資料載入處理中...
臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統
:::
網站導覽
國圖首頁
聯絡我們
操作說明
English
行動版
(3.145.141.118)
登入
字型:
**字體大小變更功能,需開啟瀏覽器的JAVASCRIPT,如您的瀏覽器不支援,
IE6請利用鍵盤按住ALT鍵 + V → X → (G)最大(L)較大(M)中(S)較小(A)小,來選擇適合您的文字大小,
如為IE7以上、Firefoxy或Chrome瀏覽器則可利用鍵盤 Ctrl + (+)放大 (-)縮小來改變字型大小。
來源文獻查詢
引文查詢
瀏覽查詢
作者權威檔
引用/點閱統計
我的研究室
資料庫說明
相關網站
來源文獻查詢
/
簡易查詢
/
查詢結果列表
/
詳目列表
:::
詳目顯示
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆
/1
頁
來源文獻資料
摘要
外文摘要
引文資料
題名:
論洛克比空難案所涉及之國際法問題
書刊名:
軍法專刊
作者:
趙國材
作者(外文):
Chao, J. K. T.
出版日期:
2010
卷期:
56:6
頁次:
頁58-77
主題關鍵詞:
國際恐怖主義
;
洛克比案
;
政治犯罪
;
臨時辦法
;
管轄權之衝突
;
法律責任
;
國際刑事協助
;
1963年關於在航空器內的犯罪和其他某些行為的東京公約
;
1970年關於制止非法劫持航空器的海牙公約
;
1971年關於制止危害民用航空安全的非法行為的蒙特利爾公約
;
國際法院規約
;
國際法院規則
;
International terrorism
;
Aerial Incident at Lockerbie Cases
;
Political offences
;
Provisional measure
;
Conflicts of jurisdiction
;
Legal responsibility
;
International criminal assistance
;
Tokyo convention on offense and certain other acts committed on board aircraft
;
Hague convention for the suppression of unlawful seizure of aircraft
;
Montreal convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation
;
Statue of the ICJ
;
Rules of ICJ
原始連結:
連回原系統網址
相關次數:
被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(
1
) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
排除自我引用:0
共同引用:0
點閱:36
1988年12月21日發生在蘇格蘭洛克比機場上空的「洛克比空難案」(Lockerbie Case ),行為人是利比亞安全情報人員埃梅格伊(Ali-Abdel Basser al-Mergrahi)、 法伊瑪(Ali-Amin Khalifa Fahima),根據屬地主義(Territorial Principle),英國 有管轄權;行為人是利比亞安全情報人員,根據屬人主義(Nationality Principle), 利比亞有管轄權;受害者270人包括英國在內許多國家的國民,根據屬人主義,受 害者的國籍國有管轄權;泛美航空公司103號班機(Pan Am Flight 103)是在美國 登記的公司,被炸毀的航空器登記的國籍國為美國,根據屬人主義美國亦有管轄 權。在刑事管轄權方面,犯罪行為人已逃回其本國利比亞,利比亞有管轄權。本文 首先闡述國際法上關於在航空器犯罪的幾項重要公約,再討論1971 年《關於制止 危害民用航空安全的非法行為的蒙特利爾公約》引渡或起訴的解釋與適用所引起之 爭端,利比亞基於「政治犯不引渡原則」(Principle of Non-Extradition of Political Offences),堅持不肯將嫌犯引渡給英美審判;英、美及利比亞運用國際法處理該 案之經過、法律爭點、雙方辯駁、聯合國安理會第731 號決議案與國際法院之判 決;探討法律解決、政治解決、國際法院與安理會之關係及司法審查等。最後析論 國際恐怖主義之管轄權衝突、法律責任歸屬及國際刑事協助等問題。
以文找文
After a number of investigations the Lord Advocate of Scotland and a Grand Jury of the United States charged and indicted two Libyan nationals, Abdel Basser al-Mergrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima, of complicity in the bombing. The UK and the US demanded the rendition of two named Libyan suspects accused aircraft sabotage of involvement in the placing of a bomb on the Pan American airliner Flight 103 on 21 December 1988, which blew up over the Scottish town Lockerbie, so that they could face trial in New York or Scotland. Libya rejected the demand, stating that it would investigate the case itself and asking for the evidence in the hands of the American and British prosecutors to help to do so. Libya noted that it was legally not in apposition to extradite its own nationals. Libya then brought against the US and the UK at the International Court of Justice, the Court's treatment of Libya's request for provisional measures showed that it was alive to this point. On this premiss Libya ask the Court on 3 March 1992 to indicate provisional measures that the UK and US should cease and desist from threats and further action against Libya. The Court opened its hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures on 26 March 1992, with the President of the case declining to use his discretionary powers under Article 74 (4) of the Rules of the Court to call upon the parties to the dispute to act in a way which would not prejudice any future Order on provisional measures. Five public sittings of the Court followed on 26, 27, and 28 March with both parties presenting oral arguments on the request for the indication of provisional measures. Libya maintains that the US and the UK breached their legal obligations under the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation by, inter alia,demanding that Libya surrender the alleged offenders for trial either in Scotland or in the United States. Libya arguing that the acts alleged constituted an offence under the Montreal Convention, and that the UK and US were in breach of the convention by virtue of the pressure they were placing on Libya to surrender the two Libyan nationals for trial. It is far from clear that Libya is in breach of its obligations under the Montreal Convention. The primary duty of a State is to submit a case to its prosecutor if it does not extradite the fugitive. Libya has made elaborate gestures of its willingness to do this. Even if there were a duty to extradite, that duty is to be exercised in accordance with national extradition law and Libya may not, according to that law, surrender its nationals. In any event, the fugitives have an arguable case that the offences are political character and thus non-extraditable. It may yet be that there are legal questions to be raised on the merits about the right of the Security Council to proceed in the way that it has, and political questions about the influence of the Western permanent members of the Security Council's decision-making. It appears that the Security Council in the Lockerbie Cases as an innovation which may be relied upon for the enforcement of the counter-terrorism treaties. Whether terrorist State exception is applicable in this case or not that is another issue. Libya had questioned whether they would have a fair trial if they were surrendered. However, this is irrelevant to some extent because the Security Council requests in its Resolution 731(1992) to extradite two Libyan suspected bombers to the United Kingdom or the United States for trial. On 31 March 1992, the Security Council passed a Resolution 748 (1992), which makes no express reference to Chapter VII, is concerned with the threat to international peace and security posed by Libya's support for terrorism, imposed a relatively restricted range of sanctions upon Libya due to its refusal to renounce terrorism, and demand that the accusers be handed over two suspected bombers makes with no reference to the Montreal Convention. The Security Council requests in its Resolution 748 (1992) and Resolution 883 (1993) surrender two Libyan suspects and to impose sanctions against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its failure to comply. The rendition of the men is only one of the steps required to be taken by Libya with the object of removing the threat to international peace. These sanctions imposed a mandatory arms and air embargo upon Libya. It also called upon States to reduce significantly the number and the level of staff at Libyan diplomatic mission and diplomatic posts. A Committee was deseign up to monitor compliance with the sanction. Upon the certification by the Secretary-General of the arrival of the two accused Libyan indictees in the Netherlands for trial, thus the Security Council passed the Resolution 1192 (1998) provided, inter alia, for the suspension of the sanctions. Sanctions on Libya had been suspended. Libya and the UK and the USA reached an agreement in 1998 and the Security Council endorsed and mandated the arrangements for the trail. This duly occurred and the President of the Council issued a statement on 9 July 1999 noting therefore the suspension of the sanction. The Scottish Court presiding over the trial of the two Libyans accused of bombing Pam Am Flight 103 on 21 December 1988, has found Abdel Basser al-Mergrahi guilty of murder and sentence of life imprisonment under Scottish law. With regard to Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima, the Court concluded that the Crown failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy the high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt that is necessary in criminal cases. This does not mean that defendant is innocent of the crime charged. The Government of Libya must take responsibility. The sanctions on Libya were formally revoked by S.C. Resolution 11506 (2003) on the Libyan government's acceptance of responsibility for the Pan Am 103 bombing, its renunciation of terrorism and the payment of appropriate compensation to the victim's families. The purpose of this article is to examine various implications of the 1992 Aerial Incident at Lockerbie Cases. The article divides into four sections. The first section analysis international conventions regarding to crimes committed on aircraft as well as unlawful acts of violence at airports serving International Civil Aviation. The second section explores Lockerbie Cases. The third section discusses the power limit between the International Court of Justice and the United Nations Security Council focus on justiciable and non- justiciable disputes, as well as judicial review in respect of the Security Council Resolution. The four section considers international terrorist issues on conflicts of jurisdiction, legal responsibility, and international criminal assistance. It also addresses that a new framework of international law that confronts modern threats is long overdue. If it is to revive the legitimacy of international law, this order must be predicated on a new principle, under which individual States assume reciprocal obligations to contain transnational threats emerging from within their border.
以文找文
期刊論文
1.
李薇薇(1998)。從「洛克比空難案」透視國際法院與安理會的關係。中國國際法年刊。
延伸查詢
2.
Beveridge, F.(1992)。The Lockerbie Affair。International and Comparative Law Quarterly,47,907。
3.
Campbell, Colm(1989)。Extradition to Northern Ireland: Prospects and Problems。Modern Law Review,52,585-621。
4.
Carbonneau, T.(1983)。The Political Offence Exemption as Applied in French cases dealing with the Extradition of International Terrorists。Michigan Yearbook of International Studies,109。
5.
Cassese, A.(1989)。The International Community's 'Legal' Response to Terrorism。International and Comparative Law Quarterly,38,589。
6.
Chao, K.T.(1983)。The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland Case: A Note on its Legal Aspects。政大法學評論 \=Chengchi Law Review,27,195-214。
7.
Connelly, A.(1958)。Ireland and the Political Offence Exception to Extradition。Journal of Law and Society,12,153。
8.
Epps, V.(1979)。The Validity of the Political Offence Exception in Extradition Treaties in Anglo-American Jurisprudence。Harvard International Law Journal,20,61。
9.
Gowlland-Debbas, Vera(1994)。The Relationship between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council in the Light of the Lockerbie Case。American Journal of International Law,88,643-77。
10.
Lowe,Vaughan(1992)。Lockerbie- Changing the Rules during the Game。Cambridge Law Journal,51,410。
11.
Marston, Geoffrey(1997)。United Kingdom Materials on International Law 1997。British Year Book of Internatioanl Law,68,616-624。
12.
McGinley, Gerald P.(1992)。ICJ Lockerbie Cases。Georgia Journal of International and comparative Law,22,577-601。
13.
McNair, Lord(1951)。Extradition and Exterritorial Asylum。British Year Book of International Law,28,172。
14.
O'Connor, M.A.(1983)。International Extradition and the Political Offense Exception: the Granting of Political Offender Status to Terrorists by the United States Court。New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Lawolitical Offender Status to Terrorists by the United States Court,4,613。
15.
Sofaer, A.(1986)。Terrorism and the Law。Foreign Affairs,64,901。
16.
Sternberg, K.S.、Skelding, D.L.(1983)。State Department Determination of Political Offenses: Death Knell for the Political Offense Exception in Extradition Law。Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law,15,137。
17.
Tickell, Sir Crispin(1988)。The Role of the Security Council in World Affairs。Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law,18,307-317。
18.
Weller, Marc(1992)。The Lockerbie Case: A Premature End to the “New World Order”。African Journal of International and Comparative Law \= Revue Africaine de Droit International et Compare,4,302。
研究報告
1.
古雪祖、柳磊(2009)。聯合國憲章第103 條適用的法律問題。北京。
延伸查詢
圖書
1.
Shearer, Ivan A.(1971)。Extradition in International Law。Dobbs Ferry, NY:Oceana Publications。
2.
Fitzmaurice, G.(1986)。The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice。Grotius。
3.
Joyner, Nancy Douglas(1974)。Aerial Hijacking as an International Crime。N.Y.:Ocean Publications。
4.
許光建、劉大群、薛捍勤、黃惠康(1999)。聯合國憲章詮釋。太原:山西教育出版社。
延伸查詢
5.
中國現代國際關係研究所反恐怖研究中心(2006)。國際重大恐怖案例分析。北京。
延伸查詢
6.
胡聯合(2001)。反劫機及相關國際法措施。當代世界恐怖主義與對策。北京。
延伸查詢
7.
戴秀鳳(2003)。防恐怖戰略與對策。北京。
延伸查詢
8.
謝望原、劉艷紅(2003)。劫持航空器研究。國際刑法與國際犯罪專題探索 \\ 趙秉志 ; 陳宏毅 (主編)。北京。
延伸查詢
9.
Bailey、Daws(1998)。The Procedure of the UN Security Council [3rd ed。Oxford。
10.
Bassiouni, M.C.(1974)。Internation Extradition and World Public Order。Leiden。
11.
Brierly, James Leslie(1958)。The Judicial Settlement of International Dispute。The Basis of Obligation in International Law and Other Papers by the Late James Leslie Brierly \\ Sir Hersch Lauterpacht ; Waldock, C.H.M. (eds.)。Oxford。
12.
Broms, Bengt(1972)。The Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft。Finnish Branch of International Law Association。Finland。
13.
Cummins, Sally J.、Stewart, David P.(2002)。Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2001。Washington, D.C.。
14.
Evans, Alona E.、Murphy, John F.(1978)。Aircraft and the Aviation Facilities。Legal Aspects of International Terrorism。Lexington。
15.
Evans, Alona E.、Murphy, John .F.(1978)。Legal Aspects of International Terrorism。Lexington, Mass.。
16.
Freestone, David(1981)。Legal Responses to Terrorism。Terrorism: a Challenge to the State \\ Lodge, J. (ed.)。London。
17.
Gilbert, Geoff(1991)。Aspects of Extradition Law。Dordrecht:Martinus Nijhoff。
18.
Jennings, Sir Robert、Watts, Sir Arthur(1993)。Oppenheim's International Law。Harlow, Essex。
19.
Kolasa, Jan(1984)。The International Court of Justice on the Implied Powers of International Organizations。Essays in International Law in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs \\ Makarczyk, Jerzy (ed.)。The Hague ; Boston ; Lancaster。
20.
Merrills, J.G.(1998)。Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice and the Discipline of International Law: Opinions on the International Court of Justice, 1961-1973。The Hague ; London ; Boston。
21.
Mosler, H.(1984)。The Area of Justiciability: Some Cases of Agreed Delimiation in the Submission of Disputes to the International Court of Justice。Essays in International Law in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs \\ Makarczyk, Jerzy (ed.)。The Hague ; Boston ; Lancaster。
22.
Pickering, Margaret S.、Cummins, Sally J.、Stewart, David P.(2003)。Digest of United States Practice in International Law 1989-1990。Washington, D.C.。
23.
Saul, Ben(2006)。Defining Terrorism in International Law。Oxford。
24.
Turner, Stansfield(1991)。Terrorism and Democracy。Houghton Mifflin Co.。
其他
1.
(1992)。The Aerial Incident at Lockerbie Cases (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v。
2.
(1998)。The Aerial Incident at Lockerbie Cases (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v。
3.
(1992)。The Aerial Incident at Lockerbie Cases (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. U.S.A.) (Provisional Measures)。
4.
(1998)。The Aerial Incident at Lockerbie Cases (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v。
5.
Lockerbie Trial Asylum Case。
6.
Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. United States): (Libya v. United Kingdom), (Libya v. France)。
7.
(1891)。Castioni, In re, 1 Q.B. 149。
8.
Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter) (Advisory Opinion)。
9.
Dow v. Attorney-General Botswana, Court of Appeal; 103 ILR (1996) 128-202。
10.
Ezeta, In re, 62 F. 972, 997 (N.D. Cal. 1894)。
11.
(1951)。Haya de la Torre Case。
12.
(1982)。Island of Palmas Arbitration, 2 R.I.A.A 829。
13.
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Conucil Resolution 276 (1970), (Advisory Opinion)。
14.
Nuclear Test Cases (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France)。
15.
Legal Status of Eastern Greenland Case (1993) P. C.I.J., Ser A/B, No.53 at 45。
16.
(1970)。關於制止非法劫持航空器的海牙公約。
延伸查詢
17.
(1971)。關於制止危害民用航空安全的非法行為的蒙特利爾公約。
延伸查詢
18.
(1988)。補充1971年9月23日在蒙特利爾制定的關於制止危害民用航空安全的非法行為的公約的制止在為國際民用航空服務的機場上的非法暴力行為的蒙特利爾議定書。
延伸查詢
19.
(1994)。聯合國人員和有關人員安全公約。
延伸查詢
20.
(1996)。違反人類和平與安全罪行法典草案。
延伸查詢
21.
(1999)。非洲統一組織預防和打擊恐怖主義公約。
延伸查詢
22.
(2007)。東南亞國家聯盟反對恐怖主義公約。
延伸查詢
23.
UN Documents, S.C. Res. 731。
24.
(1992)。UN Documents, S.C. Res. 748。
25.
(1993)。UN Documents, S.C. Res. 883。
26.
(1998)。UN Documents, S.C. Res. 1192。
27.
(2001)。UN Documents, S/2001/946。
28.
(2001)。UN Documents, S.C. Res. 1368。
29.
(2001)。UN Documents, S.C. Res. 1373。
30.
(2003)。UN Documents, S.C. Res. 11506。
31.
傅旋(2003)。洛克比案的國際法運用。
延伸查詢
32.
Nuclear Test Cases (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France)。
33.
(1955)。R.v. Governor of Brixton Prison.Ex parte Kolczynski, 1 Q.B. 540。
34.
(1963)。關於在航空器內的犯罪和其他某些行為的東京公約。
延伸查詢
圖書論文
1.
Kolasa, Jan(1984)。Some Remarks on the Concept of A Resolution and Decision of International Organizations。Essays in International Law in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs。The Hague。
推文
當script無法執行時可按︰
推文
推薦
當script無法執行時可按︰
推薦
引用網址
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用嵌入語法
轉寄
當script無法執行時可按︰
轉寄
top
:::
相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱
無相關期刊論文
1.
兩岸刑事司法合作規範的社會建構--以引渡與遣返為核心
無相關書籍
無相關著作
1.
針對反叛亂戰爭之交戰規則訓練
2.
檢察官偵查處分女性性侵害犯經驗之實證研究
3.
里斯本條約後歐盟逮捕令跨國合作之發展
4.
保險契約中「自殺免責條款」及舉證責任分配之分析
5.
國軍懲罰評議制度的縱橫觀察
6.
論陸海空軍刑法關於「戰時」規範效應
7.
報復或修復?建構暴力/財產犯罪加、被害人對話機制之研究
8.
應用地理資訊系統分析毒品犯罪分佈特性之研究--以新北市蘆洲區為例
9.
懲罰性賠償制度
10.
論美、加法院准駁催眠證據提出法庭之理由
11.
析論陸海空軍刑法第44條凌虐罪之適用問題--以德國防衛刑法為借鏡
12.
刑事自由心證之研究
13.
報復或修復?建構暴力/財產犯罪加、被害人對話機制之研究(下)
14.
國家圖書館強制典藏著作的憲法問題
15.
Aktuelle Reformen des Sanktionensystems in Deutschland
QR Code