View : 27 Download: 0

국제인도법상의 상급자의 형사책임 성립요건에 관한 연구

국제인도법상의 상급자의 형사책임 성립요건에 관한 연구
Issue Date
대학원 법학과
이화여자대학교 대학원
International law has been endeavored to establish superior responsibility over years. Through out the history, especially after World War II, two types of criminal responsibility were developed as individual or personal criminal responsibility and superior or command responsibility. These types of responsibility are prescribed in ICTY Statute, Article 7(1) and (3), ICTR Statute, Article 6(1) and 6(3), ICC Statute Article 25 and 28. First, individual criminal responsibility, regulated in ICTY Statute, Article 7(1), ICTR Statute Article 6(1) and ICC Statute, Article 25 is to take criminal responsibility for a person who directly committed crimes by the acts like planning, instigating, ordering and committing, aiding and abetting. Therefore, it is referred as superior's direct criminal responsibility. On the other hand, the other type, regulated in ICTY Statute, Article 7(3), ICTR Statute Article 6(3) and ICC Statute, Article 28, is distinguished in the point that a superior shall be criminally responsible for his culpable omission. Considering the fact that ICTY Statute has been the literal background for the settlement of ICC Statute, it is significant for us to review the articles of the two statutes and understand the exact elements provided by them. Although the superior responsibility has been divided into two types as mentioned above, it results in overlapping of them in some cases such as the civilian leader of a Joint Criminal Enterprise. The unresolved relationship between ICTY Statute Article 7(1) and 7(3) has been transferred to ICC Statute Article 25 and 28. When recognizing the historical aspects of ICTY Statute Article 7(3), it is more resonable to prosecute the superior taking a criminal responsibility with a culpable omission under ICTY Statute Article 7(1). The reasons are; First of all, if a superior is prosecuted under ICTY Statute Article 7(3), his status as a superior will be the main element to diminish the sentences. Then, the fact that the burden of proof for 'intent' is mitigated is one of the other main reasons. This could be the same when adopted to ICC Statute. As ICC statute differentiate the mental elements between commanders and civilian superiors, the test for the mental elements in taking a criminal responsibility for a civilian, 'recklessness' is stricter than the test of 'negligence', used for commanders. This is against the Nuremberg Charter, Article 7, stating that people shall bear criminal responsibility without considering his/her official position. Moreover, the jurisdictional crimes within ICTY, ICTR and ICC happens over the years with systematic strategies of great and undiscovered enterprises. It provides the difficulties to prove the specific circumstances at that time. Therefore, it would be more easy to prosecute the criminals under the superior's direct responsibility, stated in ICTY Statute Article 7(1) and ICC Statute Article 25. In 2008, ICTY and ICTR will be closed. Therefore, it is predictable that ICC will stand as the main court to play the important role in judging the crimes against humanity. As a result of it, the experiences organized by ICTY and ICTR is a good measure to evaluate the ability of ICC. When to prosecute under the concurring application of superior's direct and indirect responsibilities, it is more resonable under superior's direct responsibility considering the original goal of international humanitarian law.;국제법은 지난 수십 년 동안 상급자책임을 확립하기위하여 노력해왔다. 특히, 제2차 세계대전과 같이 인류 역사에 치명적 상처를 안겨주었던 사건을 통하여, 개인에게 형사적 책임을 지울 수 있도록 하기 위하여 연구를 거듭해왔다. 그 결과, 인도에 반하는 범죄를 저지른 개인에게 형사적 책임을 귀속시키기 위한 두 가지 형태가 고안되었다. 이는 상급자로서 직접적으로 개인의 형사책임을 지는 형태와 상급자의 지위로 인하여 생기는 간접적인 개인의 형사책임을 지는 형태로써 구유고슬라비아재판소(이하, ICTY) 규정 제7조 1항과 3항, 르완다전범재판소(이하, ICTR) 제6조 1항과 3항 및 최근에 이르러서는 국제형사재판소(이하, ICC) 제25조와 제28조에 규정되었다.상급자의 형사적 책임이 위에 언급한 바와 같이 두 가지의 형태로 나눠져 있지만, 각각의 사례들이 정확히 그 규정에 따라 명확히 되지 않는다는 점을 감안한다면, 공동범죄단체(Joint Criminal Enterprise)와 같은 형태의 범죄조직에서의 상급자의 지위로 인하여 형사책임여부에 대하여 어느 규정을 적용하였을 때, 국제인도법의 목표인 반인도적 범죄를 저지른 개인의 처벌과 범죄의 예방에 더욱 부합하는 것인가를 판단하는 것이 중요하다. 따라서 이 논문에서는 상급자의 형사책임에 관하여 ICTY와 ICC 규정의 성립요건을 검토한 후 상급자의 직접적 형사책임과 간접적 책임의 중첩부분에서 어떠한 해결방향을 보일 것인지에 대하여 살펴볼 것이다.
Show the fulltext
Appears in Collections:
일반대학원 > 법학과 > Theses_Master
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.