Международные преступления и законодательство Нидерландов: стратегия имплементации

Введение. Принятие Римского статута Международного уголовного суда явилось важнейшим элементом, стимулировавшим кардинальную реформу национального законодательства в сфере преследования международных преступлений. Это позволило, с одной стороны, в значительной степени усовершенствовать механизм борьбы с наиболее серьезными нарушениями прав человека, в преследовании которых имелся юридический интерес как отдельных государств, так и международного сообщества в целом, а с другой – имплементировать обязательства государств по Римскому статуту. В обеспечении соответствия внутригосударственного законодательства положениям международных договоров по борьбе с геноцидом, преступлениями против человечности и военными преступлениями существует весьма эффективный опыт государств – членов Европейского союза, сыгравшего значительную роль в формировании постоянно действующего механизма международного уголовного правосудия. В этом ряду специального рассмотрения заслуживает модель имплементации Королевства Нидерландов, которую отличает комплексный характер, детально проанализированный авторами в представленном исследовании. В статье рассматриваются вопросы криминализации составов международных преступлений, регламентации отдельных аспектов уголовной юрисдикции, определения общих принципов уголовной ответственности за геноцид, военные преступления и т.д., а также соотношения Закона о международных преступлениях Королевства Нидерландов с иными, смежными правовыми актами.

Материалы и методы. Проведенное исследование основано на значительном объеме материалов, включая международно-правовые акты, решения международных судебных органов, национальное законодательство и судебную практику Нидерландов и других государств, а также доктринальные исследования. Методологическую основу исследования составили общенаучные и частнонаучные методы познания.

Результаты исследования. Проведенный анализ материально-правовой имплементации Римского статута со стороны отдельных государств – членов ЕС на примере национального законодательства Нидерландов показал, что криминализация на национальном уровне международных преступлений вносит значительный вклад в борьбу с безнаказанностью лиц, обвиняемых в совершении уголовно-наказуемых деяний, подпадающих под юрисдикцию Международного уголовного суда.

Обсуждение и выводы. Анализ национального законодательства Нидерландов, в частности Закона о международных преступлениях, свидетельствует о стремлении к созданию юридического режима, препятствующего безнаказанности лиц, виновных в совершении преступлений, вызывающих озабоченность международного сообщества в целом, а также дает весомые основания для вывода о полной имплементации норм Римского статута Международного уголовного суда, позволяющей Нидерландам самостоятельно преследовать обвиняемых, исключая возможную передачу производства по делу Суду.

1. Alvarez J. 1996. Nuremberg Revisited: The Tadic Case. – European Journal of International Law. Vol. 7. No. 2. P. 245–265.

2. Bassiouni Cherif M. 2001. Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes: Historical perspectives and Contemporary Practice. – Virginia Journal of International Law. Vol. 42. No. 1. P. 81–162.

3. Bassiouni Cherif M. 2011. Crimes against Humanity: Historical Evolution and Contemporary Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 844 p.

4. Baughen S. 2016. Human Rights and Corporate Wrongs: Closing the Governance Gap. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. 288 p.

5. Bohlander M. 2000. Prosecutor v. Dusco Tadic: Waiting to Exale. – Criminal Law forum. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 217–248.

6. Boister N. 2002.The ICJ in the Belgian Arrest Warrant Case: Arresting the development of International Criminal Law. – Journal of Conflict and Security Law. Vol. 7. Issue 2. P. 293–314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/7.2.293

7. Boot-Matthijssen M., van Elst R. 2004. Key Provisions of the International Crimes Act 2003. – Netherlands Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 35. P. 251–296.

8. Butler H. 2000.The Doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction: A Review of the Literature. – Criminal Law Forum. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 353–373.

9. Cahima G. 2012. Transitional Justice in Rwanda: Accountability for Atrocity. New York: Routledge. 432 p.

10. Cassese’s International Criminal Law. 2013. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 472 p.

11. Clark R. 2011. History of Efforts to Codify Crimes Against Humanity: from the Charter of Nuremberg to the Statute of Rome. – Forging a Convention for Crimes Against Humanity. Ed. by L.N. Sadat. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 8–27.

12. Combs N. 2012. Obtaining Guilty Pleas for International Crimes: Prosecutorial Difficulties. – The Prosecutor in Transitional Perspectives. Ed. by E. Luna and M. Wade. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 331–348.

13. Cryer R. [et al.]. 2010. An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 685 p.

14. Dörmann K. 2003. Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Sources and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 580 p.

15. Drumbl M. 2016. Sentencing and Penalties. – The Elgar Companion to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Ed. by A.M. de Brouwer and A. Smeulers. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. P. 422–446.

16. El Zeidy M. 2003. Universal Jurisdiction in Absentia: Is It a Legal Valid Option for Repressing Heinous Crimes? – International Law. Vol. 37. No. 3. P. 835–860.

17. Ferdinandusse W. 2009. The Prosecution of Grave Breaches in National Courts. – Journal of International Criminal Justice. Vol. 7. No. 5. P. 723–741. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqp053

18. Grabert A. 2014. Dynamic Interpretation in International Criminal Law: Striking a Balance between Stability and Change. Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag. 244 p.

19. Grover L. 2014. Interpreting Crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 474 p.

20. Hall C. 2008. Article 7 – Crimes against Humanity: Para. 9 (a)–(f). – Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers, Notes, Article by Article. Ed. by O. Triffterer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 134–136.

21. Hall C. 2010. The Role of Universal Jurisdiction in the International Criminal Court Complementarity System. – Complementarity and Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes. Ed. by M. Bergsmo. Oslo. P. 201–233.

22. Inazumi M. 2005. Universal Jurisdiction. Modern International Law: Expansion of National Jurisdiction for Prosecuting Serious Crimes under International Law. Utrecht: Intersentia. 274 p.

23. Jarasch F., Kress C. 2000.The Rome Statute and the German Legal Order. –The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Domestic Legal Orders. Vol. 1: General Aspects and Constitutional Issues. Ed. by F. Lattanzi, C. Kress. Baden-Baden. P. 91–111.

24. Jennings R. 2002. Jurisdiction and Immunity in the ICJ Decision in the Yerodia Case. – International Law Forum. Vol. 4. No. 3. P. 99–103.

25. Jofriet J. 2009. De Wet internationale misdrijven: de strafbaarstelling van de internationale misdrijven in het Nederlandse strafrecht. Den Haag: Kluwer. 232 p.

26. Jurdi N. 2016. The International Criminal Court and National Courts: A Contentious Relationship. New York: Routledge. 332 p.

27. Kleffner K. 2003. The Impact of Complementarity on national Implementation of Substantive International Criminal Law. – Journal of International Criminal Justice. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 86–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/1.1.86

28. Knoops G.J. 2013. Redressing Miscarriages of Justice: Practice and Procedure in (International) Criminal Case. 2nd ed. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 248 p.

29. Kok R. 2007. Statutory Imitations in International Criminal Law. The Haague: T.M.C. Asser Press. 462 p.

30. Kress C. 2006. Universal Jurisdiction over International Crimes and the Institute de droit international. – Journal of International Criminal Justice. Vol. 4. No. 3. P. 561–585.

31. Kritsiotis D. 2010. The Trermors of Tadic. – Israel Law Review. Vol. 43. No. 1. P. 262–300.

32. La Haye E. 2008. War Crimes in Internal Armed Conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 448 p.

33. Lintel I., Vermeulen L. 2014. Codification and Implementation of Human Rights in Netherlands. – Codification in International Perspective: Selected Papers from the 2nd IACL Thematic Conference. Ed. by W.E. Wang. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing. P. 313–332.

34. McAuliffe de Guzman M. 2000. The Road from Rome: the Developing Law of Crimes against Humanity. – Human Rights Quarterly. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 335–403.

35. McDougall C. 2013. The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. New York: Cambridge University Press. 416 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894589.004

36. Mettraux G. 2002. Crimes against Humanity in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. – Harvard International Law Journal. Vol. 43. No. 1. P. 237–316.

37. Mettraux G. 2006. Dutch Courts Universal Jurisdiction over Violations of Common Article 3 qua War Crimes. – Journal of International Criminal Justice. Vol. 4. Issue 2. P. 362–371 .DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mql019

38. O’Keefe R. 2015. International Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 678 p.

39. O’Sullivan A. 2017. Universal Jurisdiction in International Criminal Law: The Debate and the Battle for Hegemony. London: Routledge. 222 p.

40. Oosterveld V. 2011. Gender-Based Crimes against Humanity. – Forging a Convention for Crimes against Humanity. Ed. by L.N. Sadat. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 78–101.

41. Poels A. 2005. Universal Jurisdiction in Absentia. – Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights. No. 1. P. 65–75.

42. Rabinovitch R. 2004. Universal Jurisdiction in Absentia. – Fordham International Law Journal. Vol. 28. P. 500–520.

43. Randall K. 1988. Universal Jurisdiction under International Law. – Texas Law Review. Vol. 66. No.4. P. 785–778.

44. Reydams L. 2004. Universal Jurisdiction – International and Municipal Legal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 500 p.

45. Robinson D. 1999. Defining “Crimes against Humanity” at the Rome Conference. – American Journal of International Law. Vol. 93. Issue 1. P. 237–316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2997955

46. Roth R. 2009. The Extradition of génocidaires. – The UN Genocide Convention; A Commentary. Ed. by P. Gaeta. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 285–295.

47. Ryngaert С. 2013. The Failed Referral of Michel Bagaragaza from the ICTR to the Netherlands. URL: Http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/Docs/Commentaries%20PDF/Ryngaert_Bagaragaza_EN.pdf (accessed date: 26.04.2018).

48. Safarov N.A. 2004. Prestupleniya, podpadayushchie pod yurisdiktsiyu Mezhdunarodnogo ugolovnogo suda i ugolovnoe zakonodatel’stvo stran SNG (sravnitel’nyi analiz) [Crimes, coming under jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and criminal legislation of states of the Commonwealth of Independent States (Comparative analysis)]. – Gosudarstvo i pravo. No. 7. P. 48–59. (In Russ.)

49. Safarov N.A. 2005. Ekstraditsiya v mezhdunarodnom ugolovnom prave: problemy teorii i praktiki [Extradition in International Criminal Law: problems of theory and practice]. Moscow: Wolters Kluwer Publ. 416 p. (In Russ.)

50. Safarov N.A. 2011. Presledovanie mezhdunarodnykh prestuplenii: universal’naya yurisdiktsiya protiv diplomaticheskogo immuniteta [International Persecution of universal crimes: universal jurisdiction against diplomatic immunity]. – Gosudarstvo i pravo. No. 9. P. 81–92. (In Russ.)

51. Schabas W. 2009. Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 760 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575556

52. Schabas W. 2010. The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1259 p.

53. Schimmelpenninck van der Oije P.J.C. 2000. A Surinam Crime before a Dutch Court: Post-Colonial Injustice or Universal Jurisdiction? – Leiden Journal of International Law. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 455–476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156501000243

54. Schultz N. 2002. Ist Lotus verblüht? Anmerkung zum Urteil des IGH vom 14. Februar 2002 im Fall betreffend den Haftbefehl vom 11. April 2000 (Demokratische Republik Congo gegen Belgien). – Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht. Vol. 62. P. 704–710.

55. Segall A. 2003. Punishment of War Crimes at the National Level: Obligations under International Humanitarian Law and the Complementarity Principle Established by the International Criminal Court. – National Legislation Incorporating International Crimes Approaches of Civil and Common. Ed. by M. Neuner. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag GmbH. P. 257–271.

56. Simbeye Y. 2017. Immunity and International Law. London: Routledge. 184 p.

57. Sluiter G. 2004. Implementation of the ICC Statute in the Dutch Legal Order. – Journal of International Criminal Justice. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 158–178.

58. Tabassi L., Dhavle A. 2014. Article VII: National Implementation Measure. – The Chemical Weapons Convention: A Commentary. Ed. by W. Krutzsch, E. Myjer, R. Trapp. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 225–226.

59. Thalman V. 2009. National Criminal Jurisdiction over Genocide. – UN Genocide Convention: A Commentary. Ed. by P. Gaeta. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 231–258.

60. The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Ed. by R.S. Lee, H. Friman. 2001. New York: Transnational Pub Inc. 257 p.

61. Thompson R. 2015. Universal Jurisdiction: The Sierra Leone Profile. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press. 164 p.

62. Turns D. Aspects of National Implementation of the Rome Statute: The United Kingdom and Selected Other States. – The Permanent International Criminal Court. Ed. by D. McGoldrick, P. Rowe, E. Donelly. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 337–388.

63. Universal Jurisdiction and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes under International Law. Ed. by S. Macedo. 2004. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. 392 p.

64. Van Alebeek R. 2008. The Immunities of States and their Officials in International Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 488 p.

65. Van den Herik L. 2009. A Quest Jurisdiction and an Appropriate Definition of Crime: Mpambara before Dutch Courts. – Journal of International Criminal Justice. Vol. 7. Issue 5. P. 1117–1132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqp073

66. Van Den Vyer J. 1999. Universal Jurisdiction in International Criminal Law. – South African Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 24. P. 107–132.

67. Van der Borght E. 2007. Prosecution of International Crimes in the Netherlands: An Analysis of Recent Case Law. – Criminal Law Forum. Vol. 18. P. 87–136. DOI: 10.1007/s10609-007-9038-5

68. Van Schaac B. 1999. The Definition of Crimes against Humanity: Resolving the Incoherence. – Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. Vol. 37. No. 3. P. 787–850.

69. Van Sliedregt E. 2007. International Crimes before Dutch Courts: Recent Developments. – Leiden Journal of International Law. Vol. 20. Issue 3. P. 895–908. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156507004517

70. Van Sliedregt E. 2012. Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 370 p.

71. Verhoeven J. 2002. Article 21 of the Rome Statute and the Ambiguities of Applicable Law. – Netherlands Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 33. P. 3–22.

72. Verweij H., Groenleer M. 2005. The Netherlands’ Legislative Measures to Implement the ICC Statute. – States’ Responses to Issues Arising from the ICC Statute: Constitutional, Sovereignty, Judicial Cooperation and Criminal Law. Ed. by S. Lee. New York: Transnational Publishers. P. 83–103.

73. Werle G. 2002. Das Völkerstrafgesetzbuch. – Juristenzeitung. Vol. 57. No. 15/16. P. 725–734.

74. Wilкitzki P. 2002. The German Law on Co-operation with ICC. – International Criminal Law Review. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 195–212.

75. Wiskremasinghe C. 2003. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections and Merits, Judgment of 14 February 2002. – International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Vol. 52. No. 3. P. 775–781.

76. Yang X. 2002. Immunity for International Crimes: A Reaffirmation of Traditional Doctrine. – The Cambridge Law Journal. Vol. 61. No. 1. P. 239–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197302221601

77. Zimmermann A. 2002. Auf dem Weg zu einem deutschen Völkerstrafgesetzbuch: Entstehung, völkerrechtlicher Rahmen und wesentliche Inhalte. – Zeittschrift für Rechtpolitik. Vol. 35. No. 3. P. 97–102.