Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/56927| 題名: | 論安理會決議之法律效力 On the Legal Force of Security Council Resolution |
作者: | 楊天立 Yang, Jimmy T.L. |
貢獻者: | 陳純一 Chen, Chun I 楊天立 Yang, Jimmy T.L. |
關鍵詞: | 安理會決議 法律效力 拘束力 安理會之立法功能 安理會決議之司法審查 聯合國國際法院 前南斯拉夫國際法庭 盧安達國際法庭 Security Council Resolution Legal Force Binding Force Legislative Role of Security Council Judicial Review of Security Council Resolution ICJ ICTY ICTR |
日期: | 2011 | 上傳時間: | 4-Feb-2013 | 摘要: | 一些著名案件與決議在學術界引起對安理會決議性質的熱烈辯論，其中包括國際法院勞特派特在波士尼亞種族滅絕案的個別意見、前南斯拉夫國際法庭的塔迪奇案以及歐盟法院的卡迪案，以及安理會決議第1373號與第1540號。本論文提供討論這些案件與決議的相關議題的一般架構。本論文主張可以用更精確的方式定義安理會決議的法律效力以及安理會的立法功能。本論文所檢視的範圍超過上述案件與決議，嘗試捕捉自冷戰結束以來安理會權力擴張趨勢的一般意義，並指出決議做為國際法的一項淵源的可能性。 Several prominent cases and resolutions elicit hot debates on the characters of Security Council resolution in academia. These include ICJ in seperate opinion of Lauterpacht on Bosnia Genoocide case, ICTY in Tadic case, ECJ in Kadi case, and Security Council resolution 1373 and 1540. The thesis provides a general framework to discuss \nthe relevent issues in those cases and resolutions. It argues that legal force of Security Council resolution \nand legislative role of Security Council can be defined in a more refined way. Its investigation went byond the above cases and resolutions, trying to catch the general implications of the trend of expansion of Security Council`s power since the end of the Cold War, by indicating the potential of the resolutions as one of the sources of international law. |
參考文獻: | 參考資料\n\n一、 條約與權威文件\n\n1. 條約與條約草案\n\n《公民權利和政治權利公約》\n\n《加弗納斯島協定》\n\n《全面性恐怖主義公約草案》\n\n《防止與懲罰種族滅絕罪公約》\n\n《制止向恐怖主義提供資助的國際公約》\n\n《制止非法劫持航空器蒙特利公約》\n\n《保護戰爭受害者各項日內瓦公約》\n\n《保護戰爭受害者各項日內瓦公約》的《第二附加議定書》\n\n《美洲人權公約》\n\n《國家對國際不法行為的責任》，最終版，A/RES/56/83, Annex, 28 January 2002.\n\n《國際軍事法庭憲章》\n\n《國際刑事法院羅馬規約》\n\n《國際組織的責任條款草案》，2011年版，A/66/10\n\n《陸戰法規和慣例》(1907年10月18日海牙第四公約)\n\n《陸戰法規和慣例》的《公約附件 陸戰法律和慣例章程》\n\n《維也納條約法公約》\n\n《歐洲人權公約》的《保護人權與基本自由公約》\n\n《歐洲人權公約》的《第一議定書》\n\n《歐體條約》\n\n《聯合國憲章》\n\n2. 安理會決議\n\nS/RES/1 (1946) 軍事參謀團\n\nS/RES/8 (1946) 吸收新會員國：阿富汗，冰島，瑞典\n\nS/RES/9 (1946) 國際法院\n\nS/RES/18 (1947) 軍備：調節與裁減\n\nS/RES/22 (1947) 科府海峽事件\n\nS/RES/27 (1947) 印尼問題\n\nS/RES/52 (1948) 原子能：國際控制\n\nS/RES/54 (1948) 巴勒斯坦問題\n\nS/RES/68 (1949) 軍備：調節與裁減\n\nS/RES/74 (1949) 原子能：國際管制\n\nS/RES/77 (1949) 戰略防區之託管\n\nS/RES/78 (1949) 戰略防區之託管\n\nS/RES/82 (1950) 大韓民國遭受侵略之控訴\n\nS/RES/83 (1950) 大韓民國遭受侵略之控訴\n\nS/RES/84 (1950) 大韓民國遭受侵略之控訴\n\nS/RES/216 (1965) 南羅德西亞\n\nS/RES/217 (1965) 南羅德西亞局勢問題\n\nS/RES/221 (1966) 南羅德西亞局勢問題\n\nS/RES/232 (1966) 南羅德西亞局勢問題\n\nS/RES/253 (1968) 南羅德西亞局勢問題\n\nS/RES/255 (1968) 保障防止核武器擴散條約非核武器當事國之措施問題\n\nS/RES/264 (1969) 納米比亞局勢\n\nS/RES/276 (1970) 納米比亞局勢\n\nS/RES/279 (1970) 中東局勢\n\nS/RES/286 (1970) 商用飛機劫持事件日增所造成之情事\n\nS/RES/541 (1983) 賽普勒斯\n\nS/RES/579 (1985) 綁架人質\n\nS/RES/618 (1988) 譴責劫持和綁架人質行為\n\nS/RES/635 (1989) 塑膠炸藥或薄片炸藥加添標記以利偵測\n\nS/RES/638 (1989) 人質扣留\n\nS/RES/678 (1990) 伊拉克-科威特間局勢\n\nS/RES/687 (1991) 伊拉克-科威特間局勢\n\nS/RES/688 (1991) 伊拉克\n\nS/RES/713 (1991) 南斯拉夫社會主義聯邦共和國\n\nS/RES/731 (1992) 利比亞問題\n\nS/RES/748 (1992) 利比亞局勢\n\nS/RES/777 (1992) 前南斯拉夫的馬其頓共和國局勢\n\nS/RES/787 (1992) 波士尼亞和黑塞哥維那局勢\n\nS/RES/808 (1993) 前南斯拉夫的馬其頓共和國局勢\n\nS/RES/810 (1993) 柬埔寨局勢\n\nS/RES/824 (1993) 波士尼亞和黑塞哥維那局勢\n\nS/RES/827 (1993) 前南斯拉夫的馬其頓共和國局勢\n\nS/RES/883 (1993) 利比亞局勢\n\nS/RES/912 (1994) 盧旺達局勢\n\nS/RES/918 (1994) 盧旺達局勢\n\nS/RES/929 (1994) 盧旺達局勢\n\nS/RES/935 (1994) 盧旺達局勢\n\nS/RES/940 (1994) 海地問題\n\nS/RES/955 (1994) 盧旺達局勢\n\nS/RES/981 (1995) 前南斯拉夫的馬其頓共和國局勢\n\nS/RES/984 (1995) 關於安全保證的提案\n\nS/RES/990 (1995) 克羅地亞局勢\n\nS/RES/1189 (1998) 和平與安全–肯雅和坦桑尼亞\n\nS/RES/1244 (1999) 南斯拉夫科索沃局勢\n\nS/RES/1261 (1999) 兒童和武裝衝突\n\nS/RES/1265 (1999) 武裝衝突中保護平民\n\nS/RES/1267 (1999) 阿富汗局勢：制裁塔利班\n\nS/RES/1269 (1999) 消除國際恐怖主義\n\nS/RES/1296 (2000) 武裝衝突中保護平民\n\nS/RES/1308 (2000) 愛滋病毒/愛滋病\n\nS/RES/1314 (2000) 兒童與武裝衝突\n\nS/RES/1325 (2000) 婦女與和平與安全\n\nS/RES/1326 (2000) 南斯拉夫聯盟共和國加入聯合國\n\nS/RES/1327 (2000) 和平行動問題小組的報告\n\nS/RES/1333 (2000) 阿富汗局勢：制裁塔利班\n\nS/RES/1353 (2001) 加強與部隊派遣國合作\n\nS/RES/1366 (2001) 預防武裝衝突：安理會的作用\n\nS/RES/1368 (2001) 打擊恐怖主義\n\nS/RES/1373 (2001) 國際合作防止恐怖主義行為\n\nS/RES/1374 (2001) 安哥拉局勢：制裁監測機制\n\nS/RES/1377 (2001) 全球努力打擊恐怖主義的宣言\n\nS/RES/1379 (2001) 兒童與武裝衝突\n\nS/RES/1390 (2002) 反恐怖主義：制裁本‧拉丹和“基地”組織\n\nS/RES/1431 (2002) 盧旺達法庭和前南法庭：修改規約\n\nS/RES/1438 (2002) 打擊恐怖主義\n\nS/RES/1440 (2002) 打擊恐怖主義\n\nS/RES/1441 (2002) 伊拉克裁軍：強化視察制度\n\nS/RES/1450 (2002) 打擊恐怖主義\n\nS/RES/1452 (2002) 打擊恐怖主義：金融措施\n\nS/RES/1455 (2003) 制裁塔利班和“基地”組織\n\nS/RES/1456 (2003) 打擊恐怖主義的宣言\n\nS/RES/1460 (2003) 兒童與武裝衝突\n\nS/RES/1465 (2003) 打擊恐怖主義\n\nS/RES/1502 (2003) 保護聯合國人員和人道主義人員\n\nS/RES/1503 (2003) 前南問題國際法庭和盧旺達問題國際法庭：分設檢察官\n\nS/RES/1512 (2003) 盧旺達問題國際法庭\n\nS/RES/1516 (2003) 打擊恐怖主義\n\nS/RES/1526 (2004) 制裁塔利班和“基地”組織\n\nS/RES/1530 (2004) 打擊恐怖主義\n\nS/RES/1534 (2004) 前南問題國際法庭和盧旺達問題國際法庭\n\nS/RES/1535 (2004) 反恐委員會：設立執行局\n\nS/RES/1539 (2004) 兒童與武裝衝突\n\nS/RES/1540 (2004) 防止核生化武器擴散\n\nS/RES/1546 (2004) 伊拉克臨時政府：設立\n\nS/RES/1566 (2004) 打擊一切形式的恐怖主義\n\nS/RES/1611 (2005) 打擊恐怖主義\n\nS/RES/1612 (2005) 保護受武裝衝突影響的兒童\n\nS/RES/1617 (2005) 對與恐怖主義有關聯者採取的措施\n\nS/RES/1618 (2005) 譴責在伊拉克的恐怖行為\n\nS/RES/1624 (2005) 國際和平與安全面臨的威脅\n\nS/RES/1625 (2005) 加強安理會預防衝突的效力\n\nS/RES/1631 (2005) 聯合國與區域組織在維護國際和平與安全方面的合作\n\nS/RES/1646 (2005) 建設和平委員會組織委員會成員\n\nS/RES/1673 (2006) 不擴散大規模毀滅性武器：延長1540委員會任期\n\nS/RES/1674 (2006) 武裝衝突中保護平民\n\nS/RES/1718 (2006) 防擴散問題：制裁朝鮮\n\nS/RES/1730 (2006) 制裁：除名程式\n\nS/RES/1735 (2006) 恐怖主義威脅：制裁恐怖分子的措施\n\nS/RES/1738 (2006) 武裝衝突中保護平民：新聞媒體人員的保護\n\nS/RES/1747 (2007) 伊朗核問題：制裁措施\n\nS/RES/1787 (2007) 恐怖行為對國際和平與安全造成的威脅：延長反恐執行局任期\n\nS/RES/1805 (2008) 恐怖行為對國際和平與安全造成的威脅：延長反恐執行局任期\n\nS/RES/1810 (2008) 不擴散大規模毀滅性武器：延長1540委員會任期\n\nS/RES/1820 (2008) 婦女與和平與安全：要求武裝衝突各方停止針對包括婦女在內所有平民的一切性暴力\n\nS/RES/1822 (2008) 恐怖行為對國際和平與安全造成的威脅：制裁恐怖分子的措施\n\nS/RES/1882 (2009) 兒童與武裝衝突\n\nS/RES/1894 (2009) 在武裝衝突局勢中保護平民\n\nS/RES/1904 (2009) 恐怖行為對國際和平與安全造成的威脅\n\n3. 國際組織基本文件\n\n《安理會暫行議事規則》，S/96/Rev.7.\n\n《聯合國國際法院規約》\n\n《聯合國國際法院訴訟規則》\n\n《聯合國行政法庭分庭規約》\n\n《聯合國上訴法庭規約》\n\n《盧旺達問題國際法庭規約》\n\n《前南斯拉夫國際法庭規約》\n\n《前南斯拉夫國際法庭訴訟程式與證據規則》\n\n《盧旺達問題國際法庭訴訟程式與證據規則》\n\n4. 國際實踐（聲明稿、演講稿、新聞稿、信件、報告、會議紀錄、議程、與決議草案）\n\n1267委員會監測報告，S/2005/572 (2005)\n\n1989年5月24日聯合國經濟及社會理事會第1989/65號決議\n\n1990年5月25日「經濟暨社會理事會」(Economic and Social Council)第1990/48號決議特別報告員B.W.恩迪阿耶(Ndiaye)先生關於1993年4月8日至17日到盧旺達查訪的報告，E/CN.4/1994/7/Add.1\n\n1994年10月1日秘書長給安全理事會主席的信，S/1994/1125\n\n1994年10月31日烏干達常駐聯合國代表團臨時代辦給安全理事會主席的信，S/1994/1230\n\n1994年9月28日盧旺達常駐聯合國代表給安全理事會主席的信，S/1994/1115\n\n1994年9月28日關於盧旺達難民和安全問題的聲明，S/1994/1115, Annex\n\n1995年2月13日秘書長按照安理會第955(1994)號決議第5段提出的報告，S/1995/134\n\n2004年8月4日安理會主席聲明，S/PRST/2004/28\n\nA More Secure World: Our shared responsibility, Report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, United Nations, 2004, A/59/565.\n\nA/41/PV.53\n\nA/RES/44/162\n\nA/RES/47/1\n\nA/RES/55/12\n\nA/RES/60/251\n\nA/RES/63/253\n\nA/RES/686(VII)(1952)\n\nBasic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Milan, 26 August to 6 September 1985, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.121/22/Rev.1 at 59 (1985).\n\nE/CN.4/1994/7/Add.1，1990年5月25日「經濟暨社會理事會」(Economic and Social Council)第1990/48號決議特別報告員B.W.恩迪阿耶(Ndiaye)先生關於1993年4月8日至17日到盧旺達查訪的報告\n\nE/CN.4/1995/12，1994年8月12日「人權特別報告員Rene Degni-Segui先生根據1994年5月25日S-3/1號決議第20段提出的關於盧旺達人權情況的報告」(聯合國秘書長又將該報告轉遞給安理會，S/1994/1157, Annex II)\n\nE/CN.4/1995/7，1994年6月28日「人權委員會特別報告員R. Degni-Segui先生根據委員會1994年5月25日第S-3/1號決議第20段提出的關於盧旺達人權情況的報告」(聯合國秘書長又將該報告轉遞給安理會，因此文號又為S/1994/1157, Annex I)\n\nE/CN.4/S-3/1，人權委員會1994年5月24至25日第三次「特別會議」(special sessions)第S-3/1號決議\n\nE/CN.4/S-3/3，人權委員會，1994年5月24至25日第三屆特別會議，臨時議程項目3\n\nEC Law, Commission Regulation 1190/2008 of 28 November 2008, 2008 O.J. (L 322) 25\n\nEC Law, Council regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002\n\nFact Sheet on Listing, http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/fact_sheet_listing.shtml\n\nFinalized by Martti Koskenniemi, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Addendum, Appendix, Draft conclusions of the work of the Study Group, A/CN.4/L.682/Add.1\n\nFinalized by Martti Koskenniemi, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, International Law Commission, Fifty-eighth session, Geneva, 1 May-9 June and 3 July-11 August 2006, A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006\n\nGerman Law, Law regulating the cooperation with the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia\n\nHow the European Union and the United Nations cooperate, United Nations Regional Information Centre, January 2007. http://www.unric.org/html/english/pdf/Leporello_EU-VN_e.pdf\n\nInternational Law Commission, Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its twenty-first session, 2 June-8 August 1969, pp. 80-81, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/220 (1969).\n\nJefferson總統就職典禮演說草稿，David N. Mayer, the Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson 270 (1994)\n\nLetter dated 27 October 2000 from the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Secretary-General, A/55/528-S/2000/1043, annex.\n\nLondon Agreement of 8 Aug 1945, reprinted in 1 Trial of Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal 8, pp 8–9 (1947)\n\nMadison’s Observation on Jefferson’s Draft of a Constitution for Virginia in 6 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 308, 315, Julian P. Boyd (ed.), 1952.\n\nPress Release, United Nations Security Council, Security Council Considers Terrorists Threats to International Peace, Security—Statement by Chairman of Counter-Terrorism Committee (Oct. 4, 2002).\n\nQuestions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), Cases removed from the Court’s List at the joint request of the Parties, Press Release 2003/29, 10 September 2003\n\nRepertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 16th Supplement 2008-2009 Part II - Provisional rules of procedure\n\nReport of the Committee Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004), S/2008/493.\n\nReport of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session (1994), Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court, A/49/10\n\nS/Agenda/2529\n\nS/Agenda/2718\n\nS/Agenda/3175\n\nS/Agenda/5526\n\nS/PV.2529(OR)\n\nS/PV.2718\n\nS/PV.3116\n\nS/PV.3175\n\nS/PV.3217\n\nS/PV.3453\n\nS/PV.4248\n\nS/PV.5526\n\nS/PV.6134\n\nSecurity Council Committee Established Pursuant to Resolution 1267 (1999) Concerning Al-Qaida and The Taliban and Associated Individuals and Entities—Guidelines of the Committee for the Conduct of Its Work, 9 December 2008\n\nSir Franklin Berman (UK):Chair, Professor Malcolm Shaw (UK): Co-Rapporteur, and Professor Karel Wellens (Netherlands): Co-Rapporteur, International Law Association, Berlin Conference (2004), Accountability of International Organization, Final Report.\n\nSpeech by James Madison to the House of Representatives on the Removal Power of the President (June 17, 1789), in 12 the Papers of Madison, 232, 238.\n\nThe Report Prepared by Iain Cameron Commissioned by the Council of Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights, Due Process and United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Sanctions, 6 February 2006.\n\nThe Tripartite Conference at Moscow, 19–30 Oct 1943, reprinted in International Conciliation, No 395, pp. 599–605 (1943)\n\nThe United Nations and the New Threats: Rethinking Security, Regional Forum, Sponsored by Aspen Institute Italia, IAI, IsIAO, UNF, UNICRI, 28-9 May, 2004.\n\nThird Annual Report of ICTY, S/1996/665\n\nTranscript of Press Conference by Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, (15 January 1993). SG/SM/4902/Rev.1.\n\nU.S. Proposal for Rules of Evidence, reprinted in ABA Section of International Law and practice, Report on the proposed Rules of Procedure and Evidence on the International Tribunal to Adjudicate War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia, 1995\n\nUnited Nations Security Council and the Rule of Law, A/63/69-S/2008/270\n\nUnited States Law, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Advisory Committee Note\n\nUnited States Law, Restatement (Third) Agency, (2006), para.1.01 (Agency Defined)\n\nUnited States Law, Restatement (Third) Agency, (2006), para.2.02 (Scope of Actual Authority)\n\n人權委員會第三屆特別會議的報告（1994年5月24日、25日，日內瓦），E/CN.4/S-3/4\n\n大會決議草案，A/41/L.22\n\n以色列常駐聯合國代表於2003年10月20號在聯合國大會的聲明，A/ES-10/PV.21\n\n尼加拉瓜在1984年4月4日的安理會決議草案，S/16463.\n\n尼加拉瓜駐聯合國代表在1984年3月29寫給安理會的信，S/16449\n\n尼加拉瓜駐聯合國代表在1986年10月17日寫信给安理會的信，S/18415\n\n伊朗代表受安理會主席邀請所做發言，S/PV.5848, pp.5-6\n\n安全理事會的《慣例匯輯》\n\n安全理事會第935(1994)號決議所設獨立專家委員會的初步報告，S/1994/1125, Annex\n\n安理會之會議形式報告，S/2006/507\n\n安理會主席聲明，S/PRST/2008/43\n\n安理會決議草案，S/18428\n\n安理會決議草案，S/1994/1168\n\n安理會決議草案，S/2000/1171\n\n安理會決議草案，S/2000/1171\n\n安理會決議草案，S/25314\n\n安理會決議草案，S/25314\n\n法國代表給聯合國秘書長的信件，S/25266.\n\n美國《聯邦民事訴訟規則》(Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)\n\n美國1934年的《規則授權法案》(Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071-2077)\n\n美國在2006年9月15日給安理會主席的信，S/2006/742\n\n美國第一任最高法院法官James Wilson在其1791年的演講稿，The Works of James Wilson 330, Robert Green McCloskey, (ed.)\n\n美國就伊拉克2003年戰爭給聯合國秘書長的信，S/2003/351 (21 Mar 2003)\n\n英國就伊拉克2003年戰爭給聯合國秘書長的信，S/2003/350 (21 Mar 2003)\n\n瑞典代表給聯合國秘書長的信件，S/25307\n\n義大利代表給聯合國秘書長的信件，S/25300\n\n歐洲議會、歐體理事會及執委會於1977年4月5日的聯合聲明，OJ 1977, C103/1\n\n聯合國主管法律事務廳副秘書長兼法律頋問給波士尼亞-黑塞哥維那及克羅地亞常駐聯合國代表的信，A/47/485, annex.\n\n聯合國秘書長在1993年6月4日致各會員國之信件，SCA/8/93(7)\n\n聯合國秘書長根據安理會決議第808(1993)號所提出供安理會審議的報告，S/25704\n\n二、 專書\n\nRosalyn Higgins, The development of international law through the political organs of the United Nations, New York: Oxford University Press (1963).\n\nAlexander Orakhelashvili, Peremptory Norms in International Law, New York: Oxford University Press (2006).\n\nIan Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, New York: Oxford University Press (6th 2003).\n\nIan Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, New York: Oxford University press, (4th ed. 1990).\n\nThomas Buergenthal, Sean D. Murphy, Public International Law in a Nutshell, St. Paul, Minnisoda: Thomson/West (2006).\n\nG. M. Danilenko, Law-Making in the International Community, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (1993).\n\nA. John Simmons, Moral Principles and Political Obligation (1979).\n\nJoost Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law \nRelates to Other Rules of International Law, UK: Cambridge University Press (2003).\n\nJoseph Raz, the Concept of a Legal System: an Introduction to the Theory of Legal System 190 (2d ed. 1980).\n\nLarry D. Kramer, the People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (2004).\n\nScott J. Shapiro, Legality 304-05, Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (2011).\n\nKarl Llewellyn, The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study, New York: Oceana Publication (1951).\n\nSteven D. Smith, Law’s Quandary, Cambridge: Harvard University Press (2004).\nWilliam Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Law of England 70 (1979) (first published 1765).\n\nAnthony A. D’Amato, the Concept of Custom in International Law, London: Cornell University Press (1971).\n\nJose E. Alvarez, International Organizations as Law-Makers, New York: Oxford University Press (2005).\n\nH.L.A. Hart, the Concept of Law, New York: Oxford University Press (2d ed. 1994).\n\nJean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, ICRC and Cambridge University Press (2005).\n\nG. M. Danilenko, Law-Making in the International Community, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (1993).\n\nBassiouni, M. Cherif and Edward M. Wise, Aut dedere aut judicare: the duty to extradite or prosecute in international law, Boston : M. Nijhoff (1995).\n\nAnthony Cullen, The Concept of Non-International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law, New York: Cambridge University press (2010).\n\nVictor Peskin, International Justice in Rwanda and the Balkans: Virtual Trials and the Struggle for State Cooperation (2008).\n\nDanesh Sarooshi, International Organizations and Their Exercise of Sovereign Powers (2005).\n\nJ. Taitz, The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Cape Town: Juta & Co., Ltd. (1985).\n\nAntonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, New York: Oxford University Press (2d ed. 2008).\n\nAntonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, New York: Oxford University Press (1st ed. 2005).\n\n三、 期刊與合籍的文章\n\n吳信華，論大法官釋憲程序中之「疑義」與「爭議」─兼對「憲法疑義」與「機關爭議」的訴訟類型為釐清與辯正，8 中研院法學期刊 1, (2011).\n\n洪德欽，歐盟憲法之法理分析，39 歐美研究 255 (2007).\n\n高聖惕，國際民航組織觀察員制度暨領域代表權普遍化之概念，11 東吳法律學報 (1998).\n\n許耀明，歐體法院角色之再省思與法律解釋之「整體協調性」原則，2 中華國際法與超國界法評論 255 (2006).\n\n陳純一，WTO法在國際法上之地位，3 中華國際法與超國界法評論 31 (2007).\n\n趙國材，論洛克比空難案所涉及之國際法問題，56 軍法專刊 1 (100).\n\nAdolphus G. Karibi-Whyte, the Twin Ad Hoc Tribunals and Primacy Over National Courts, 9 Criminal Law Forum 55 (1999)\n\nAlex Obote-Odora, Drafting of Indictments for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 12 Criminal Law Forum 335 (2001).\n\nAlexander Orakhelashvili, the acts of the security council: meaning and standards of review, 11 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 143 (2007).\n\nAlexander Orakhelashvili, The Acts of the Security Council: Meaning and Standards of Review, in A. von Bogdandy and R. Wolfrum, (eds.), 11 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 143 (2007).\n\nAllison Marston Danner, Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion in International Criminal Court, 97 American Journal of International Law 510 (2003). \n\nAllison Marston Danner, Navigating Law and Politics: the Prosecutor of International Criminal Court and the Independent Counsel, 55 Stanford Law Review 1633 (2003).\n\nAmy Coney Barrett, Procedural Common Law, 94 Virginia Law review 813 (2008).\n\nAmy Coney Barrett, the Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court, 106 Columbia Law Review 324 (2006).\n\nAndrea Bianchi, Assessing the Effectiveness of the UN Security Council’s Anti-terrorism Measures: The Quest for legitimacy and Cohesion, 17 European Journal of International Law 881 (2006).\n\nAnthea Elizabeth Roberts, Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International law: A Reconciliation, 95 American Journal of International law 757 (2001).\n\nAttila Tanzi, Problems of Enforcement of Decisions of the International Court of justice and the Law of the United nations, 6 European Journal of International Law 1.\n\nB. Sloan, General Assembly Resolutions Revisited (Forty Years Later), 58 British Yearbook of International Law 39 (1987).\n\nBartram S. Brown, Primacy or Complementarity: Reconciling the Jurisdiction of National Courts and International Criminal Tribunals, 23 Yale Journal of International Law 385 (1998)\n\nBrian Leiter, Legal formalism and legal realism: What is the issue?, 16 Legal Theory 111 (2010).\n\nBrian Leiter, Legal Realism and Legal Positivism Reconsidered, 111 Ethics 278 (2001).\n\nC. Cora True-Frost, The Security Council and Norm Consumption, 40 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 115 (2007-2008).\n\nC. Cora True-Frost, The UN Security Council Marks Seventh Anniversary of Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security with Open Debate, ASIL Insights, Volume 11, Issue 29, December 17, 2007.\n\nC. Wilfred Jenks, Conflict of Law-Making Treaties, 30 British Yearbook of International Law 401 (1953).\n\nCarten Stahn, Responsibility to Protect: Political Rhetoric or Emerging Legal Norm? 101 American Journal of Internationa Law 99 (2007).\n\nCass Sunstein, Nondelegation Canons, 67 University of Chicago Law Review 315 (2000)\n\nCatherine T. Struve, The Paradox of Delegation: Interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 150 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1099 (2002).\n\nCesare P. R. Romano, the Shift from the Consensual to the Compulsory Paradigm in International Adjudication: Elements for a Theory of Consent, 39 New York University Journal of International Law and Policy 791 (2007).\n\nCharles Warren, Earliest Cases of Judicial Review by Federal Court, 32 Yale Law Journal 15, 1992.\n\nChester Brown, the Inherent Powers of International Courts and Tribunals, 75 British Yearbook of International Law 195 (2004).\n\nChristian Much, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Terrorism as an International Crime, 14 Michigan State Journal of International Law 121 (2006).\n\nChristine Gray, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Orders of Provisional Measures of 8 April 1993 and 13 September 1993, 43 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 704 (1994).\n\nD. Bowtt, the Impact of Security Council Decisions on Dispute Settlement Procedure, 5 European Journal of International Law 1 (1994).\n\nDagmar Strob, State Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, 5 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 249 (2001).\n\nDanesh Sarooshi, The Essentially Contested Nature of the Concept of Sovereignty: Implications for the Exercise by International Organizations of Delegated powers of Government, 25 Michigan Journal of International Law 1107 (2004).\n\nDanesh Sarooshi, the Legal Framework Governing United Nations Subsidiary Organs, 67 British Yearbook of International Law 413 (1996).\n\nDanesh Sarooshi, the Powers of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals, 2 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 141 (1998).\n\nDaniel J. Meador, Inherent Judicial Authority in the Conduct of Civil Litigation, 73 Texas Law Review 1805 (1994-1995).\n\nDaphna Shraga and Ralph Zacklin, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 5 European Journal of International Law 360 (1994).\n\nDaryl A. Mundis, the Judicial Effect of the “Completion Strategies” on the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals, 99 American Journal of International Law 142 (2005).\n\nDaryl A. Mundis, the Legal Character and Status of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ad hoc International Criminal tribunals, 1 International Criminal Law Review 191 (2001).\n\nDetlev F. Vagts, Hegemonic International Law, 95 American Journal of International Law 843 (2001).\n\nDiane Marie Amann, Prosecutor v. Akayesu, 93 American Journal of International Law 195 (1999).\n\nDinah Shelton, Normative Hierarchy in International Law, 100 American Journal of International Law 291, (2006).\n\nDomingo E. Acevedo, Disputes under Consideration by the UN Security Council or Regional Bodies, pp. 242-263, in The International Court of Justice at a Crossroads, Lori Fisler Damrosch, (ed.), United States of America: the American Society of International Law (1987).\n\nDr Mohamed M El Zeidy, From Primacy to Complementarity and Backward: (Re)-Visiting Rule 11 bis of the Ad hoc Tribunals, 57 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 403 (2008)\n\nE. Lauterpacht, Aspects of the Administration of International Justice (1991).\nEfthymios Papastavridis, Interpretation of Security Council Resolution under Chapter VII in the Aftermath of the Iraqi Crisis, 56 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 83, January 2007.\n\nEric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule, Interring the Nondelegation Doctrine, 69 University of Chicago Law Review 1721 (2002).\n\nEric Rosand, the Security Council as “Global Legislator”: Ultra Vires or Ultra Innovative?, 28 Fordham International Law Journal 542 (2004-2005).\n\nErich Vranes, the Definition of ‘Norm Conflict’ in International Law and Legal Theory, 17 European Journal of International Law 395 (2006).\n\nFabricio Guariglia, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court: a New Development in International Adjudication of Individual Criminal Responsibility 1111, in the Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Antonio Cassese et al. (eds.), 2002.\n\nFilip Reyntjens, Constructing the Truth, Dealing with Dissent, Domesticating the World: Governance in Post-Genocide Rwanda, African Affairs, Vol.110, No.438, pp.1-34.\n\nGeert-Jan Alexander Knoops, Challenging the Legitimacy of Initiating Contemporary International Criminal Proceedings: Rethinking Prosecutorial Discretionary Powers from a Legal, ethical and Political Perspective, 15 Criminal Law Review 365 (2004)\n\nGöran Sluiter, the ICTY and Offences against the Administration of Justice, 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 631 (2004).\n\nGráinne de Búrca, the European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi, 51 Harvard International Journal 1 (2010).\n\nGwendoly Stamper, Infusing Due Process and the Principle of Legality into Contempt Proceedings before the International Criminal tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal tribunal for Rwanda, 109 Michigan Law Review 1551 (2011).\n\nH.L.A. Hart, “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,” 71 Harvard Law Review 593.\n\nHitoshi Nasu, Chapter VII Powers and the Rule of Law: The Jurisdictional Limits, 26 Australian Yearbook of International Law 87.\n\nIan Johnstone, Legislation and Adjudication in the UN Security Council: Bringing down the Deliberative Deficit, 102 American Journal of International Law 275 (2008).\n\nIan P. Farrell, On the Value of Jurisprudence, 90 Texas Law Review 187.\nJacob Katz Cogan, Competition and Control in International Adjudication, 48 Virginia Journal of International Law 411 (2008)\n\nJacob Katz Cogan, Noncompliance and the International Rule of Law, 31 Yale Journal of International Law 189 (2006).\n\nJacob Katz Cogan, the Regulatory Turn in International Law, 52 Harvard International law Journal (2011).\n\nJan Wouters and Tom Ruys, Egmont Paper, Security Council Reform: A new Veto for a New Century? Royal Institute for International Relations (IRRI-KIIB), Brussels, Academic Press: August 2005, pp. 1-35.\n\nJelena Pejic, Status of armed conflicts, pp. 77-100, in Perspectives on the ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law, Elizabeth Wilmshurst and Susan Breau (eds.), New York: Cambridge University Press (2007).\n\nJelena Pejic, the European Court of Human Rights’ Al-Jedda judgment: the oversight of international humanitarian law, 93 International Review of the Red Cross 837 (2011).\n\nJohn Austin, the Province of Jurisprudence Determined 18-25, in Wilfrid E. Rumble (ed.), 1995.\n\nJose E. Alvarez, Hegemonic International Law Revisited, 97 American Journal of International Law 873 (2003).\n\nJose E. Alvarez, Nuremberg Revisited: The Tadić Case, 7 European Journal of International Law 245 (1996).\n\nJulia Leininger, Democracy and UN Peace-Keeping—Conflict Resolution through State-Building and Democracy Promotion in Haiti, 10 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 465 (2006).\n\nJulie Dickson, Is the Rule of Recognition Really a Conventional Rule?, 27 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 373 (2007).\n\nKai Ambos, International Criminal Procedure: “Adversarial,” “Inquisitorial,” or Mixed?, 3 International Criminal Law Review 1 (2003).\n\nKarl Doehring, Unlawful Resolution of the Security Council and Their Legal Consequences, 1 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 91 (1997).\n\nKeith Harper, Does the United Nations Security Council Have the Competence to Act as Court and Legislature, 27 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 103.\n\nKrzysztof Skubiszewski, The International Court of Justice and the Security Council, pp. 606-629, in Fifty years of the International court of Justice: Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings, Vaughan Lowe and Malgosia Fitzmaurice (eds.),Great Britain: Cambridge University Press (1996).\n\nL. Vierucci, The First Steps of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 6 European Journal of International Law 134 (1995)\n\nLarissa Van den Herik, The Security Council’s Targeted Sanctions Regimes: In Need of Better Protection of the Individual, 20 Leiden Journal of International Law 797 (2007).\n\nLarry Alexander & Frederick Schauer, Of Extrajudicial Constitutional Interpretation, 110 Harvard Law Review 1359 (1997).\n\nLarry D. Johnson, Closing an International Criminal Tribunal While Maintaining International Human Rights Standards and Excluding Impunity, 99 American Journal of International Law 158 (2005).\n\nLars Waldorf, a Mere Pretense of Justice: Complementarity, Sham trials, and Victor’s Justice at the Rwanda Tribunal, 33 Fordham International Law Journal 1221 (2010).\n\nLaura A. Dickinson, Military Lawyers on the Battlefield: an Empirical Account of International Law Compliance, 104 American Journal of International Law 1 (2010).\n\nLeslie Haskell and Lars Waldorf, the Impunity Gap of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: Causes and Consequences, 34 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 49 (2011).\n\nLinda S. Mullenix, Unconstitutional Rulemaking: The Civil Justice Reform Act and Separation of Power, 77 Minnesota Law Review 1283 (1992).\n\nLorraine Finlay, Between a Rock and a Hard Place: the Kadi Decision and Judicial Review of Security Council Resolutions, 18 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 477 (2009-2010).\n\nLouise Symons, The Inherent Powers of the ICTY and ICTR, 3 International Criminal Law review 369 (2003).\n\nLuis Miguel Hinojosa Martinez, the Legislative Role of the Security Council in Its Fight against Terrorism: Legal, Political and Practical Limits, 57 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 333 (2008).\n\nLuc Reydams, Universal Criminal Jurisdiction: the Belgian State of Affairs, 11 Criminal La w Forum 183 (2000).\n\nM. A. Drumbl and K. S. Gallant, Appeals in the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals: Structure, Procedure and Recent Cases, 3 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 634 (2001).\n\nMadeline H. Morris, the Trials of Concurrent Jurisdiction: the Case of Rwanda, 7 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 349.\n\nMalcolm D. Evans, International Wrongs and National Jurisdiction, pp. 173-190, in Edited by Malcolm D. Evans, Remedies in International Law: The Institutional Dilemma, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1998.\n\nMarcella David, Passport to Justice: Internationalizing the Political Question Doctrine for Application in the World Court, 40 Harvard International Law Journal 81 (1999).\n\nMaria Chiara Vitucci, Has Pandora`s Box Been Closed? The Decisions on the Legality of Use of Force Cases in Relation to the Status of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) within the United Nations, 19 Leiden Journal of International Law 105 (2006)\n\nMarko Divac Öberg, The Legal Effects of Resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ, 16 European Journal of International Law 879 (2005).\n\nMarko Milanović and Tatjana Papić, As Bad As It Gets: The European Court of Human Rights’ Behrami and Saramati Decision and General International Law, 58 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 267 (2009).\n\nMarko Milanović, Norm Conflict in International Law: Whither Human Rights, 20 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 69 (2009).\n\nMarl C. Fleming, Appellate Review in the International Criminal Tribunals, 37 Texas International law Journal 111 (2002).\n\nMartin H. Redish and Dennis Murashko, The Rules Enabling Act and the Procedural-Substantive Tension: a Lesson in Statutory Interpretation, 93 Minnesota Law Review 26 (2008).\n\nMartin Wählisch, Beyond a Seat in the United Nations: Palestine’s U.N. Membership and International Law, 53 Harvard International Law Journal Online 226 (2012).\n\nMatthew D. Adler, Popular Constitutionalism and the Rule of Recognition: Whose Practices Ground U.S. Law, 100 Northwestern University Law Review 719 (2006).\n\nMáximo Langer and Joseph W. Doherty, Managerial Judging Goes International, but Its Promise Remains Unfulfilled: an Empirical Assessment of the ICTY Reforms, 36 Yale Journal of International Law 241 (2011).\n\nMáximo Langer, the Rise of Managerial Judging in International Criminal Law, 53 American Journal of Comparative Law 835 (2005).\n\nMegan A. Fairlie, Rulemaking from the Bench: A Place for Minimalism at the ICTY, 39 Texas International Law Journal 257 (2004).\n\nMehrdad Payandeh, The Concept of International Law in the Jurisprudence of H.L.A. Hart, 21 European Journal of International Law 967 (2010).\n\nMichael Blasie, A Separation of Powers Defense of Federal Rulemaking Power, 66 New York University Annual Survey of American Law 593 (2011).\n\nMichael C. Wood, Participation of Former Yugoslav States in the United Nations and in Multilateral Treaties, 1 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 231 (1997)\n\nMichael C. Wood, the interpretation of security council resolutions, 2 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 73 (1998).\n\nMichael C. Wood, The UN Security Council and International Law, Third Lecture: The Security Council and the Use of Force, Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures, 7-9 November 2006.\n\nMichael Lawless, Terrorism: An International Crime, 63 International Journal 139 (2007-08).\n\nMichael P. Scharf, Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law\n\nMirjan Damaške, the Competing Visions of Fairness: the Basic Choice for International Criminal Tribunals, 36 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Comparative Regulation 365 (2011).\n\nNicholas Rostow, Determining the Lawfulness of the 2003 Campaign Against Iraq, 2004 Israeli Yearbook of Human Rights 16, 34 (2004).\n\nNicholas Tsagourias, Security Council Legislation, Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, and the Principle of Subsidiarity, 24 Leiden Journal of International Law 539 (2011).\n\nNoah Weisbord and Matthew A. Smith, the Reason Behind the Rules: from Description to Normativity in International Criminal Procedure, 36 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Comparative Regulation 255 (2011).\n\nOliver Wendell Holmes, the Path of the Law, 10 Harvard Law Review 457 (1897).\nPaola Gaeta, The Inherent Powers of International Courts and tribunals, pp. 353-372, in Man’s Inhumanity to Man: Essays on International Law in Honour of Antonio Cassese, L. Chand Vohrar et al (eds) (2003), at pp. 362-363.\n\nPaul Schiff Berman, a Pluralist Approach to International Law, 32 Yale Journal of International Law 301 (2007).\n\nPaul Szasz, General Law-Making Processes, in Christopher C. Johner, ed., The United Nations and International Law 27, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press (1997).\n\nPaul Szasz, the Security Council Starts Legislating, 96 American Journal of International Law 901 (2002).\n\nPayam Akhavan, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: The Politics and Pragmatics of Punishment, 90 American Journal of International Law 501 (1996)\n\nR.A. Falk, On the Quasi-Legislative Competence of the General Assembly, 60 American Journal of International Law 782 (1966).\n\nRob McLaughlin, The Legal Regime Applicable to Use of Lethal Force When operating under a United Nations Security Council Chapter VII Mandate Authorising ‘All Necessary Means,’ 12 Journal of Conflict & Security Law 389 (2007).\n\nRobert C. Post, Reva B. Siegel, Legislative Constitutionalism and Section Five Power: Policentric Interpretation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 112 Yale Law Journal 1943 (2003).\n\nRobert Kolb, Does Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations Apply only to Decisions or also to Authorization Adopted by Security Council, 64 ZaöRV 21 (2004).\n\nRobert Kolb, the Jurisprudence of the Yugoslav and Rwandan Criminal Tribunals of Their Jurisdiction and on International Crimes (2000-2004), 76 British Yearbook of International Law 269 (2005).\n\nRobert Y. Jennings, the Spirit of International Law (book review), 97 American Journal of International Law 725 (2003).\n\nRosa Theofanis, the Doctrine of Res Judicata in International Criminal Law, 3 International Criminal Law review 195 (2003).\n\nRosalyn Higgins, The Place of International Law in the Settlement of Disputes by the Security Council, 64 American Journal of International Law 1 (1970).\n\nRuth Mackenzie and Philippe Sands, International Courts and Tribunals and the Independence of the International Judge, 44 Harvard International Law Journal 271 (2003).\n\nScott J. Shapiro, the “Hart-Dworkin” Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed, in Ronald Dworkin 22, Authur Ripstein (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2007).\n\nScott J. Shapiro, What Is the Rule of Recognition (and Does It Exist), in The Rule of Recognition and U.S. Constitution, Matthew D. Adler and Kenneth Einar Himma (eds.) 236, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2009).\n\nSecurity Council Report, Security Council Action under Chapter VII: Myths and Realities, Special Research Report, (2008).\n\nShabtai Rosenne, Capacity to Litigate in the International Court of Justice: Reflections on Yugoslavia in the Court, 80 British Yearbook of International Law 217 (2009)\n\nSonja B. Starr, Rethinking “Effective remedies”: Remedial Deterrence in International Courts, 86 New York University Law Review 693 (2008)\n\nStefan Talmon, the Security Council as World Legislature, 99 American Journal of International Law 175 (2005).\n\nStephan Wittich, Permissible Derogation from Mandatory Rules? The Problem of Party Status in the Genocide Case, 18 European Journal of International Law 591 (2007)\n\nSteven D. Smith, Hart’s Onion: the Peeling Away of Legal Authority, 16 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 97 (2006).\n\nSudha Setty, What’s In a Name? How Nations Define Terrorism, Ten Years After 9/11, 33 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 1, (2011).\n\nSuyash Paliwal, Reviewing and Reconsidering Medellin v. Texas in Light of the Obligatory Abstention from Security Council Voting, 48 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 541.\n\nSydney D. Bailey, New Light on Abstentions in the UN Security Council, 50 International Affairs 554 (1974)\n\nT. O. Elias, the Doctrine of Intertemporal Law, 74 American Journal of International Law 285 (1980).\n\nTheodor Meron, “The Humanization of Humanitarian Law,” 94 American Journal of International Law 239 (2000).\n\nTheodor Meron, Editorial Comment: Revival of Customary Humanitarian Law, 99 American Journal of International law 817 (2005).\n\nTheodor Meron, International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities, 89 American Journal of International Law 554 (1995).\n\nTheodor Meron, Judicial Independence and Impartiality in International Criminal Tribunals, 99 American Journal of International Law 359 (2005).\n\nTheodor Meron, the Martens Clause, Principles of Humanity, and Dictates of Public Conscience, 94 American Journal of International Law 78 (2000).\n\nThomas M. Franck, The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance, 86 American Journal of International Law 46 (1992).\n\nTom Dannenbaum, Translating the Standard of Effective Control into a System of Effective Accountability: How Liability Should be Apportioned for Violations of Human Rights by Member State Troop Contingents Serving as United Nations Peacekeepers, 51 Harvard International Law Journal 113 (2010).\n\nTono Eitel, The UN Security Council and Its Future Contribution in the Field of International Law, What may we expect?, 4 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 53.\n\nVera Gowlland-Debbas, the Relationship between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council in the Light of the Lockerbie case, 88 American Journal of International Law 643 (2004).\n\nVirginia Morris, Prosecutor v. Kanyabashi, Decision on Jurisdiction. Case No. ICTR-96-15-T, 92 American Journal of International Law 66 (1998).\n\nWilliam H. Taft, IV and Todd F. Buchwald, Preemption, Iraq, and International Law, 97 American Journal of International Law 557 (2003).\n\nWilliam N. Eskridge, Jr., Dynamic Statutory Interpretation, 1987 135 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1479 (1987)\n\nXavier Tracol, The Precedent of Appeals Chambers Decisions in the international Criminal Tribunals, 17 Leiden Journal of International Law 67 (2004).\n\nYehuda Z. Blum, Consistently Inconsistent: The International Court of Justice and the Former Yugoslavia (Croatia v. Serbia), 103 American Journal of International Law 264 (2009).\n\nYehuda Z. Blum, Was Yugoslavia a Member of the United Nations in the Years 1992-2000?, 101 American Journal of International law 800 (2007).\n\n四、 案例\n\n1. 聯合國國際法院案例\n\nConditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter), Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1948\n\nApplication for Review of Judgment No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1982\n\nApplication for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of 12 July 1973\n\nApplication for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina), Judgment of 3 February 2003\n\nApplication of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Further Requests for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 13 September 1993\n\nApplication of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Further Requests for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht, Order of 13 September 1993\n\nApplication of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007\n\nApplication of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 11 July 1996\n\nApplication of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 8 April 1993\n\nApplication of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 18 November 2008\n\nQuestions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 27 February 1998\n\nQuestions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 27 February 1998\n\nQuestions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Dissenting opinions of Judge ad hoc Sir Robert Jennings, Judgment of 27 February 1998\n\nQuestions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), Request for the indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 14 April 1992\n\nQuestions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), Request for the indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 14 April 1992\n\nCertain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1962\n\nLegality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996\n\nCorfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), Preliminary objection, Judgment of 25 March 1948\n\nEffect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of 13 July 1954\n\nInterpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion of 20 December 1980\n\nAccordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo (Request for Advisory Opinion), Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010\n\nLegal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971\n\nLegal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004\n\nLegal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Separate Opinion of Judge Kooijmans, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004\n\nLegality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 15 December 2004\n\nMilitary and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986\n\nMilitary and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application, Judgment of 26 November 1984\n\nNuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974\n\nReparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949\n\nUnited States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment of 24 May 1980\n\nWestern Sahara, Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975\n\n2. 前南斯拉夫國際法庭案例\n\nBlaškić (IT-95-14) ``Lašva Valley``, Trial Decisions, Decision on the Objection of the Republic of Croatia to the Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum, 18 Jul 1997\n\nBlaškić (IT-95-14) ``Lašva Valley``, Appeals Chamber Decisions, Judgment on the Request of The Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, 29 Oct 1997\n\nTadić (IT-94-1) "Prijedor", Trial Decisions, Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction, 10 Aug 1995\n\nTadić (IT-94-1) "Prijedor", Appeals Chamber Decisions, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995\n\nTadić (IT-94-1) "Prijedor", Appeals Chamber Decisions, Separate Opinion of Judge Sidhwa on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct 1995\n\nTadić (IT-94-1) "Prijedor", Trial Chamber Decisions, Decision of the Trial Chamber on the Application by the Prosecutor for a Formal Request for Deferral to the Competence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Matter of Dusko Tadic (Pursuant to Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence), 8 Nov 1994 http://sim.law.uu.nl/sim/caselaw/tribunalen.nsf/41bcf2c89e69d10bc12571b500329d64/8af675f7834119d2c12571fe004d32c0/$FILE/Dusko%20Tadic%20TCD%208-11-1994.pdf\n\nTadić (IT-94-1) "Prijedor", Trial Decisions, Decision on the Defence motion on the principle of non-bis-in-dem, 14 Nov 1995\n\nTadić (IT-94-1) "Prijedor", Trial Judgement, Opinion and Judgment, 7 May 1997\n\nTadić (IT-94-1) "Prijedor", Trial Judgement, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge McDonald Regarding the Applicability of Article 2 of the Statute, 7 May 1997\n\nTadić (IT-94-1) "Prijedor", Appeals Chamber Judgement, Judgement, 15 Jul 1999\n\nTadić (IT-94-1) "Prijedor", The Prosecutor’s Response of the Motion of the Defense on the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal, 7 July 1995\n\nFurundžija (IT-95-17/1) ``Lašva Valley``, Appeals Chamber, Judgement, 21 Jul 2000\n\nAleksovski (IT-95-14/1) ``Lašva Valley``, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, 24 Mar 2000\n\nMartić (IT-95-11) "RSK", Trial Chamber Decisions, Review of the Indictment Pursuant to the Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 13 Sep 1996\n\n3. 盧安達國際法院案例\n\nMusema, Alfred (ICTR-96-13), Trial Chamber I, Judgement and Sentence, Jan 27, 2000\n\nMusema, Alfred (ICTR-96-13), Appeals Chamber, Judgment, Nov 16, 2001\n\nNtuyahaga, Bernard (ICTR-98-40) (Indictment Withdrawn), Trial Chamber Decisions, Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion to Withdraw the Indictment, Mar 18, 1999\n\nNtuyahaga, Bernard (ICTR-98-40) (Indictment Withdrawn), Indictment, Sep 28, 1998\n\nNtuyahaga, Bernard (ICTR-98-40) (Indictment Withdrawn), Trial Chamber Decisions, Decision on the Review of the Indictment, Sep 29, 1998\n\nNtuyahaga, Bernard (ICTR-98-40) (Indictment Withdrawn), Trial Chamber Decisions, Warrant of Arrest and Order for Continued Detention, Sep 29, 1998\n\nNtuyahaga, Bernard (ICTR-98-40) (Indictment Withdrawn), Trial Chamber Decisions, Declaration on a Point of Law by Judge Laïty Kama, President of the Tribunal, Judge Lennart Aspegren and Judge Navanethem Pillay, Apr 22, 1999\n\nNtuyahaga, Bernard (ICTR-98-40) (Indictment Withdrawn), Amicus curiae submission by the Belgium Government on the Prosecutor`s request to withdraw in the Ntuyahaga case, International criminal tribunal for Rwanda, Feb 24, 1999\n\nNtuyahaga, Bernard (ICTR-98-40) (Indictment Withdrawn), Prosecutor’s Motion under Rules 51 and 73 to Withdraw the Indictment against the Accused, 23 February 1999\n\nBarayagwiza, Jean Bosco (ICTR-97-19), Defence Written Brief of 15 February 1999, (filed on 18 February 1999)\n\nBarayagwiza, Jean Bosco (ICTR-97-19), Appeal Chamber Decisions, Decision, Nov 3, 1999\n\nBarayagwiza, Jean Bosco (ICTR-97-19), Appeal Chamber Decisions, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, Nov 3, 1999\n\nKanyabashi, Joseph (ICTR-96-15), Trial Chamber Decisions, Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction, Jun 18, 1997\n\nAkayesu, Jean Paul (ICTR-96-4), Trial Chamber I, Judgement, Sep 2, 1998\n\n4. 常設國際法院案例\n\n"Lotus" Judgment of 7 September 1927, PCIJ Series A, No. 10\n\nMavrommatis Palestine Concessions, PCIJ Series A, No. 2\n\n5. 常設仲裁法院案例\n\nJudge Huber, 2 Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 831\n\n6. 歐洲人權法院案例\n\nAl-Jedda v. The United Kingdom, App. No. 27021/08, 7 July 2011\n\nBehrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway, App. Nos 71412/01 and 78166/01, ECtHR judgment of 5 May 2007\n\nBosphorus Airways v. Ireland, Judgment, App. No. 45036/98, 30 June 2005\n\n7. 歐盟法院案例\n\nCFI, Kadi v. Council & Community, Case T-315/01, 2005 ECR II-3649\n\nECJ, Costa v. ENEL, pp. 593-594, 1964 ECR 585\n\nECJ, Case 4/73 Nold v. Commission, 1974 ECR 491\n\nECJ, Kadi & Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council & Community, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and 415/05 P, 2008 ECR I-6351\n\n五、 內國法院案例\n\n1. 我國法院案例\n\n大法官釋字第632號許宗力、廖義男大法官協同意見書\n\n大法官釋字第632號余雪明大法官部分不同意見書\n\n2. 美國法院案例\n\nMarbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)\n\nMorrison, 529 U.S.598\n\nChampion & Dickason v. Casey, 1792\n\nCooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1(1958)\n\nMedellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008)\n\nAmalgamated Meat Cutters v. Connally, 337 F. Supp. 737, 747 (D.C. 22 October, 1971)\n\nEash v. Riggins Trucking, Inc.(757 F.2d 557 (3d Cir. 1985)\n\nUnited States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)\n\n3. 英國法院案例\n\nHouse of Lords, R (on the application of Al-Jedda) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Defence (Respondent), 12 December 2007\n\n4. 加拿大法院案例\n\nR. v. Nixon, 2011 SCC 34 | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 外交研究所 96253023 100 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0962530231 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 023101.pdf | 2.16 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.