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/24093/1/gupea_2077_24093_1.pdf. (四) 國際公約或草案 Amendments on the Crime of Aggression to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Jun. 11, 2010, 2922 U.N.T.S, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/No%20Volume/38544/A-38544-08000002802a6182.pdf. Charter of the United Nations, June 26, 1945, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/No%20Volume/Part/un_charter.pdf. Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 22 August 1864, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/120?OpenDocument. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec. 9, 1948, 78 U.N.T.S. 277, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2078/volume-78-I-1021-English.pdf. Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/7_3_1954.pdf. Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court with Commentaries, http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/7_4_1994.pdf. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 31, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2075/volume-75-I-970-English.pdf. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 85, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2075/volume-75-I-971-English.pdf. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2075/volume-75-I-973-English.pdf. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2075/volume-75-I-972-English.pdf. Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/7_1_1950.pdf. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Aug. 6, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 609, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201125/volume-1125-I-17513-English.pdf. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Aug. 6, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201125/volume-1125-I-17512-English.pdf. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 3, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1998/07/19980717%2006-33%20PM/volume-2187-I-38544-English.pdf. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72044 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 國際刑事法院的設立與發展,一直都是國際刑法學界關注的焦點。1998 年,各國代表齊聚羅馬,簽署《羅馬規約》,傳達建立一座常設性國際刑事法院的願望,以處理未來各種違反國際刑法與國際人道法的嚴重罪行,並追訴個人罪犯。之後國際刑事法院於2002 年正式成立,並在持續運作的16 年內,努力嘗試達到《羅馬規約》的終極理想——「終結罪犯逍遙法外」(end impunity)。
從目前來看,國際刑事法院在追求「終結罪犯逍遙法外」的過程中,形成什麼運作樣貌?如何形成?詳言之,國際刑事法院的基礎規範《羅馬規約》以及國際刑事法院的運作狀況為何?形塑這個樣貌的過程為何?我們如何宏觀描述與理解這個過程?國際刑事法院如何與全球範圍下不同種類的行動者互動,以及發揮其影響力,以「終結罪犯逍遙法外」?雖然國際刑事法院的相關文獻汗牛充棟,但本文希望能以宏觀的視野,提供理解國際刑事法院的不同切入點。 為了能夠回答上述問題,本文捨棄刑法學界通常的研究途徑,反而取道於跨國規範化歷程(Transnational Legal Process)與法院研究(Studies of Courts)的視角,選擇由這些研究方法衍伸出來之國際性法院的權威(authority)之概念切入。權威的概念,係指國際性法院與全球範圍行動者的互動所促成之影響。對應國際刑事法院的狀況,國際刑事法院的權威,即這座致力於「終結罪犯逍遙法外」的法院與全球行動者互動下,所促成的改變或應對。透過觀察國際刑事法院與行動者的互動,本文捕捉形塑國際刑事法院的權威之動態過程,從這個動態的過程理解與描述國際刑事法院的權威,進而達到理解國際刑事法院的運作樣貌之效。 首先,為了提供理解形塑國際刑事法院的權威之分析基礎,本文梳理《羅馬規約》的規範與國際刑事法院刑事程序的運作現況,以「終結罪犯逍遙法外」的終極目標分析評價,並且將這些現象放回原初的時空脈絡理解。本文發現,現在我們看到的《羅馬規約》規範與國際刑事法院刑事程序的運作現況之形成過程中,國際刑事法院與周圍行動者的密切互動與影響,是一大重要的特色。由行動者共同協商下制定的《羅馬規約》,其規範內容導致國際刑事法院可能很容易受到其他行動者影響。國際刑事法院成立後,種種運作上的問題也肇因於其他行動者的作為。本文因而認為,國際刑事法院與周圍行動者的關係與互動十分密切。 其次,立於上述的整理與理解,本文進一步嘗試宏觀地描述國際刑事法院與周圍行動者的互動過程,並以此為基礎,描述國際刑事法院的權威,進而勾勒國際刑事法院的運作樣貌。本文從前述梳理的脈絡,辨認四組圍繞在國際刑事法院的行動者──非政府組織國際刑事法院聯盟、美國、非洲聯盟與部分非洲國家、歐洲聯盟與歐盟國家,並以行動者為單位,描述他們與國際刑事法院的互動。本文發現,國際刑事法院與行動者的互動多元複雜,並呈現出四種模式:扶持模式、支持模式、升溫模式、鬩牆模式。接著,本文分析後認為,國際刑事法院與這四種模式之行動者的互動中,分別形塑出不同的權威:國際刑事法院與扶持和支持模式行動者的互動良好,因而形塑出近乎完整的權威;而國際刑事法院在與升溫和鬩牆模式行動者的互動中,即便努力,仍無法以自身之力改變行動者的作為與態度,因而形塑出有缺陷的權威。最後,綜觀所有的互動模式與形塑之權威,本文認為,國際刑事法院與行動者的多元互動模式下形塑的權威,可以被描述為掙扎中的權威。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The International Criminal Court (‘ICC’ or ‘the Court’), which occupies the central place in the literature of international criminal law studies, was established in 2002, based on the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (‘Rome Statute’). The international community then brought the ICC into life, in hopes of “put[ting] an end to the impunity for the perpetrators” of “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”, as indicated in the Preamble of the Rome Statute. Sixteen years has passed since the Court was established. What is the performance of the ICC in terms of fighting impunity? How do we understand such performance and what does it signifies? These questions must be of high interest for those who concern the ICC.
This Thesis seeks to answer the questions by depicting the operation of the ICC through the lens of Transnational Legal Process, proposed by Harold Koh, and the Studies of Courts, initiated by Martin Shapiro. Under the two methodologies, this Thesis explores the idea of ‘the authority of the ICC’ to depict the 16-year ICC operation by observing the influence of the ICC in its interaction with the international actors—states, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations. The Thesis first argues that the ICC is easily and heavily influenced by the actors, both legally and operationally. After reviewing the design of the Rome Statute and the ICC judgments, decisions, and other legal documents, the Thesis then analyzes them to examine whether the convention genuinely helps the ICC to achieve the end of impunity, and whether the ICC lives up to it in reality. The Thesis finds that the ICC designed under the Rome Statute may be easily subject to the actors when pursuing the convictions, and that the prosecutions in different Situations are plagued with partiality or inefficiency. Behind the analysis, the Thesis discovers that the aforementioned results came from the interaction among the actors and the ICC in the time of the Diplomatic Conference in Rome and the operation of the Court. Actors deployed various tactics and strategies in response to the other actors. This shaped the interaction in the context around the Diplomatic Conference and the Court operation. The Thesis subsequently argues that the authority of the ICC is a struggling authority. Based upon the aforementioned facts and analysis, the Thesis chooses four sets of actors—Coalition for the International Criminal Court, the United States, the African Union and certain African states, and the European Union and the EU states—and observes their interactions with the Court. The Thesis finds that the facts as observed manifest four models of interactions between the actors and the Court—the Aid, the Support, the Warming, and the Quarreling. On the one hand, the action of the Aid and the Support actors clearly shows the growing influence of the ICC to integrate them into the Rome Statute regime. Such interaction forms the authority almost to its fullest. On the other hand, the Warming and the Quarreling actors refused or refuse such integration to the regime. Such deeds diminish the influence of the Court and form the flawed authority. However, facing the Warming and the Quarreling actors, the ICC struggles but fails to influence and convert them as with the Aid and the Support actors. Therefore, judging from the present situation, the Thesis finds its authority as a struggling one. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T06:20:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R03a21068-1.pdf: 3615501 bytes, checksum: 9429c417d587401189ea59265909a1af (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 ········································ I
摘要 ·························· III ABSTRACT ···························· V 簡目 ····························· VII 目錄 ······························· IX 第一章 緒論 ····················· 1 1.1 研究動機與問題 ·············· 1 1.2 文獻回顧 ····························· 5 1.2.1 國內文獻回顧 ························· 6 1.2.2 國外文獻回顧 ································ 8 1.2.3 本研究定位 ······························ 10 1.3 研究範圍 ····························· 10 1.4 研究方法 ······························ 11 1.4.1 跨國規範化歷程 ····························· 11 1.4.2 法院研究 ·········································· 14 1.4.3 兩種研究視角下之國際性法院的權威概念 ··············· 16 1.4.4 使用兩種研究方法的理由 ················· 18 1.5 名詞解釋 ·································· 19 1.6 研究架構、研究論點與章節安排 ············· 20 第二章 《羅馬規約》的規範、分析評價與形成脈絡 ················· 23 2.1 前言 ··········································· 23 2.2 《羅馬規約》的規範 ······························ 24 2.2.1 《羅馬規約》前言 ······························· 25 2.2.2 管轄權與可受理性 ··························· 26 2.2.2.1 事物管轄 ······························· 26 2.2.2.1.1 滅絕種族罪 ································ 27 2.2.2.1.2 危害人類罪 ································ 28 2.2.2.1.3 戰爭罪 ····································· 29 2.2.2.1.4 侵略罪 ···························· 33 2.2.2.2 屬人管轄、土地管轄與時間管轄 ·············· 35 2.2.2.3 管轄權的行使、調查或起訴的推遲與受理與否的問題 ······· 38 2.2.2.3.1 管轄權的行使 ············ 38 2.2.2.3.2 調查或起訴的推遲 ····················· 45 2.2.2.3.3 受理與否的問題 ···························· 46 2.2.3 法院組織與刑事程序 ·························· 47 2.2.3.1 法院組織 ······································ 48 2.2.3.1.1 法官、分庭與院長會議 ············ 48 2.2.3.1.1.1 法官 ········································ 48 2.2.3.1.1.2 分庭 ····························· 52 2.2.3.1.1.2.1 預審庭 ··················· 53 2.2.3.1.1.2.2 審判庭 ······························ 53 2.2.3.1.1.2.3 上訴庭 ···································· 53 2.2.3.1.1.3 院長會議··································· 54 2.2.3.1.2 檢察官辦公室與檢察官 ················· 55 2.2.3.1.3 書記官處與書記官長 ················· 57 2.2.3.1.4 編制外人員 ································· 59 2.2.3.2 刑事程序 ········································· 60 2.2.4 締約國與國際合作 ······························ 62 2.2.4.1 締約國大會 ····································· 63 2.2.4.2 締約國的合作義務································· 64 2.2.4.3 與非締約國和其他組織的合作 ················· 66 2.2.4.4 與聯合國的關係································ 66 2.3 《羅馬規約》的規範分析與評價:以「終結罪犯逍遙法外」為理想目標 68 2.3.1 管轄範圍 ········································· 68 2.3.1.1 事物管轄 ··································· 69 2.3.1.2 屬人管轄與土地管轄 ······················ 71 2.3.1.3 時間管轄 ···················································· 72 2.3.1.4 評價:《羅馬規約》提供幾乎完整的法律規範工具 ··· 74 2.3.2 行使管轄權與受理案件的能力 ······· 75 2.3.2.1 行使管轄權的能力·············· 75 2.3.2.2 受理案件的能力························· 78 2.3.2.3 評價:《羅馬規約》提供幾乎完整的法律規範工具 ··········· 79 2.3.3 執行機制 ································· 80 2.3.3.1 法官與檢察官行使職權的特性 ····················· 80 2.3.3.2 締約國的合作義務············ 82 2.3.3.3 其他的國際合作與司法協助 ············ 84 2.3.3.4 評價:《羅馬規約》沒有提供國際刑事法院自行確保執行機制有效運作的法律規範工具85 2.3.4 小結:法律上國際刑事法院的運作可能容易受到其他行動者的影響 · 86 2.4 《羅馬規約》的規範脈絡:以跨國規範化歷程的視角觀察 ···· 88 2.4.1 冷戰後初期的國際政治 ············ 89 2.4.1.1 漸趨活躍的安理會··································· 89 2.4.1.2 安理會下國際政治的新嘗試——臨時的國際刑事法庭 ···· 90 2.4.1.3 聯合國重啟國際刑事法院的計畫與保守的《國際法委員會草案》 91 2.4.2 全球市民社會下茁壯的國際刑事法院聯盟 ················ 94 2.4.2.1 全球市民社會的興起 ································· 94 2.4.2.2 國際刑事法院聯盟的建立與理想 ················· 95 2.4.2.3 國際刑事法院聯盟的策略與努力 ··············· 96 2.4.3 議場中不同立場之行動者的協商 ··············· 98 2.4.3.1 同心團體國家 ······························ 98 2.4.3.2 傳統世界強權國家···························· 100 2.4.3.3 不同立場行動者的主張與交鋒 ·················· 102 2.4.4 小結:《羅馬規約》的內涵是行動者間妥協的產物 ·········· 104 2.5 本章小結:行動者共同協商妥協下的《羅馬規約》可能導致國際刑事法院易受到行動者影響··········································· 105 第三章 國際刑事法院的運作現況、評價與脈絡——以2002 年至2018年法院的刑事程序為中心 ······················· 107 3.1 前言 ··············· 107 3.2 國際刑事法院的運作現況(至2018 年4 月為止) ········ 108 3.2.1 「初步審查」的階段 ········· 108 3.2.1.1 早期法院運作(2002-2005) ······ 111 3.2.1.1.1 三個締約國提交的「情勢」(非洲的烏干達、剛果、中非I) 112 3.2.1.1.2 三個檢察官「自行調查」的「情勢」 ······· 113 3.2.1.1.2.1 中南美洲的哥倫比亞「情勢」 ··············· 114 3.2.1.1.2.2 中南美洲的委內瑞拉I「情勢」 ······· 114 3.2.1.1.2.3 亞洲的伊拉克/英國「情勢」之第一次「初步審查」 ··· 115 3.2.1.1.3 一個非締約國接受管轄權的「情勢」(非洲的象牙海岸) ··· 116 3.2.1.2 中期法院運作(2005-2012) ··········· 118 3.2.1.2.1 唯二的安理會提交「情勢」 ··············· 119 3.2.1.2.1.1 非洲的蘇丹達佛「情勢」 ·············· 119 3.2.1.2.1.2 非洲的利比亞「情勢」 ··············· 121 3.2.1.2.2 七個檢察官「自行調查」的締約國「情勢」 ······· 123 3.2.1.2.2.1 非洲的肯亞與歐洲的喬治亞「情勢」 ········ 123 3.2.1.2.2.1.1 非洲的肯亞「情勢」 ··········· 124 3.2.1.2.2.1.2 歐洲的喬治亞「情勢」 ············· 126 3.2.1.2.2.2 中南美洲的宏都拉斯與亞洲的韓國「情勢」 ······ 127 3.2.1.2.2.2.1 中南美洲的宏都拉斯「情勢」 ············· 128 3.2.1.2.2.2.2 亞洲的韓國「情勢」 ·············· 129 3.2.1.2.2.3 亞洲的阿富汗、非洲的幾內亞與奈及利亞「情勢」 ····· 130 3.2.1.2.2.3.1 亞洲的阿富汗「情勢」 ············ 131 3.2.1.2.2.3.2 非洲的幾內亞「情勢」 ·············· 131 3.2.1.2.2.3.3 非洲的奈及利亞「情勢」 ·············· 132 3.2.1.2.3 一個接受管轄權的「情勢」(亞洲的巴勒斯坦I) ·· 133 3.2.1.3 近期法院運作(2012-至今) ························ 134 3.2.1.3.1 四個締約國提交的「情勢」 ·············· 136 3.2.1.3.1.1 非洲的馬利與中非II「情勢」 ·········· 136 3.2.1.3.1.1.1 非洲的馬利「情勢」 ·············· 136 3.2.1.3.1.1.2 非洲的中非II「情勢」 ·············· 137 3.2.1.3.1.2 非歐亞三洲的「三國船艦」「情勢」之第一次與第二次「初步審查」 137 3.2.1.3.1.3 非洲的加彭「情勢」 ·················· 139 3.2.1.3.2 四個檢察官「自行調查」的「情勢」 ······ 140 3.2.1.3.2.1 亞洲的伊拉克/英國「情勢」之第二次「初步審查」 ··· 140 3.2.1.3.2.2 非洲的蒲隆地「情勢」 ······· 141 3.2.1.3.2.3 中南美洲的委內瑞拉II 與亞洲的菲律賓「情勢」 ·· 142 3.2.1.3.2.3.1 亞洲的菲律賓「情勢」 ··········· 143 3.2.1.3.2.3.2 中南美洲的委內瑞拉II「情勢」 ········ 143 3.2.1.3.3 兩個非締約國接受管轄權的「情勢」 ······· 144 3.2.1.3.3.1 歐洲的烏克蘭「情勢」 ··············· 144 3.2.1.3.3.2 亞洲巴勒斯坦II「情勢」 ············ 145 3.2.2 發出逮捕證/出庭傳票至到庭的階段 ········ 147 3.2.2.1 剛果「情勢」 ······························· 148 3.2.2.1.1 嫌犯的身分背景 ·························· 148 3.2.2.1.2 發出逮捕證的時間 ···················· 149 3.2.2.1.3 嫌犯的到庭狀況 ························· 150 3.2.2.2 烏干達「情勢」························ 152 3.2.2.2.1 嫌犯的身分背景 ······················ 152 3.2.2.2.2 發出逮捕證的時間 ······························ 153 3.2.2.2.3 嫌犯的到庭狀況 ······················· 153 3.2.2.3 蘇丹達佛「情勢」·························· 154 3.2.2.3.1 嫌犯的身分背景 ·························· 155 3.2.2.3.2 發出逮捕證或出庭傳票的時間 ········· 156 3.2.2.3.3 嫌犯的到庭狀況 ························· 157 3.2.2.4 中非I「情勢」 ···································· 158 3.2.2.4.1 嫌犯的身分背景 ································· 159 3.2.2.4.2 發出逮捕證的時間 ····················· 159 3.2.2.4.3 嫌犯的到庭狀況 ····························· 160 3.2.2.5 肯亞「情勢」 ······························ 161 3.2.2.5.1 嫌犯的身分背景 ································· 162 3.2.2.5.2 發出逮捕證或出庭傳票的時間 ·············· 162 3.2.2.5.3 嫌犯的到庭狀況 ······························ 163 3.2.2.6 利比亞「情勢」·································· 164 3.2.2.6.1 嫌犯的身分背景 ································· 165 3.2.2.6.2 發出逮捕證的時間 ······························· 165 3.2.2.6.3 嫌犯的到庭狀況 ··························· 166 3.2.2.7 象牙海岸「情勢」······················ 168 3.2.2.7.1 嫌犯的身分背景 ································· 168 3.2.2.7.2 發出逮捕證的時間 ···························· 169 3.2.2.7.3 嫌犯的到庭狀況 ···························· 169 3.2.2.8 馬利「情勢」 ····································· 171 3.2.2.8.1 嫌犯的到庭狀況 ································· 171 3.2.2.8.2 發出逮捕證的時間 ···························· 172 3.2.2.8.3 嫌犯的到庭狀況 ································ 172 3.2.2.9 中非II、喬治亞與蒲隆地「情勢」 ·············· 173 3.2.3 「確認聽審」程序與審判程序 ················ 173 3.2.3.1 剛果「情勢」 ···································· 174 3.2.3.1.1 「確認聽審」程序 ····························· 174 3.2.3.1.2 審判程序 ······································ 175 3.2.3.2 烏干達「情勢」·································· 177 3.2.3.3 蘇丹達佛「情勢」································ 178 3.2.3.3.1 「確認聽審」程序 ······················· 179 3.2.3.3.2 審判程序 ······································ 179 3.2.3.4 中非I「情勢」 ···································· 181 3.2.3.4.1 「確認聽審」程序 ···························· 181 3.2.3.4.2 審判程序 ······································ 182 3.2.3.5 肯亞「情勢」 ···································· 183 3.2.3.5.1 「確認聽審」程序 ·························· 183 3.2.3.5.2 審判程序 ······································ 184 3.2.3.6 利比亞「情勢」································ 186 3.2.3.7 象牙海岸「情勢」································ 187 3.2.3.7.1 「確認聽審」程序 ······························ 187 3.2.3.7.2 審判程序 ······································ 188 3.2.3.8 馬利「情勢」 ····································· 189 3.3 國際刑事法院運作現況的分析與評價 ··············· 190 3.3.1 「初步審查」階段 ··································· 191 3.3.1.1 各「情勢」的地理分布 ························· 192 3.3.1.2 各「情勢」之「初步審查」經歷的時間 ················· 193 3.3.1.3 各「情勢」行使管轄權之管道分布 ·············· 195 3.3.1.4 各「情勢」之「初步審查」的結果 ········· 196 3.3.1.5 綜合比較與分析···························· 196 3.3.2 發出逮捕證/出庭傳票至到庭的階段 ················ 203 3.3.2.1 各「情勢」之「調查」嫌犯身分的分布 ·················· 204 3.3.2.2 各「情勢」之「調查」嫌犯到庭比率 ··················· 207 3.3.2.3 各「情勢」之「調查」嫌犯到庭的方式 ·················· 208 3.3.2.4 各「情勢」之調查嫌犯從逮捕證/出庭傳票發出後至到庭的經歷時間 209 3.3.2.5 綜合比較與分析·································· 211 3.3.3 「確認聽審」程序與審判程序 ······················· 212 3.3.3.1 各「情勢」嫌犯之「確認聽審」程序的經歷時間與結果 ··· 213 3.3.3.2 各「情勢」嫌犯之審判程序的經歷時間與結果 ··········· 216 3.3.3.3 綜合比較與分析······················· 220 3.3.4 小結:不同行使管轄權管道的「情勢」有不同的問題 ······ 222 3.4 國際刑事法院運作現況問題的脈絡:以跨國規範化歷程與法院研究的視角 觀察 224 3.4.1 締約國提交和非締約國接受管轄權的「情勢」:事涉國利用國際刑事法院強化權力 · 225 3.4.1.1 締約國提交的烏干達與剛果「情勢」 ·············· 225 3.4.1.1.1 烏干達「情勢」 ······················ 226 3.4.1.1.2 剛果「情勢」 ················· 227 3.4.1.2 接受管轄權的象牙海岸「情勢」 ········· 227 3.4.2 安理會提交和檢察官「自行調查」的「情勢」:相關行動者不配合 229 3.4.2.1 事涉國 ····························· 229 3.4.2.1.1 蘇丹達佛「情勢」 ······················· 229 3.4.2.1.2 利比亞「情勢」 ································ 231 3.4.2.1.3 肯亞「情勢」 ·································· 234 3.4.2.2 其他國家:以逮捕蘇丹達佛「情勢」的嫌犯為例 ········· 236 3.4.2.3 國際組織 ······································· 240 3.4.2.3.1 非洲聯盟 ······································ 241 3.4.2.3.2 聯合國安理會 ··································· 244 3.4.3 小結:國際刑事法院的運作問題深受行動者影響 ········ 248 3.5 本章小結:國際刑事法院現實上與行動者的關係密切並深受影響 ··· 249 第四章 國際刑事法院的權威──以法院與行動者的互動為中心 ··· 251 4.1 前言 ············································· 251 4.2 形塑國際刑事法院的權威之行動者與互動面向 ··············· 252 4.2.1 圍繞國際刑事法院的行動者 ················· 252 4.2.1.1 國家 ······································ 253 4.2.1.2 國際組織 ········································ 257 4.2.1.3 非政府組織 ······························ 260 4.2.2 形塑國際刑事法院之權威的互動面向 ·················· 261 4.2.2.1 回應具體個案的要求或呼籲 ························ 262 4.2.2.2 國際刑事犯罪追訴體系的建構 ············ 262 4.2.2.3 國際刑事法院的聲望 ······························· 264 4.3 國際刑事法院與行動者的互動 ···················· 265 4.3.1 國際刑事法院聯盟 ································· 265 4.3.1.1 回應具體個案的要求或呼籲 ·························· 266 4.3.1.2 國際刑事犯罪追訴體系的建構 ······················· 269 4.3.1.3 國際刑事法院的聲望 ······························ 271 4.3.2 美國 ······································· 271 4.3.2.1 回應具體個案的要求或呼籲 ························ 272 4.3.2.2 國際刑事犯罪追訴體系的建構 ························· 276 4.3.2.3 國際刑事法院的聲望 ································ 281 4.3.3 非洲聯盟與部分非洲國家(以蘇丹、肯亞、烏干達為主) ···· 282 4.3.3.1 回應具體個案的要求或呼籲 ···················· 283 4.3.3.2 國際刑事犯罪追訴體系的建構 ························ 286 4.3.3.3 國際刑事法院的聲望 ······························· 290 4.3.4 歐洲聯盟與歐盟國家(以英國、法國、德國為主) ············ 291 4.3.4.1 回應具體個案的要求或呼籲 ······················ 291 4.3.4.2 國際刑事犯罪追訴體系的建構 ························ 293 4.3.4.3 國際刑事法院的聲望 ··············································· 298 4.4 行動者與國際刑事法院的多元互動模式下形塑之權威············· 298 4.4.1 行動者與國際刑事法院的多元互動模式 ············· 299 4.4.1.1 扶持模式與支持模式 ································ 299 4.4.1.2 升溫模式與鬩牆模式································ 300 4.4.2 國際刑事法院與行動者互動下形塑之權威 ·················· 302 4.4.2.1 國際刑事法院與扶持和支持模式行動者的互動:近乎完整的權威 ·302 4.4.2.2 國際刑事法院與升溫和鬩牆模式行動者的互動:有缺陷的權威 · 303 4.4.3 小結:國際刑事法院的權威是掙扎中的權威 ·············· 305 4.5 本章小結:國際刑事法院與行動者的多元互動模式下形塑出掙扎中的權威 306 第五章 結論 ······················· 309 參考文獻 ················ 313 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 形塑國際刑事法院的權威:以跨國規範化歷程與法院研究為方法 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Forming the Authority of the International Criminal Court: A Transnational Legal Process and Studies of Courts Perspective | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 廖福特(Fort Fu-Te Liao),王士帆(Shih-Fan Wang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 國際刑事法院,《羅馬規約》,跨國規範化歷程,法院研究,權威,行動者,互動模式, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | International Criminal Court,Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,Transnational Legal Process,Studies of Courts,authority,actor,model of interaction, | en |
dc.relation.page | 328 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201804014 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-08-19 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 3.53 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。