编者案

迈克尔·沙尔夫教授接受了ICCMCC国际赛组委会的采访，对2020年赛题案件及其背景进行了解读；经ICCMCC国际赛组委会与迈克尔·沙尔夫教授授权，“法律竞赛”将采访内容翻译发布以飨读者。

Photo from http:// iccmoot.com

直击ICCMCC 2020年赛题：对话作者

Insight into the Case

Prosecutor v. Cersei Bannister of Valaria:

Ask the Author

5月28日，2020年国际刑事法院模拟法庭（“ICCMCC”）赛题作者迈克尔·沙尔夫（Michael Scharf）教授参与了“对话赛题作者”活动。活动一小时中，沙尔夫教授解读了2020年赛题案件（Prosecutor v. Cersei Bannister of Valaria）及其背景，并回答了诸多国际刑法相关问题。这些问题部分来自于参赛队伍事前提问，也有部分来自于活动现场互动环节。此下的采访内容，需结合2020年赛题阅览。

On Thursday 28 May 2020, Prof. Scharf welcomed the participants of the ICC Moot Court Competition (ICCMCC) 2020 to an online Ask the Author live event. For an hour, he discussed the case itself, its background and answered questions about international criminal law. This year’s ICCMCC teams sent in questions ahead of the event, while other questions arose during the live event. For context, the questions and their answers need to be read in conjunction with the 2020 ICCMCC Case: Prosecutor v. Cersei Bannister of Valaria.

Q：迈克尔·沙夫是谁？

Who is Prof. Michael Scharf?

沙尔夫教授自2013年起担任凯斯西储大学法学院院长，任Joseph C. Hostetler - BakerHostetler法学教授，他还是PILPG（获诺贝尔和平奖提名的非政府组织）的常任董事。另，他还主持了美国国际开发署资助的在乌干达、科特迪瓦、利比亚、土耳其（针对叙利亚）的多项过渡司法项目，以及在肯尼亚、毛里求斯、塞舌尔的多项海盗相关项目。沙尔夫教授此前供职于美国国务院法律顾问办公室，任执法情报部门法律顾问、联合国事务法律顾问以及美国驻联合国人权委员会代表；在此期间，沙尔夫教授参与起草了前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭（ICTY）规约，并协助该规约实施。作为一名学者，沙尔夫教授撰写了100多篇学术论文与19部著作，其中3部著作获得国家年度图书奖。

Michael Scharf has been Dean of the Law School at Case Western University since 2013. He is also the Joseph C. Hostetler—BakerHostetler Professor of Law and serves as Managing Director of the Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG), a Nobel Peace Prize-nominated NGO. He has led USAID-funded transitional justice projects in Uganda, Cote d’Ivoire, Libya, and Turkey (for Syria), and maritime piracy projects in Kenya, Mauritius, and The Seychelles. Previously, he served in the Office of the Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State, where he held the positions of Attorney-Adviser for Law Enforcement and Intelligence, Attorney-Adviser for United Nations Affairs, and delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. During this time at the US Department of State, he was involved in drafting the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Here, he helped to draft the Statute of the former Yugoslavia Tribunal and helped launch it. As an academic, Prof. Scharf is the author of over 100 scholarly articles and 19 books, three of which have won national book of the year honors.

在活动期间，沙尔夫教授透露他还热爱弹吉他，并成为了一支师生乐队的成员。

During the live event, Prof. Scharf disclosed that his hobby of playing guitar landed him a spot in a faculty-student rock band.

Q：《冰与火之歌》何以成为您编写ICC模拟法庭竞赛案件的灵感来源？

Why is Game of Thrones an inspiration for the ICC Moot Court Competition cases?

我首次编写ICCMCC的赛题是在十年前，那时《冰与火之歌》这套书十分流行，但那时它还没被拍成电视剧。众所周知，ICCMCC赛题中需要很多虚构的地点和名字，所以《冰与火之歌》就成了我想象的起点。当然，我们在赛题中对书中角色和地点的名字做了很大的修改，因此我们无需担心版权问题。

A decade ago, when I was asked to write my first ICC Moot Court Competition Problem, the Game of Thrones book series was becoming very popular but they had not yet made the HBO series.  And, as you know, the ICCMCC cases require quite a lot of fictional names and places, and there was no better starting point than A Song of Ice and Fire to jump-start my imagination.  However, you will note that we significantly change the spellings of the character and location names in the ICC Moot Court Problems, so no need to worry about copyright issues!

Q：《权力的游戏》电视剧已终结，该书的创作也一再搁置，您是否打算继续从中汲取灵感呢？

With the Game of Thrones TV show concluded, and the writing of the books on hold, do you plan on continuing to draw inspiration from this series?

为什么不呢？《冰与火之歌》中的世界是无穷无尽的，这也是我选择这套书的原因。书中还有很多有待发掘的精彩故事，至少还够我们再写100份赛题。所以，只要继续关注这个比赛，你就能知道下一个故事！

Why not? The world described in A Song of Ice and Fire book series is limitless. But so is the pool of fantasy books to choose from. There are plenty of other great stories to choose from, for at least the next 100 editions of the Competition. So, you will just have to stay involved to find out what is next!

Q：有什么现实事件给了您关于今年赛题的灵感吗？

What real-life situations served as inspiration for this year’s case?

首先是关于罗兴亚人的情势。PILPG发布了《对在缅甸若开邦州对罗兴亚人实施暴行的记录》这一报告。这份报告的资料源于PILPG派遣的“人权纪录调查特派团”，他们致力于“通过在孟加拉国难民营里居住的难民中随机抽取有代表性的样本，系统性地收集第一手资料”，为此，他们进行了1024次的访谈。此次调查的目的是“准确记录在缅甸若开邦州的罗兴亚人遭受暴行的罪行和模式，并协助缅甸当局制定有关的政策和决定”。简言之，PILPG旨在解决“针对罗兴亚人的行为是否构成灭绝种族”这一问题。这个问题近些年来一直备受争议，来自世界各地的学术界和实务界人士都曾参与其中。可见这个问题非常适合作为此次赛题的主要争议问题。依据此次调查，PILPG发表了第二份调查报告，全面透析了此次调查的结果。这份报告最终得出结论，有足够理由相信在缅甸北部若开邦地区的罗兴亚人遭受的暴力行为构成危害人类罪、灭绝种族罪和战争罪，一项刑事调查就此展开。这份报告被提交至ICC，检察官办公室多次引用了这份报告，ICC也在决定对针对罗兴亚人实施的危害人类罪、灭绝种族罪和战争罪开展调查的决定中引用了这份报告。

The situation of the Rohingya people. The PILPG prepared the report titled ‘Documenting Atrocity Crimes Committed Against the Rohingya in Myanmar’s Rakhine State’ (‘PILPG Report’). For this report, the PILPG conducted a ‘human rights documentation investigation mission’ which focused on ‘systematically collecting first-hand accounts from a random and representative sample of refugees living in camps in Bangladesh’ and conducted 1,024 interviews. The purpose of the investigation mission ‘was to provide an accurate accounting of the patterns of abuse and atrocity crimes perpetrated against the Rohingya in Myanmar’s Rakhine State and to help inform the policy decisions related to accountability in Myanmar’.[1] Simply put, the PILPG aimed at answering the question: do the acts committed against the Rohingya people amount to genocide? This has always been a controversial question throughout the years, with both academics and practitioners from all corners of the world weighing in. You can see how this fit perfectly in this year’s case as one of the main issues. Following its investigative mission, PILPG published a second report which thoroughly analyzes the entirety of the findings. This Report ultimately concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe[2] that crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes have been committed against the Rohingya in Myanmar’s northern Rakhine State and that, therefore, a criminal investigation is warranted.[3] The report was then shared with the ICC and it has been cited several times in the Prosecutor’s Brief and it ended up being cited in the November Decision by the ICC to open an investigation into the genocide and crimes against humanity against the Rohingya.

其次，我曾在《罗马规约》起草期间参与了关于国际刑事法院能否就发生在缔约国领域上的犯罪对非缔约国的国民提起诉讼的讨论。查尔斯·泰勒（Charles Taylor）案就涉及该问题，其中讨论了能否起诉发生在非缔约国境内但对缔约国产生了影响的犯罪行为。在本案中，利比亚总统查尔斯·泰勒在塞拉利昂特别法庭被指控参与塞拉利昂内战。

A debate I was involved in during the negotiations of the Rome Statute regarding the ability of the ICC to prosecute nationals of non-State Parties, when crimes are committed on a State Party’s territory. On top of that, the Charles Taylor case brought to the table the issue of whether acts committed in a non-State Party can be prosecuted by an international court or tribunal when their impact can be seen in a State-Party. In this case, Charles Taylor, sitting President of Liberia, was charged before the Special Court of Sierra Leone for the role he played during the course of Sierra Leone’s civil war.

再者便是关于社交网络公司在暴行及其预防中扮演的角色以及承担的责任这一问题，大家在脸书论战中有过深刻的讨论，这也是我在赛题中建立“状态圈”的理由。

The Facebook controversy which led us to the highly debatable question of the roles and responsibilities of social media companies in preventing atrocities and in atrocity accountability. And this is how Statusphere was created.

Photo from http:// iccmoot.com

煽动灭绝种族

Q：煽动是犯罪的未完成形态，只要行为人有促进灭绝种族的意图且有号召实施灭绝种族的直接言论，无需灭绝种族行为的完成，即可构罪。那么证明因果关系的成立是否需要灭绝种族产生了相关后果？

Incitement is an inchoate crime. It does not have to be completed, you just have to intend to facilitate genocide and have the direct words that call to action. Is genocidal effect necessary to show proof of a causal link?

实际上，在所有被告被指控煽动灭绝种族的案件中，都切实发生了灭绝种族的行为。法院通常认为，煽动的成立需要存在因果关系，即行为人的言辞以实现某种效果为目的，且其确实产生了一定影响，这种影响并不要求灭绝种族的完成，仅仅要求其着手实施。然而，这似乎是一个事实问题，而不是法律问题。你需要证明某种后果的发生，那么在本案中的后果是什么？本案中有200人死于教堂燃烧，400人死于选举日的暴行，共计600名遇难者。如果这些人还不够多，那么数百万的斯塔雷克人总是足够多的。更何况还有一些未被纳入指控的后果也证明了针对斯塔雷克人实施的暴行，例如超过1500名斯塔雷克人死亡和100，000斯塔雷克人流离失所。

In all of the cases where someone has been prosecuted for incitement, there was actually a genocidal effect. The Courts have often said that for determining incitement, there has to be a causal link: you must show that the words were intended and did have some kind of effect. Now, it doesn’t have to be a completed genocide, it can be just a start to it. However, it does seem that for proof-issues, not for the actual legal issues, you would need to show some kind of effect. What was the effect here? There were 200 people killed in a burning church and 400 killed in the election massacre, so 600 in total. If that was it, it would probably not have been substantial enough, considering there were several millions of Starek people. However, there were several other instances, not included in the charges, that do speak to a pattern of violence against the Stareks, such as 1,500 subsequent deaths and 100,000 displaced people.

Q：在本案中，您如何区分仇恨言论和煽动灭绝种族的言论呢？

Where do you draw the line between hate speech and incitement to genocide in this case?

这个问题是煽动灭绝种族中常见的问题，人们一般不会直接表示他们想要杀死一个特定群体的人，否则很容易惹上官司。在现实生活中，人们会使用“暗号”表达自己的意思，在本案中也是如此。因此，我们不仅要理解这些暗号的字面意思，还要理解它们所传达的信息。煽动灭绝种族的言论必须包含号召人们清除某一特定群体的意思。

This question comes up frequently in situations of incitement to genocide. People don’t just say explicitly that they want to kill a substantial part of a population. If they said it like that, it would be easy to prosecute them. As it often happens in real life situations, and in our case, code words were used. In addition, it is not only about understanding the code words, but also the message transmitted through the code words. There has to be a call to wipe out a substantial part of an ethnic group.

仇恨言论和煽动灭绝种族的言论之间的界限十分微妙，但在本案中，瑟西在选举期间没有删除帖子并非偶然：在选举前的公开辩论中，需要谨慎对待言论自由的问题。

It requires a carefully prepared balance act to walk the line between hate speech and incitement to genocide. It was not a coincidence that Cersei did not remove the posts around the time of the election: before an election you want to have a public debate. She is wrapping herself around the liberties of free speech.

在制定《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》期间，包括美国在内的许多国家也非常关注仇恨言论和煽动灭绝种族的言论之间的界限问题。美国国内就其宪法第一修正案（言论自由条款）和煽动灭绝种族之间的平衡展开的了讨论，耗时38年才最终批准该公约。因可见历史上一直存在这一问题。

For example, when the Genocide Convention was created, many countries, including the US, were concerned about the incitement to genocide clause and its distinction from hate speech. It took the US 38 years to ratify the Convention, as national debates tried to find the balance between the First Amendment (Freedom of speech clause) and the crime of incitement to genocide. So, historically there has always been a bit of concern about this.

Q：在私密的社交媒体平台上发布消息的行为能否构成煽动灭绝种族呢？

Can the act of posting messages on a forum amount to incitement to genocide if the social media platform used was private?

由于煽动必须是直接且公开的，该问题也是本案的争议焦点之一。过去的“媒体人”是指使用广播或报纸的人，此时广播或报纸就是非常公开的论坛。但私密社交媒体平台上，只有积极参与者在其中交流。此时的问题在于：平台的公开性究竟如何？由于加入群组是免费的，且任何人都可以加入，该群组有大约4000名成员。这个群组既不私密，也不像广播或报纸一样对公众开放，因此需要我们思考“直接且公开”煽动的具体要求。

This was one of the key problems in this case because incitement to genocide has to be direct and public. In the past, cases of media individuals have been people who have used radio or newspapers, and in those cases, it really was a very public forum. When it is a private social media platform, there are only people who actively joined that communicate on it. The question then would be: how open was that platform? Because joining was free, anyone could join and there were about 4,000 people in the groups. It wasn’t that private, but it also wasn’t open to the general population like a radio or newspaper. So, that was there to make you think about the requirements of direct and public incitement.

Q：您如何看待《罗马规约》将煽动灭绝种族罪排除在主要罪行之外的做法？

What is your opinion on the exclusion of incitement to genocide from the core crimes?

在我看来，煽动是非常危险的，应当被纳入主要罪行。历史上，煽动一直是一种未完成犯罪，无需犯罪的完成。可以想见，在《罗马规约》的谈判过程中，还考虑到了ICC作为一个全球性法院的性质以及被告的权利等因素。也正是由于《罗马规约》的措辞，目前关于煽动究竟是一种未完成犯罪还是一种责任形式这一问题仍然存在争议。

Incitement to me is so dangerous and risky that it should be prosecutable as a major offence. Historically it has been viewed as an inchoate crime, so completion is not necessary. As you can imagine, during the negotiations of the Rome Statute, factors such as the global nature of the ICC and the rights of the accused came into play. Because of the way the Rome Statute is worded, there is currently debate about whether incitement is still considered an inchoate offense or is now only a mode of liability for a completed offense.

Photo by David Veksler on Unsplash

网络空间与国际管辖权

Q：根据《罗马规约》第12条，国际刑事法院能否基于瑟西·班尼斯特的行为与在国际刑事法院缔约国索兰提斯产生的后果之间存在网络空间联系这一理由，对本案行使管辖权？

Art. 12 of the Rome Statute is about the jurisdiction over crimes conducted in the territory of a State Party. Would the cyberspace connection between the actions of Cersei Bannister and the effects occurring in Solantis be a sufficient basis for jurisdiction of the Court, considering the potential transboundary character of the crimes committed by Bannister, in light of the Court’s recent decision in the Bangladesh/Myanmar Case?

迫害和将罗兴亚人从缅甸强制迁徙到孟加拉国是的罪行是孟加拉国/缅甸局势的核心，如果这些人在事实上无法穿越国境，就不存在强制迁徙的问题了，因为强制迁徙的罪行要求跨越两个国家。因此，由于罪行是在孟加拉国境内完成的，满足了ICC关于属地管辖的要求。本案与现实情况的不同点在于，灭绝种族罪并不要求“跨境”这一要件。现实中没有案件或情势面临本案中的这一问题。

The crimes of persecution and deportation of a population from Myanmar into Bangladesh stand at the core of the Bangladesh/Myanmar situation. If you try to deport someone and they are unable to cross the border, there is no deportation: the crime of deportation requires two States. Thus, Bangladesh was able to trigger the territorial jurisdiction of the ICC as the crime was completed on its territory. Unlike the real-life situation, the crime in our case does not require a cross-border element. No real-life case or situation has yet faced this question.

Q：近年来，网络空间发展迅猛，但网络空间与国际管辖权之间的关系仍然不明，您对此持何种观点呢？

The relationship between cyberspace and international jurisdiction is still unclear, as cyberspace is such a recent development. What is your opinion on this?

在本案中，瑟西在非缔约国境内操作其社交网络平台，平台的运营和她的居所都在瓦拉利亚。然而，她的平台使人们可以通过网络空间“进入”索兰提斯。因此，她的行为实际上并不完全发生在瓦拉利亚境内。“网络空间究竟在哪里？”这一问题也困扰着许多国内法院。在LICRA诉雅虎案中，法国指控美国雅虎公司允许公众访问拍卖纳粹纪念品的网站的行为触犯了法国国内法。一位法国法官主张，法国可以基于“行为在法国境内造成了损害”对本案行使管辖权，而非基于网站内容的上传地，即纳粹纪念品的拍卖地来判断管辖权。

In this case, Cersei operates her platform in a non-State Party: the entire operation, as well as her residence, are in Valaria. However, her platform enables people to cross into Solantis via the Internet and cyberspace. Thus, her actions are not actually confined to the territory of Valaria. The question “Where exactly is cyberspace?” has arisen in many national jurisdictions and courts. In LICRA v. Yahoo!, for example, France sought to enjoin Yahoo, a United States company, from allowing access to websites and auction platforms for Nazi memorabilia in violation of French domestic laws. A French judge determined that French jurisdiction may be applied “based on the harm done in France” rather than focusing on where the content was uploaded, where there was Nazi memorabilia up for auction online.

由于当下国际社会就网络空间的具体定义尚未达成共识，该案旨在考察大家的研究创新能力，大家可以参阅各类资料来支撑自己的观点。

Considering that there is no standard international definition of cyberspace, the case is meant to test your creativity to research and refer to the best arguments possible in order to support your case.

Photo by loly galina on Unsplash

REFERENCES

[1] The Public International Law and Policy Group, Documenting Atrocity Crimes Committed Against the Rohingya in Myanmar’s Rakhine State (Factual Findings, 2018).

[2] This standard is applied by the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) when deciding whether to open an investigation into alleged crimes within its jurisdiction.

[3] The Public International Law and Policy Group, Documenting Atrocity Crimes Committed Against the Rohingya in Myanmar’s Rakhine State (Factual Findings and Legal Analysis, 2018).

 翻   译 

Yena，“法律竞赛”编辑。

2020年ICCMCC英文赛，教练，中国区总冠军、书状冠军。

Sarah，“法律竞赛”编辑。

 近期推荐 

编辑丨Sarah    

点亮在看让更多人看见