:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:引渡法之理論與實務—從國際引渡法論台灣制度
作者:洪期榮
作者(外文):Chyi-Rung Hung
校院名稱:國立臺灣海洋大學
系所名稱:海洋法律研究所
指導教授:陳荔彤
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2013
主題關鍵詞:引渡引渡法刑事司法互助習慣國際法豁免人員遣返ExtraditionExtradition Actmutual justice assistancecustomary international lawimmunityrepatriation of criminal
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(3) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:3
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:5
摘 要
引渡,係指具有刑事管轄權的請求國,為了追訴或審判罪犯,或對罪犯執行刑罰,基於雙邊條約、互惠原則或國際禮讓,向被請求國提出解送罪犯回國的請求。由於現在刑事犯罪型態多樣化及國際化,犯罪手法也更加組織化,加上交通的便利性,使得跨國(跨境)性的刑事犯罪,例如洗錢、組織犯罪、金融詐欺、毒品運送、破壞環境及恐怖主義等,時常利用國家之間法律制度的差異,逃避法律的制裁。而刑事司法互助就是打擊國際犯罪最有成效的法律程序,其中引渡則是追捕逃犯最為有效的司法活動。但是我國數十年來之國際地位日漸消退,國家主權遭受挑戰,尤其在中國的打壓之下,台灣並未與大多數的國家簽訂正式的引渡條約。因此,如何加強我國與國際社會進行刑事司法互助的合作,共同打擊國際刑事犯罪,則是目前急需解決的問題。
在研究方法方面,本文首先著手於文獻分析法,藉以整合並建立完整的知識,並得以提供解決問題的有效資料,創造出獨立的思考體系、見解與概念,以便作為本論文的理論基礎。再採用比較研究法來敘述事實與價值評論,將兩種以上的制度或事實加以有規劃的敘述、對照與分析,找出兩者之間的差異或優缺點,做為解決相關問題或改進制度之參考,並可作為制度改革的依據。最後以綜合歸納法,將上揭討論的文獻分析法與比較研究法加以歸納,最後作為建構引渡法制的研究方法。本文藉由綜合歸納法,將所有分析的文獻、專家學者的見解、參考的實務案例、歷代沿革的國際公約與國際實踐等,全部綜合起來進行歸納,從中找出問題的解決方法,進而重新產生自己的新觀點與新理論,並作為修改《引渡法》及《兩岸司法互助協議》之修法參考。
就引渡法制方面,本文首先探討習慣國際法的理論與實踐,包括引渡的一般法律原則與國際實踐,再來就國際公約或區域性的多邊公約所制定的引渡法條加以詮釋,得知國際公約的內容多源自習慣國際法,而以公約的方式表現出來,創造了成文國際法。另外,許多國家元首或外交代表涉嫌嚴重的重大國際犯罪,如戰爭、侵略、違反人道及滅絕種群等,是否得主張豁免權而拒絕引渡,本文也就國際實踐與《維也納外交關係公約》、《國際刑事法院羅馬規約》等國際公約加以討論。就引渡的審查程序方面,由於各國法律制度並不相同,在審查引渡請求的程序也多有差異,所以本文參酌各國引渡法制及國內審查程序等有關司法體系,來比較引渡審查制度的優劣性。此外,歐洲聯盟於2002年通過《歐盟逮捕令及解送程序架構規定》,廢除了歐盟國家之間的引渡制度,改由解送制度來代替,將解送請求歸類為單純的司法案件,免除了行政機關審查的權利,由司法機關單獨審查解送請求之准駁,本論文也藉由詮釋該架構規定與傳統引渡制度的差異性,期望能提供我國作為司法實務運作的經驗。在我國《引渡法》的修法方面,《引渡法》雖然是引渡罪犯的基本大法,但由於該法年久失修,未與習慣國際法及近代的國際公約接軌,以致部分條文無法在國際司法合作上發揮應有的效能,實務上也可能欠缺引渡執行之法律依據。因此本文亦參考各國法典、雙邊引渡條約、國際性公約與國際組織的法律,進而草擬《引渡法》修正條文,以便利引渡程序的順利進行,而達到追訴處罰犯罪之目的。
最後,由於台灣特殊的國際地位因素,與非邦交國簽訂雙邊引渡條約之可能性甚為低微,我國必須在不違反國際引渡制度的前提下,採用其他的替代措施,作為目前暫行的引渡模式;並應該先從狹義的刑事司法互助著手,與非邦交國簽訂司法互助協(議)定,加強我國與國際社會刑事司法互助的關係。在兩岸人犯解送的問題上,雙方應該在互信與互惠的基礎上,推動刑事司法互助的正常化,並協商修改《兩岸司法互助協議》之內容,使其能符合國際引渡制度的相關法律原則,以便利兩岸罪犯解送程序的進行,促進共同打擊犯罪的效率。
Abstract
Extradition refers to the requesting state with criminal jurisdiction, for the purposes of prosecuting or raising trials for criminals, or enforcing sentences to criminals, in accordance with bilateral treaties, principles of reciprocity or international comity, proposes to return criminals back from the requested state. Whereas the diversified and internationalized criminal patterns plus more organized manner of crime and convenience in transportation, the cross-state (cross-border) crimes such as money laundering, organized crime, financial fraud, drug transportation, destruction of environment and terrorism, often make a use of differences among cross-national legal systems to avoid legal sanctions. The mutual judicial assistance for criminal matters is the most effective lawful procedure to defeat international crimes, wherein the extradition is the most effective judicial activity hunting for the fugitives. However, over the past decades of years, our country had weaker status being positioned internationally, and our national sovereignty has been challenged, especially under China’s suppression, Taiwan (R.O.C.) never concluded with any formal extradition treaties with a majority of countries. Therefore, how to strengthen degrees of cooperation between our country and international community on mutual judicial assistance in criminal matters and defeating international crimes jointly become the issues needing urgent solution.
On the aspects of research methods, the Study first focuses on literature analysis, so as to integrate and establish complete series of knowledge and provide information for any solution to the problems effectively, as well as create independent thinking system, insights and concepts to serve as the theoretical base of the Study hereof. Further, a comparative study method was used to describe the facts and valued comments, systemically describe, compare and analyze more than two systems or facts, as well as identify differences or the pros and cons between them as the references to resolve the problem or improve the system containing base for system reform. Finally, a synthetic induction method was used to induce the literature analysis method and comparative study method stated above, which were served as the research methods to construct the regime of law of extradition. In this study, a synthesis method was used to combine and induce all analysis of literatures, inputs of experts and scholars, references of cases studies, historic international conventions and international practices, then, identify solution to the problems and regenerate new perspectives and new theories for references of amendments to “Extradition Act" and "Cross-strait Judicial Assistance Agreement”.
For the legal aspects of extradition, the Study firstly discusses the theory and practice of customary international law, including extradition of general principles of law and international practices, then followed by an interpretation of international conventions or the clauses as to extradition prescribed in regional multilateral conventions, where we learned that a majority of the contents in the international convention originate from customary international laws and expressed with a manner of convention for creation of codified international laws. Besides, many presidents of states or diplomatic representative were involved with severe degrees of serious international crimes, such as war crimes, the crime of aggression, genocide and against humanity, with which any claim pertain to the immunity right shall be raised and any extradition shall be rejected; this Study also discusses international practices and some international conventions such as 1961《Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations》, and 《International Criminal Court Statute》(ICC Statute) and so forth. On the examination procedure of extradition, as a result of difference among legal systems across nations, including applications of examination procedure for extradition, in this Study, a comparison of their pros and cons was also conducted through referring to the relevant judicial systems across nations and domestic ones. In addition, EU passed 《Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures》(FDEAWSP)in 2002, which abolished the extradition system across EU countries and replaced by surrender system that it classified the request as a simple judicial case, eliminating the rights of examination owned by the administrative authorities; there is a separate reviewer acted by a judiciary authority verifying approval or rejection of the examination request. In this Study, an interpretation of the differences between FDEAWSP and traditional extradition system was also done to expect the provision of references for the operation of judicial practices in our country. On the aspect of amendments to “Extradition Act (R.O.C.)”, even though it is a base of criminal extradition, it remained unchanged and is not in line with the contemporary international convention and customary international law, which causes failure of some provisions to deploy its full performance on international judicial cooperation; in view of the practice, it also is caused from the absence of legal base for enforcement of extradition measures. Therefore, this Study also refers to the criminal codes of nations across countries, bilateral extradition treaties, international conventions and laws of international organizations, further draft amendment of provisions stipulated in the “Extradition Act” to facilitate progress of extradition proceedings and achieve purposes of criminal prosecution and punishment.
Finally, due to reason of the tiny feasibility of the bilateral extradition treaties entered between Taiwan (R.O.C.), positioned unique around the world, and non-diplomatic states, we shall take other alternative measures as a provisional mode for extradition under a premise of non-violence of international extradition system; besides, we shall start with minor legal assistance in criminal matters and conclude with Mutual legal Assistance Agreement with non-diplomatic states to strengthen level of relationship between Taiwan (R.O.C.) and international community. For the issues raised on surrender of cross-strait criminals, the two sides shall intend to normalize the mutual assistance in criminal justice and negotiate to amend the contents of "Cross-strait Mutual Judicial Assistance Agreement” based on mutual trust and reciprocity, enabling to comply with the relevant legal principles of international extradition systems and facilitate process of surrender of cross-strait criminals, and promote efficiency of cooperation on defeating crimes.
參考書目
一、 中文繁體字
(一)專書
王玉民,社會科學研究方法原理(台北:洪葉文化事業有限公司,1994年)。
王泰銓,歐洲聯盟條約與歐洲共同體條約譯文及重要參考文件(台北:翰蘆圖書出版有限公司,2006年9月)。
丘宏達,現代國際法(台北:三民出版社有限公司,2006 年修訂二版)。
胡濤,立法學(台北:漢苑出版社,1980年)。
許世楷,「新生國家理論的提倡、續篇」,台灣獨立的理論與歷史(台北:前衛出版社,2002年)。
郭辰嘉,設計研究方法:比較研究法(台北:全華圖書出版有限公司,2006年)。
陳純一,國家豁免問題之研究--兼論美國的立場與實踐(台北:三民書局股份有限公司,民國89年3月初版)。
陳荔彤,台灣主權論(台北:元照出版有限公司,2004年5月)。
陳荔彤,「國際刑法普遍性管轄的回顧與前瞻:普林斯頓原則」,檢察新論,第11期(2012年1月)。
陳隆志,國際法引論(台北:元照出版公司,1999年9月初版)。
陳榮傑,引渡之理論與實踐(台北:三民書局股份有限公司,民國74年1月初版)。
陳麗娟,歐洲聯盟法精義(台北:新學林出版股份有限公司,2006年2月)。
葉至誠、葉立誠,研究方法與論文寫作(台北:商鼎數位出版有限公司,2011年7月,第三版)。
謝立功,兩岸洗錢現況與反洗錢法規範之探討—兼論兩岸刑事司法互助(桃園:中央警察大學出版社,民國92年4月)。
韓乾,研究方法原理(台北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司,2008年11月初版)。
ii
(二)期刊論文:
王安國,「兩岸信心建立措施之評析」,遠景基金會季刊,第10卷第3期(2009年7月)。
王寬弘、柯雨瑞,「美國《1996年移民及國籍法》收容、遣返及司法審查制度之介紹」,警學叢刊,第30卷第5期(民國89年3月)。
申育誠,「國際刑事法院之研究」,新世紀智庫論壇,第24期(2003年12月)。
江慶興,「中華民國警察防制跨國犯罪執法現況研析」,台灣警察專科學校警專學報,第4卷第6期(民國98年10月)。
何秉松,「現代恐怖主義之意義與反恐怖主義的國際實踐」,國政研究報告(91年8月2日)。
李明峻,「台灣現階段之統獨爭議—兼論中華民國之法地位」,台灣國際地位研討會會議手冊(台灣法治暨政策研究基金會等主辦,於2009年11月21日在台灣金融研訓院舉辦)。
李明歡,「國際移民的定義與類別—兼論中國移民問題」,華僑華人歷史研究,第2期(2009年6月)。
汪毓瑋,「起訴國際恐怖份子面臨法律之爭議-美國案例之初探」,第三屆通識教育與警察學術研討會(民國96年5月22日)。
周成瑜,「論兩岸刑事司法互助之困境與對策」,展望與探索,第5卷第5期(2007年5月)。
城仲模,「台灣國際地位」、「還原台灣國際地位真相」、「台灣是咱的故鄉,也是咱的原鄉」,台灣平民政府全球代表大會(台北:台灣平民政府祕書處,2010年4月25日)。
柯慶忠,「歐盟引渡制度之新變革—以歐盟逮捕令為逮捕及解送之新制」,東吳法律學報,第18卷第3期(2007年4月)。
洪期榮,「論船舶之刑事管轄權與人船處理原則—以1996年福明輪案件為討論案例」,台灣國際法季刊,第7卷第1期(2010年3月)。
洪期榮、陳荔彤,「新歐盟逮捕令及解送程序架構規定與傳統國際法引渡制度的
iii
比較研究」,軍法專刊,第57卷第1期(民國100年2月)。
袁鶴齡,「兩岸協商談判之回顧與展望」,研習論壇精選,第四輯(2010年12月)。
張文貞,「國際人權法與內國憲法的匯流:台灣施行兩大人權公約之後」,發表於台灣法學會2009年學術研討會(台北:2009年12月19日)。
莊坤龍,「美國反恐戰爭之國際法爭議及最高法院判決分析」,歐美研究,第36卷第3期(2006年9月)。
許書坤,「跨國涉外犯罪偵查實務」,法務部98年度刑事司法互助研討會(民國98年3月24日),江慶興,「中華民國警察防制跨國犯罪執法現況研析」,台灣警察專科學校警專學報,第4卷第6期(民國98年10月)。
許寶義,「論日本對非法外國人之收容與遣返」,警學叢刊,第30卷第5期(民國89年3月),
陳文雄,「收容與遣返外國人之法律問題」,警學叢刊,第28卷第1期(民國86年7月)。
陳茘彤,「國際刑事法院的誕生與美國主張豁免管轄的國際法實踐」,月旦法學雜誌,第92期(2003年1月)。
陳荔彤,「國際刑法普遍性管轄的回顧與前瞻—普林斯頓原則」,檢察新論,第11期(2012年1月)。
陳荔彤,「國際法的承認與現時我國的法人人格」,法學叢刊,第38卷第151期,(民國82年7月)。
陳隆志,「台灣的國際法地位」,新世紀智庫論壇,第7 期(1999年9月)。
葉竹鳳,「兩岸共同打擊犯罪之實務及困境—電信詐騙防堵」,2011年兩岸檢察實務研討會論文集(台北:台灣高等法院檢察署,2011年6月)。
葉祐逸,「從跨境犯罪論海峽兩岸相互間刑事司法互助之最佳模式」,靜宜人文社會學報,第2卷第1期(2008 年1 月)。
蔡裕明,國際防範小型武器與輕兵器擴散之研究,2010年非傳統安全─反洗錢、不正常人口移動、毒品、擴散學術研討會,民國99年。
蕭琇安,「國際法禁止使用武力原則與台海兩岸關係」,問題與研究,第46卷第
iv
1期(民國96年3月)。
謝立功,「兩岸跨境犯罪及其對策」,刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集(七) (台北:法務部編印,民國93年12月)。
謝笠天,「台灣於美國法院之法律地位」,台灣國際法季刊,第6卷第2期(2009年6月)。
魏利祝,「兩岸共同打擊犯罪之現狀與未來展望--以經濟犯罪為例」,2010年兩岸司法合作與兩岸共同打擊犯罪學術研討會論文集(2010年6月10日)。
蘇進強,「中國偷渡客對台灣國家安全的影響」,新世紀智庫論壇,第23期(台北:2003年9月)。
蘇義雄,「論外國管轄豁免—英美兩國之實踐」,中興法學,第31期(民國79年11月)。
(三)學術論文:
許芳雄,「兩岸特殊關係下跨境犯罪之研究:以新興詐欺集團為例」,玄奘大學98學年度公共事務管理學系碩士在職專班研究計畫書(民國98年12月)。
許義寶,「外國人入出國與居留之研究:以我國法制為探討中心」,國立中正大學法學研究所博士論文(2007年6月)。
蔡佩芬,「外國刑事暨附帶民事判決之承認與執行研究」,國立中正大學法律學研究所博士論文(2005年8月)。
賴志豪,「國際引渡制度之演進與變遷」,國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文(2004年6月)。
鍾德勳,「兩岸刑事司法互助與共同打擊犯罪之研究」,國立東華大學公共行政研究所碩士論文(2003年6月)。
(四)國際組織及政府出版物:
台灣彰化地方法院檢察署99年度偵字第9432號起訴書、同案警方移送書及卷證資料。
立法院第7屆第3會期第12次會議議案關係文書,議案編號:0980504071000100
v
號。
姜皇池、黃昭元,「國際法課程教材發展計劃」期中報告,97年教育部法學教育教學研究創新計劃(執行單位:國立台灣大學法律學院,民國97年10月)。
第七屆聯合國預防犯罪和罪犯待遇大會,1985年8月26日至9月6日,米蘭:秘書處編寫報告(聯合國出版物,出售品編號:E.86.IV.1)。
最高法院85年度台非字第3號刑事判決及司法院廳刑一字第1669號法律問題研討結果。
臺灣高等法院暨所屬法院92年法律座談會彙編(93年4月)。
聯合國大會1946年2月13日第3(I)號及1946年12月11日第95(I)號決議。
聯合國大會1966年12月16日第2202 A(XXI)號決議。
聯合國大會正式記錄第57屆會議,補編第4號 (A/57/4):國際法院報告(2001年8月1日至2002年7月31日),第55頁,編號308-327。
聯合國大會檔案:A/RES/52/164。
聯合國大會檔案:A/RES/54/109。
聯合國大會檔案:A/RES/59/290。
聯合國安全理事會1984年10月23日第556號決議。
vi
二、中文簡體字
(一)專書
(荷蘭)Richard Plender著,翁里、徐公社譯,國際移民法(北京:中國人民公安大學出版社,2006年4月初版)。
Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 曾令良、余敏友等譯,國際公法原理(北京:法律出版社,2007年7月)。
Kay Haibronner , Wolfgang Graf Vitzthum,ed., Völkerrecht, 吳越、毛曉飛譯,國際法(北京:法律出版社,2002年9月)。
Sang Hyun Song (韓),方翌譯,「論國際刑事法院的獨立性及防止政治干涉措施」,國際刑法評論,趙秉志、盧建平主編,第3卷(北京:中國人民公安大學出版社,2009年1月第1版)。
王秀梅譯,國際刑法的淵源與內涵—理論體系(北京:法律出版社,2003年8月)。
成良文,刑事司法協助(北京:法律出版社,2003年10月,第一版)。
李世光、劉大群、凌岩主編,國際刑事法院羅馬規約評譯(上)(北京:北京大學出版社,2006年4月)。
徐久生、莊敬華譯,德國刑法典(北京:中國法制出版社,2000年1月第1版)。
馬進保,國際犯罪與國際刑事司法協助(北京:法律出版社,1999年版)。
張智輝,國際刑法通論(北京:中政法大學出版社,2009年4月,第三版)。
梅汝璈,遠東國際軍事法庭(北京:法律出版社,2005年7月第1版)。
陳正云,《聯合國反腐敗公約》概述,陳光中主編,聯合國打擊有組織犯罪公約和反腐敗公約程序問題研究(北京:中國政法大學出版社,2007年7月初版)。
黃風,中國引渡制度研究(北京:中國政法大學出版社,1997年)。
黃風,中華人民共和國引渡法評註(北京:中國法制出版社,2001年)。
黃風,引渡制度(北京:法律出版社,1997年版)。
黃風、凌岩、王秀梅,國際刑法學(北京,中國人民大學出版社,2007年7月)。
vii
黃瑤等著,聯合國全面反恐公約研究—基於國際法的角度(北京:法律出版社,2010年1月初版)。
趙秉志,歐盟刑事司法協助研究—相關文獻中英文本(北京:中國人民公安大學出版社,2002年)。
齊文遠、劉代華,國際犯罪與跨國犯罪研究(北京:北京大學出版社,2004年12月版)。
蔡桂生,「論有限外交豁免制度—基於《國際刑事法院規約》第27條的國際刑法角度的分析」,趙秉志、盧建平主編,國際刑法評論(北京:中國人民公安大學出版社,2009年1月,初版)。
盧有學,戰爭罪刑事責任研究(北京:法律出版社,2007年4月)。
龔刃韌,國家豁免問題的比較研究(北京:北京大學出版社,2005年10月)。
(二)期刊
馬賀,「歐洲統一逮捕令的產生及其對引渡制度的變革」,犯罪研究,2008年第1期。
viii
三、英文
(一)書籍
Antonio Cassese, Inhuman States : Imprisonment, Detention and Torture in Europe Today ( Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers Ltd.,1996).
B. J. George, Jr., Ved P.Nanda and M.Cherif Bassiouni, eds., “Diplomatic and Consular Immunity”, International criminal law: A Guide To U.S. Practice and Procedure(New York: Practising Law Institute, April, 1987).
Bertil Duner, An End to Torture (St. Martin’s Press Inc, 1998) .
Black's Law Dictionary 450 (7th ed.,1999).
Bruce Zagaris, Richard D. Atkins ed., International Tax and Related Crimes: Gathering Evidence, Comparative Ethics, Related Matters, The Alleged Transnational Criminal- The Second Biennial International Criminal Law Seminar (Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1995).
Charles Arnold-Baker, The Companion to British History, 3rd ed. (London: Loncross Denholm Press, November, 2008).
D.P. O’Connell, International Law, 2nd ed., Vol.2 (London: Stevens, 1970).
David McClean , International Co-operation in Civil and Criminal Matters, 2nd ed. (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2002).
Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law: Private Suits Against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts (Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg , 2005).
Geoff Gilbert, Transnational Fugitive Offenders in International Law: Extradition and other Mechanisms (London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998).
Green H Hackworth, Digest of international law,Vol.4(Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1942).
ix
H. Lauterpacht, ed., Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases, Vol.8 (London: Butterworth &; Co., 1941).
H. Lauterpacht, ed., Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases, Vol.4 (London: Butterworth &; Co., 1932).
H. Lauterpacht,C.J. Greenwood,eds.,International Law Reports: Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases 1938-1940, Vol.9(London: Butterworth &; Co., 1942).
Haynes, John Earl, and Harvey Klehr, Early Cold War Spies: The Espionage Trials that Shaped American Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, August, 2006).
Higgins, Rosalyn, The Development of International Law through the Political Organs of the United Nations (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1963).
Hyde, International Law, Vol.2 (1922), p.586.
Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 5th ed. ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) .
Ivan Anthony Shearer, Starke’s International Law, 11th ed. ( London:Butterworth &; Co.,Ltd.,1994 ).
Ivan Anthony Shearer, Extradition in International Law (U.K. Manchester.: Manchester University Press : Dobbs Ferry N.Y. Oceana Publications, 1971).
J.G. Starke, An Introduction to International Law, 8th ed. ( London : Butterworth &; Co., Ltd.,1977).
James Leslie Brierly, The Law of Nations : An Introduction to the International Law of Peace, 6th ed , (Oxford: Clarendon Press , 1963).
Joseph M. Sweeney, Covey T. Oliver, Noyes E. Leech, Cases and materials on the international legal system (Foundation Press, 1973).
Karel C. Wellens, ed., T.M.C. Asser Instituut (1990), Resolutions and statements of the
x
United Nations Security Council (1946-1989): a thematic guide (Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990).
Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International criminal law (New York:Oxford University Press Inc., 2001).
Laurence Oppenheim, International Law, 8th ed.,(London and New York: Longmans, Green and Co.,1955).
League Oppenheim, International Law : A Treaties,Vol.1, 5th ed., Hersh Lauterpacht ed.(London &; New York: Longmans , Green and Co., 1937).
Louis Henkin , International Law: Case and Materials ,3th ed.(London, England: West Publishing Co.,1993).
M Cherif Bassiouni , International Extradition : United States law and practice, 4th ed.( Dobbs Ferry, N.Y. : Oceana Publications,2002).
M. Cherif Bassiouni, , International Extradition and World Public Order (Dobbs Ferry, New York: Sijthoff-Leyden , Oceana Publications, 1974).
M. Cherif Bassiouni and E.M. Wise, Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law (Dortrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995).
M. Cherif Bassiouni, “The need for international accountability,” International Criminal Law, Vol.3 (1999).
M. Cherif Bassiouni, ed., International Criminal Law: Procedural and Enforcement Mechanisms, 2nd ed. ( New York: Transnational Publishers, 1999).
M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Extradition: United States Law and Practice, 4th ed. ( N.Y. : Oceana Publications Inc., May, 2002).
M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Criminal Law, A Draft International Criminal Code (Netherlands : Sijthoff and Noordhoff ,1980).
M.Cherif Bassiouni , Draft Statute International Criminal Tribunal , A.I.D.P.
xi
(Association Internationale de Droit Pénal)Nouvelles Etudes Penales, 1992. No.9.
M.Cherif Bassiouni, International Criminal Law (Netherlands:Martinus Nijihoff Publishers, 1980).
M.Cherif Bassiouni, Ved P. Nanda, eds., International criminal law, A Guide To U.S. Practice and Procedure(New York: Practising Law Institute, April, 1987).
Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, Vol.6 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968).
Mark Eugen Villiger, Customary International Law and Treaties, 1st ed.( Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, April 22, 1985).
Rebecca M.M. Wallace, International law, A Student Introduction (London:Sweet &; Maxwell, 1986).
Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts, eds., Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol.1, 9th ed. ( England:Longmans Group UK Limited, 1992 ).
Russell Ackoff L., et al., Scientific Methods: optimizing applied research decision (Robert E. Krierger Publishing Company Inc., 1984).
Satya Deva Bedi, Extradition in International Law and Practice,1st ed. (Rotterdam:Brunder-Offset, 1966 ).
Steve Peers, EU Justice and Home affairs (Harlow: Longman, 2000).
Ved P.Nanda, M.Cherif Bassiouni ,eds., International criminal law, A Guide To U.S. Practice and Procedure(New York: Practising Law Institute, April, 1987).
Wallace, R. and Holliday, A., International Law, 1st ed., (London: Sweet &; Maxwell, 2006).
Webster's Third New International Dictionary 605 (1986).
William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
(二)期刊
Albert H. Garretson , “the Immunities of Representatives of Foreign States,” N.Y.U.
xii
Law Review, Vol.41 (1966) .
Ambos, Kai, “Current Issues in International Criminal Law,” Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, 2nd Revised ed., Cherif Bassiouni, ed., The Hague, Kluwer Law, 1999, Criminal Law Forum, Vol.14 (2003).
Anderson, Julie , “The HUMINT Offensive from Putin's Chekist State,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence (2007).
Anne-Marie Slaughter, “The Long Arm of Law,” Foreign Policy (1999).
B. J. George, Jr., Ved P.Nanda and M.Cherif Bassiouni eds., “Diplomatic and Consular Immunity,” International criminal law, A Guide To U.S. Practice and Procedure(New York : Practising Law Institute, April, 1987).
Bruce Zagaris, “International Tax and Related Crimes: Gathering Evidence, Comparative Ethics, Related Matters,” The Alleged Transnational Criminal- The Second Biennial International Criminal Law Seminar, Richard D. Atkins ed. (Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995).
Buckley, “ Origins of Diplomatic Immunity in England,” U.S.MIAMI Law Review (1966).
Christopher L., Blakeslee, “The Law of International Extradition: A Comparative Study,” International Review of Penal Law, Vol.62 (1991).
David Stoelting , “Status Report on the International Criminal Court,” Hofstra Law and Policy Symposium, Vol.3 (1999).
Edwin Hardin Sutherland , “White-Collar Criminality,” American Sociological Review, Vol.5, No.1 (February, 1940).
Ethan A. Nadelmann, “The Evolution of United States Involvement in the International Rendition of Fugitive Criminals,” N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. &; Pol.,Vol.25 (1993).
F. A. Mann., “Immunity of Foreign Sovereigns,” The Modern Law Review,Vol.12,No.4 (Oct., 1949).
George, “Jurisdiction Bases for Criminal Legislation and Its Enforcement,”MICH. Y.B.
xiii
International Legal Study(1983).
Green, “Trend in the Law Concerning Diplomats,” CAN. Y.B. of International Law ,Vol.19 (1981) .
Guenael Mettraux, “Crimes Against Humanity in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda,” Harvard International Law Journal, Vol.43 (2002).
Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, “International Law and Human Rights: Trends Concerning International Migrants and Refugees,” International Migration Review,Vol.23, No.3(New York: The Center for Migration Studies Inc.,1989).
Hsieh, Li Tian, Pasha, “An Unrecognized State in Foreign and International Courts: The Case of the Republic of China on Taiwan,” Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol.28 ( Summer , 2007).
J.S. Reeves, “Extradition Treaties and the Death Penalty,” Am. J. Int'l L., Vol.18 (American Society of International Law, April, 1924).
Jacob Philip E., “International Extradition: Implications of the Eisler Case,” Yale Law Journal, Vol.59, No.4 (1950).
James Sloan, “Prosecutor v. Todorovic: Illegal Capture as an Obstacle to the Exercise of International Criminal Jurisdiction,” Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol.16 (Holland: Leiden University Faculty of Law, 2003)
Jenkins, David , “The Sedition Act of 1798 and the Incorporation of Seditious Libel into First Amendment Jurisprudence,” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol.45, No.2 (Apr., 2001),
Kathryn F. King, “The Death Penalty, Extradition, And The War Against Terrorism: U.S. Responses to European Opinion About Capital Punishment,” Buffalo Human Rights Law Review,Vol.9 (N.Y.: Buffalo Law School, the State University of N.Y., 2003).
Kneebone S., McSherry B., “Trafficking in Women and Forced Migration: Moving
xiv
Victims Across the Border of Crime into the Domain of Human Rights,” International Journal of Human Rights, Vol.12 (Australia: Faculty of Law, Monash University, 21, Jan, 2008).
Kutner Luis, “World Habeas Corpus and International Extradition,” University of Detroit Law Journal, Vol.41 (1964) .
Lubrano, Brenda M, “United States' Extraterritorial Abductions - A Lesson in the Futility of International Law and Extradition Treaties for the Prevention of Unilateral Abductions,” J. Int'l L. &; Prac.,Vol.2 (1993).
M. Cherif Bassiouni , Draft Statute International Criminal Tribunal , A.I.D.P.(Association Internationale de Droit Pénal)Nouvelles Etudes Penales, 1992. No.9.
M.Cherif Bassiouni, “Extradition: the United States Model,” International Review of Penal Law, Vol.62 (1991).
M.O. Gasiokwu , “Crises of Absolutism in State’s Sovereign Immunity Practice: The Nigerian Approach,” Current Jos Law Journal, Vol. 2. No.77 (1996).
Melanie M. Laflin, “Kidnapped Terrorists: Bringing International Criminals to Justice through Irregular Rendition and Other Quasi-legal Options,” Journal of Legislation, Vol.26 (2000).
Michael Byers, “The Law and Politics of the Pinochet Case,” Duke Journal of Comparative &; International Law, Vol.10 , No.2 (Spring/Summer, 2000).
O'Higgins &; Dublin, “Unlawful Seizure and Irregular Extradition,” BRIT.Y.B.INT'L L.,Vol.36 (1960).
Paul Levine, Ron Smith , “The Arms Trade and Arms Control,” The Economic Journal, Vol. 105, No. 429 (UK :Royal Economic Society, March,1995).
Quincy Wright, "Some Thoughts about Recognition," Vol. 44 , American Journal of International Law, (1950).
Rebane, Kai I, “Extradition and Individual Rights: The Need for an International Criminal Court to Safeguard Individual Rights,” Fordham Int’l L.J. Vol.19 (April,
xv
1996).
Research in International Law under the Auspices of the Faculty of the Harvard Law School , AM. J. Int’l. L. Vol.29 (Supp.No.1, 1935).
Robert G. Neumann, “Neutral States and the Extradition of War Criminals,” American Journal of International Law,Vol.45 (1951).
Robert I. Rotberg , “Failed States in a World of Terror,” Foreign Affairs, Vol.81, Issue 4(New York: Council on Foreign Relations , July-August, 2002).
Snow, Thomas G., “The Investigation and Prosecution of White Collar Crime: International Challenges and The Legal Tools Available to Address Them,” William &; Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol.11 (December, 2002).
Sack, A. N., “(Non-) Enforcement of Foreign Revenue Laws In International Law and Practice,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol.81 (March, 1933).
Schabas,William A.,“Indirect Abolition:Capital Punishment’s Role in Extradition Law and Practice,” Loyola of L.A. Int'l &; Comp. L. Rev., Vol.25 (Summer, 2003).
Shachor Landau, “Extra-Territorial Penal Jurisdiction and Extradition,” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.29 (1980).
Shri.M.V.K.Moorthy, “Doctrine of Jurisdiction International Law”, Souvenir published at the time of National Tax Conference held at Hyderabad, p.124. Reproduced with permission from the All India Federation of Tax Practitioner(AIFTP)Journal, September 2008 issue.
Stefano Manacorda, “Restraints on Death Penalty in Europe: A Circular Process,” J. Int'l Crim. Just.,Vol.1(August,2003).
Van Schaack, Beth, “The Crime of Political Genocide: Repairing the Genocide Convention's Blind Spot,” Yale Law Journal, Vol.106, No.7 (May, 1997).
(三)國際組織及各國政府出版物
119 US Supreme Court Reports 407(Decided December 6, 1886).
31 US Treaties and Other International Agreements 894 ( Washington DC :Dept. of
xvi
State).
31 US Treaties and Other International Agreements 894 ( Washington DC :Dept. of State).
A. Wess Mitchell and Ted Reinert eds., U.S.-Central European Relations in the Age of Obama, Report No. 22 (Washington: Center for European Policy Analysis, July 2009).
Department of State , Digest of United States Practice in International Law (Washington, DC: Office of the Legal Adviser, 1978).
Federal Reporter Vol.119 (1886).
Model Treaty on Extradition, U.N. GAOR 3d Comm., 45th Sess., Agenda Item 100, at 6, U.N. Doc. A/RES/45/116 (1991).
Report of ICJ, General Assembly Official Records, 65 Session, Supplement No.4 (1 August 2009-31 July 2010), CharterⅡ, Β ( Privileges and Immunities).
Report of the Asian and Pacific Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice(A/CONF.203/RPM.1/1),para.17.
Report of the Latin American and Caribbean Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice(A/CONF.203/RPM.2/1),para.2.
Revised Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the U.S. ( Tent. Draft No.5, 1984),at 13-15, Reporter’s note 3.
The Eleventh United Nations Congresson Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Enhancing international law enforcement cooperation, including extradition measures, (Bangkok:18-25 April 2005, Item 8⒜ of the provisional agenda, A/CONF.203/9).
The Restatement ( Second ) of Foreign Relations Law of the U.S., at 249 (1965).
The Revised Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the U.S. ( Tent. Draft No.4, 1983).
xvii
The Tenth United Nations Congress Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Discussion guide on the workshops, ancillary meetings, symposia and exhibits to be held at the Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (Vienna, 10-17 April 2000, A/CONF.187/ PM.1/Add.1).
The Twelfth United Nations Congress Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Practical approaches to strengthening international cooperation in fighting crime-related problems, (Salvador, Brazil: 12-19 April 2010, Item 9 of the provisional agenda, A/CONF.213/10).
U.N. the Human Rights Council, Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, (A/HRC/7/L, 20 March 2008).
U.S. Department of State, Bulletin, Vol.23 (June,1952).
U.S. Department of State, Bulletin,Vol.44 , Number 6 (December,1996).
UN Treaties Series, Vol.550 (1968).
UN Treaties Series,Vol.78 (1951).
UN Treaties Series, Vol. 1582, No. 27627.
UN Treaties Series, vol. 2225, No. 39574.
UN Treaties Series, Vol.1752, No. 30597.
United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Official Records, Summary records of the plenary meetings, Vol.2 (Rome, 15 June-17 July 1998), A/CONF.183/1.
Unted States Congress (75th, 3rd Session, 1937) Senate Document ; No.134, Treaties, conventions, international acts, protocols and agreements between the United States of America and other powers (1923-1937), Vol.4 (US: Government Printing Office,1938).
USAM Chapter 9 International Extradition and Related Matters, US Attorneys' Criminal Resource Manual, United States Department of Justice.
Zdzislaw Galicki, Preliminary Report on the Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute
xviii
(“aut dedere aut judicare”), UN General Assembly A/CN.4/571(7 June, 2006).
(四)參考案例
119 US Supreme Court Reports 407 (Decided December 6, 1886).
1950 Colombian-Peruvian asylum case,
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) , ICJ Press Release 2000/40, 8 December 2000.
Attorney-General v. Eichmann. 36 I.L.R. 5 (1961).
Case The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC-01/04-01/06 ).
Collins v. Loisel , 259 U.S. 309 (1922).
Krajina v. the Tass Agency [1949] 2 All ER 274.
Prosecutor v. Ntuyaha, Case No.ICTR-90-40-T (18 Mar., 1999).
Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No.IT-94-I-AR72 (Tadic Jurisdiction Appeal Decision, 2 Oct., 1995), para.62.
Sun v. Taipei Eco. &; Cultural Representative Office, 34 F.App’x. 529, 531 (9th Cir. 2000).
Taiwan v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 128 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 1997) (NO. 97-70375).
The Congo v. Belgium Case, ICJ judgment, 2002, para.58.
The Parlement Belge case, [1879] 4 PD 129.
The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Appeal Chamber, ICTR-96-4 (1 June 2001) , para.445.
The schooner Exchange v. McFaddon , 11 U. S. 116 (1812).
Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria. [1977] Q.B.529 (C.A.).
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE