형사관할권의 국제적 경합에 있어서 일사부재리의 적용범위
Applicability of the ne-bis-in-idem principle in international conflicts of criminal jurisdiction
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The ne-bis-in-idem principle, provided that a person prosecuted and tried finally for a certain act shall not be punished nor prosecuted for the same act again, has been traditionally limited to the field of each national jurisdiction. So the international oder transnational validity of this principle is not yet recognized in the legislation of most states. However, some international conventions have provided certain legal consequences in a application of the principle in the relations between states (the so-calld horizontal international ne-bis-in-idem). Moreover, the international instruments that established international penal tribunals, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), habe provided the ne-bis-in-idem in the relations between them and the national jurisdictions (the so-calld vertical international ne-bis-in-idem). Insofar as concurrence of national criminal jurisdictions creates, due to increasing cross-border crime and extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction, a risk of multiple prosecutions on the same factual basis, it is necessary to develop legal provisions on international cooperation in criminal matters oder to establish an international instrument on concurrent jurisdiction. In this context, an international rule limiting the prosecution in a certain state of a person for an offence for which he has been already convicted or acquitted finally in another state. So, the ne-bis-in-idem should be also applicable on the international level. A uniform application of international ne-bi-in-idem is, however, questioned, with respect to the different legal systems in existence in the world as well as the sovereignty of the states. In this regard, it would be desirable that the possibility of applying the ne-bis-in-idem principle at an international level is discussed on the basis of international conventions. In the solutions given by them, the recognition of the foreign sentence as such or at least to the extent it has been already enforced is the prevailing goal, while, especially in case of concomitant prosecutions by different national jurisdictions, preference should be given to the jurisdiction that will better serve the purposes of the proper administration of justice in terms of fair and efficient proceedings, also in oder to prevent "forum shopping". Concerning the applicability of ne-bis-in-idem in the vertical international concurrence of criminal jurisdictions, the ICC Statute provides the international ne-bis-in-idem in a "downwards situation" on the one hand (Art. 20, para. 2, of the ICC Statute), and in an "upwards situation" on the other hand (Art. 20, para. 3, of the ICC Statute). Upwards, an idem is determined on the basis of the same "facts", while the ne-bis-in-idem in an downwards situation concerns the "crimes" listed in Art. 5 of the ICC Statute. Idem is, however by considering a certainty of criterion, to be understood in both cases as the same facts, irrespective of their legal character (the idem factum principle).
Abstract
The ne-bis-in-idem principle, provided that a person prosecuted and tried finally for a certain act shall not be punished nor prosecuted for the same act again, has been traditionally limited to the field of each national jurisdiction. So the international oder transnational validity of this principle is not yet recognized in the legislation of most states. However, some international conventions have provided certain legal consequences in a application of the principle in the relations between states (the so-calld horizontal international ne-bis-in-idem). Moreover, the international instruments that established international penal tribunals, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), habe provided the ne-bis-in-idem in the relations between them and the national jurisdictions (the so-calld vertical international ne-bis-in-idem). Insofar as concurrence of national criminal jurisdictions creates, due to increasing cross-border crime and extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction, a risk of multiple prosecutions on the same factual basis, it is necessary to develop legal provisions on international cooperation in criminal matters oder to establish an international instrument on concurrent jurisdiction. In this context, an international rule limiting the prosecution in a certain state of a person for an offence for which he has been already convicted or acquitted finally in another state. So, the ne-bis-in-idem should be also applicable on the international level. A uniform application of international ne-bi-in-idem is, however, questioned, with respect to the different legal systems in existence in the world as well as the sovereignty of the states. In this regard, it would be desirable that the possibility of applying the ne-bis-in-idem principle at an international level is discussed on the basis of international conventions. In the solutions given by them, the recognition of the foreign sentence as such or at least to the extent it has been already enforced is the prevailing goal, while, especially in case of concomitant prosecutions by different national jurisdictions, preference should be given to the jurisdiction that will better serve the purposes of the proper administration of justice in terms of fair and efficient proceedings, also in oder to prevent "forum shopping". Concerning the applicability of ne-bis-in-idem in the vertical international concurrence of criminal jurisdictions, the ICC Statute provides the international ne-bis-in-idem in a "downwards situation" on the one hand (Art. 20, para. 2, of the ICC Statute), and in an "upwards situation" on the other hand (Art. 20, para. 3, of the ICC Statute). Upwards, an idem is determined on the basis of the same "facts", while the ne-bis-in-idem in an downwards situation concerns the "crimes" listed in Art. 5 of the ICC Statute. Idem is, however by considering a certainty of criterion, to be understood in both cases as the same facts, irrespective of their legal character (the idem factum principle).
참고문헌 (33)
- "Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal", 761~ (2004)
- Roland Michael Kniebühler, "Transnationales ͵ne bis in idemʹ", ~ (2005)
- Rock Tansey, "'The rule against double jeopardy - Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Eadem Causa', in: Ilias G. Anagnostopoulos (Hrsg.), Internationalisierung des Strafrechts", 118~ (2003)
- Gerhard Dannecker, "'Die Garantie des Grundsatzes "ne bis in idem" in Europa', in: Hans Joachim Hirsch u.a.(Hrsg.), Festschrift für Günter Kohlman zum 70. Geburtstag", 597~ (2003)
- 田宮裕, "一事不再理の原則", 55~ (1978)
- Heike Jung, "'Zur »Internationalisierung« des Grundsatzes »ne bis in idem«', in: Peter-Alexis Albrecht (Hrsg.), Festschrift für Horst Schüler-Springorum zum 65. Geburtstag", 495ff~ (1993)
- Britta Specht, "Die zwischenstaatliche Geltung des Grundsatzes ne bis in idem", 179~ (1999)
- 김성규, "형법의 장소적 적용범위에 관한 규정의 내용과 한계", 형사법연구, (18), pp.181~210 (2002), 한국형사법학회
- 森下忠, "新しい國際刑法", 3~ (2002)
- Curt Markees, "'Mehrfache Territoriale Gerichtsbarkeit - Ne bis in idem und Auslieferung', in: Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für internationales Recht", 132~ (1985)
- Otto Lagodny & Christiane Nill, "Theobald, 'Besprechung von BGH, Urteil vom 30. 04", ~ (1999)
- Otto Lagodny, "Empfiehlt es sich, eine europäische Gerichtskompetenz für Strafgewaltkonflikte vorzusehen? - Gutachten im Auftrag des BMJ", 44~ (2001)
- Christian Böhm, "Der Grundsatz Ne bis in idem im Verhältnis der Staaten zueinander", 12~ (2001)
- Tom Vander Beken, "Gert Vermeulen & Otto Lagodny, 'Kriterien für die jeweils „beste‟ Strafgewalt in Europa, in: Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht", 625~ (2000)
- Dietrich Oehler u.a.(Hrsg.), "Aktuelle Probleme des Internationalen Strafrechts. Geburtstagsgabe für Heinrich Grützner", 88~ (1970)
- Albin Eser, "Otto Lagodny (Eds.)", Principles and Procedures for a New Transnational Criminal Law, 1992, pp.94~
- Ferederik C. Rüter, "'Harmonie trotz Dissonanz', in: Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft", 33~ (1993)
- Ursula Nelles, "'Europäisierung des Strafverfahrens', in: Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft", 748~ (1997)
- Otto Lagodny, "'Viele Strafgewalten und nur ein transnationales ne-bis-in-idem?', in: Andreas Donatsch u.a.(Hrsg.), Festschrift für Stefan Trechsel zum 65. Geburtstag", 255~ (2002)
- Dietrich Oehler, "Internationales Strafrecht, 2. Auflage", 578~ (1983)
- Andreas Eicker, "Transstaatliche Strafverfolgung", ~ (2004)
- Albin. Eser & J. L. de la Cuesta, "Les Compétences criminelles concurrentes nationales et internationales et le principe "ne bis in idem", in: Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal", 739~ (2002)
- 森下忠, "國際刑法學の課題", 160~ (2007)
- 김성규, "일사부재리의 원칙과 형법 제7조의 의미’", 성균관법학, 14(1), pp.~169 (2002)
- Joachim Vogel, in: Ders. & Michael Grotz, "Perspektiven des internationalen Strafprozessrechts", 38~ (2004)
- 森下忠, "國際刑法の基本問題", 120~ (1996)
- Frank Meyer, "'Complementing Complementarity', in: International Criminal Law Review", 560~ (2006)
- Kai Ambos, "Internationales Strafrecht", 430~ (2006)
- "Roland Michael Kniebühler, a.a.O", 105~
- Dionysios Spinellis, "'The ne bis in idem principle in the "global" instruments', in: Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal", instruments',in:Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal 2002,p, 1157~ (2002)
- Carl-Friedrich Stuckenberg, "Vorstudien zu Vorsatz und Irrtum im Völkerstrafrecht", ~ (2007)
- Otto Triffterer, "Dogmatische Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung eines materiellen Völkerstrafrechts seit Nürnberg", 25~ (1966)
- Dietrich Oehler, "'Theorie des Strafanwendungsrechts', in: Ders. u.a", 121f~