| Summary: | 博士 === 國立臺灣海洋大學 === 海洋法律研究所 === 102 === International criminal jurisdiction according to international criminal law is determined by the category of the crime. For serious international crimes, such as war crimes, aggression, crimes against humanity, or genocide, that not only severely breach human rights but also violate the common values or benefits of human beings, a jurisdiction system surpassing state sovereignty is necessary to maintain peace and order as well as justice in international society. An expanded type of jurisdiction derived from such considerations is called universal jurisdiction. For a serious international crime, a state that is neither the locus delicti, the national state of the perpetrator or the victim nor the injured state of the crime, still possesses universal jurisdiction for prosecuting and punishing the perpetrator of the crime. It is international custom that when granting a state jurisdiction over a crime based on the territorial principle, the personality principle or the protective principle, the locus delicti has priority over the national state of the perpetrator or victim, or the injured state of the crime. In other words, certain connecting factors between the jurisdiction state and the crime are necessary for granting jurisdiction. For universal jurisdiction, on the other hand, either no connecting factor is required or the serious category of the international crime can be regarded as the one and only connecting factor because a serious international crime may harm the common interest of human beings and damage the order, safety and peace of international society. Besides, it is unreasonable to let those who have committed international crimes escape from legal prosecution and penalties simply because the jurisdiction state is not the locus delicti, the nationality state of the perpetrator or victim or the injured state of the crime.
Aside from discussing implications of the universal jurisdiction system, its formation and historical development, the author further examines the theories and practices of the principle of universal jurisdiction based on two main axes, the first, customary international law and second, conventional international law, to thoroughly explore conflicts between the universal jurisdiction principle and immunity-related laws. Regarding the international trend of the development of the universal jurisdiction principle, the author raises issues from The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction. These issues include the category and nature of international crimes; international norms and standards as well as the obligation under international law for executive state to observe the principle of good faith; enhancement of universal jurisdiction accountability; prohibition of double jeopardy and the principle of reasonable bail; refusal of extradition of criminals who are under risk of capital punishment and torture for human rights protection; solutions to competition for jurisdiction and related disputes; and restrictions on exclusion of immunity, amnesty, and statute of limitations. Referring to customary international law and conventional international law, cases and practices provided by international criminal justice agencies, and legal comments from experts and scholars, the author first lays out the basic concepts and practices to achieve a good theory-practice balance. Then, the author examines legal comments and explanations that can be exchanged and are interactive between the legal concept of The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction and the above-mentioned laws and practices before applying the findings to the legal system of Taiwan and presenting the results to the legislative and executive agencies of Taiwan as reference for revising the Criminal Law, Civil Aviation Act, Human Trafficking Prevention Act, Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Act and other relevant laws or for establishing new articles. The objective is to prompt Taiwan to be compatible conceptually with other democratic nations regarding serious international crimes including piracy, slavery, torture, war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity in order to maintain long-lasting peace and order in international society through preventing impunity, promoting judicial comprehensiveness, and strengthening the major values and goals of the rule of law.
|
|---|
