發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-04-25 15:36

  本文選題：保護(hù)性管轄權(quán) + 構(gòu)成要件�。� 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2012年博士論文

【摘要】：國(guó)際法中的管轄權(quán)是一個(gè)國(guó)際法的基本理論。管轄權(quán)涉及國(guó)際法最核心的問題，即誰(shuí)來管轄案件、誰(shuí)來審判案件、誰(shuí)來執(zhí)行案件。在國(guó)際法的一般理論中，管轄權(quán)分為屬地管轄權(quán)、屬人管轄權(quán)、保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)和普遍性管轄權(quán)。在這一管轄權(quán)理論體系中，屬地、屬人和普遍管轄權(quán)在學(xué)術(shù)界研究得較多，但是對(duì)于保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的研究卻鮮見論著。 保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)是屬于國(guó)際刑事法律的范疇，其所針對(duì)的是具有涉外因素的犯罪行為。對(duì)具有涉外因素的犯罪，大多表現(xiàn)為外國(guó)人實(shí)施的犯罪行為位于外國(guó)境內(nèi)，而犯罪結(jié)果或犯罪對(duì)象則是侵害了管轄國(guó)的國(guó)家或國(guó)民的利益。所以，一國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)的刑事法律規(guī)定了保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)，這有利于保護(hù)內(nèi)國(guó)的利益免受來自外國(guó)犯罪行為的侵害。可是，保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)法律制度本身在國(guó)內(nèi)立法中也顯得比較原則化，并沒有規(guī)定相應(yīng)的具體措施。 與這種情況有著相應(yīng)聯(lián)系的是，各國(guó)在其國(guó)內(nèi)刑事法律的立法文件中，都對(duì)本國(guó)實(shí)施保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)做了規(guī)定。國(guó)際立法文件中也出現(xiàn)了關(guān)于保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的規(guī)定，隨著這些規(guī)定零星地分布在國(guó)際立法文件中，缺乏一種體系感，保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)在國(guó)際立法的具體規(guī)定中，只是起到了一種原則性的指引作用。具體如何界定保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)，如何認(rèn)定保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)中的要件，如何具體實(shí)施保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)都沒有具體的規(guī)定。因此，保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)雖然已有立法規(guī)范，但是其還是停留在管轄權(quán)原則的階段，將此原則付諸具體實(shí)施的法律制度還是不夠健全的，甚至是缺失的。 本文寫作的目的就在于將保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)做細(xì)致的分析，從管轄權(quán)的基本理論入手，補(bǔ)充保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)理論中的某些內(nèi)容，在傳統(tǒng)保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)理論的基礎(chǔ)上，探討保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的實(shí)施機(jī)制。 本文的導(dǎo)言從選題意義和角度、國(guó)內(nèi)外研究現(xiàn)狀、研究的主要方法三個(gè)方面進(jìn)行論述。其一，從選題意義和角度出發(fā)，說明選擇保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)作為論文選題的目的，是考慮到實(shí)施域外管轄的社會(huì)背景已經(jīng)發(fā)生了極大的變化，越來越多的犯罪行為并不僅僅局限于一個(gè)國(guó)家的領(lǐng)域內(nèi)，更多的犯罪行為其準(zhǔn)備、實(shí)施以及犯罪后果都遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超越了國(guó)家之間的界限，因而涉外性質(zhì)的犯罪活動(dòng)成為了各國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)刑法針對(duì)的主要目標(biāo)。薛捍勤女士在2006年于日內(nèi)瓦召開的國(guó)際法委員會(huì)第五十八屆會(huì)議上做了有關(guān)國(guó)家行使域外管轄權(quán)的專題報(bào)告，在其中她提到“當(dāng)國(guó)家主張域外管轄權(quán)時(shí)，是在沒有國(guó)際法有關(guān)規(guī)則的情況下試圖以本國(guó)立法、司法或執(zhí)行措施而管轄在境外影響其利益的人、財(cái)產(chǎn)或行為。在國(guó)內(nèi)法的專門領(lǐng)域內(nèi)，主要是刑法和商法，由于境外的人、財(cái)產(chǎn)或行為更可能影響其利益，所以一國(guó)行使域外管轄權(quán)具有更普遍的傾向”，所以作為域外管轄權(quán)中的一種，保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)也應(yīng)該從法律的角度出發(fā)，將保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)予以具體化和制度化。論文將論證保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)行使的條件，以及如何將保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)進(jìn)行實(shí)施作為重點(diǎn)，使得保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)并不流于形式，而是實(shí)實(shí)在在地將該管轄權(quán)制度落實(shí)到實(shí)處。其二，，通過國(guó)內(nèi)外研究現(xiàn)狀的闡述，表明目前對(duì)于保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的研究還不夠深入。從中國(guó)研究該管轄權(quán)來看，有關(guān)這方面的論文與學(xué)術(shù)著作非常稀少，并且研究都局限于保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的實(shí)施機(jī)制中，對(duì)于如何認(rèn)定行使保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的條件，是存在著研究空白的；從外國(guó)研究保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)來看，有關(guān)保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的研究也是不系統(tǒng)與不全面的，因而對(duì)于保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)全面的理論研究是有必要的。其三，通過不同的研究方法對(duì)于保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)進(jìn)行全面的闡述，例如通過文本研究的方法可以對(duì)保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)所依據(jù)的立法文件進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)的梳理；通過案例研究的方法可以對(duì)保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)在實(shí)踐中的表現(xiàn)有一個(gè)全面的了解，這也有利于對(duì)各類保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)實(shí)施措施進(jìn)行有效的評(píng)價(jià)，通過比較的方法來分析各類措施的優(yōu)劣，以此做出最好的判斷。 本文的第一章主要概述了保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)，分為三個(gè)方面的內(nèi)容，即保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的概念和特征、歷史演變，保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的依據(jù)、法律淵源和保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)與其他管轄權(quán)之間的區(qū)別。通過這三個(gè)方面的概述，起到如下三個(gè)作用：（1）介紹保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的基本理論和法律依據(jù)，為國(guó)家行使保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)尋找合理的法律依據(jù)；（2）保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)在國(guó)際法機(jī)制中的地位，是依賴于保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)法律淵源的，通過列舉和分析國(guó)際法文件中涉及到的保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)以及各國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)法中有關(guān)保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的規(guī)定，對(duì)保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)法律淵源的認(rèn)定可以有一個(gè)正確的認(rèn)識(shí)；（3）保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)與屬地管轄權(quán)、屬人管轄權(quán)和普遍性管轄權(quán)之間存在著明顯的區(qū)別，本章的第三節(jié)通過比較的方法，將保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)與另外三種管轄權(quán)進(jìn)行了區(qū)分，明確了保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)在理論和內(nèi)容上與這三種管轄權(quán)的界線。第一章是為之后論述保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的構(gòu)成和實(shí)施機(jī)制打下基礎(chǔ)，只有在理論和法律淵源上加以認(rèn)定才能使保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)在法律上站得住腳。 本文第二章展開對(duì)保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)基本構(gòu)成要件的闡述，結(jié)合刑法的基本理論剖析了保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的基本要素，從犯罪地點(diǎn)、犯罪結(jié)果、犯罪主體、犯罪客體和指向的犯罪對(duì)象、犯罪罪行上的要求入手，構(gòu)建起了保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)構(gòu)成要素體系。在這一部分，犯罪地點(diǎn)分為犯罪行為發(fā)生地和犯罪結(jié)果發(fā)生地，著重分析了兩個(gè)連接因素，找出犯罪行為發(fā)生地與犯罪結(jié)果發(fā)生地間存在的關(guān)系。接著對(duì)犯罪主體中的國(guó)籍問題展開論證，將不同的犯罪主體在保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)中的情況做了詳細(xì)描述，例如論及當(dāng)犯罪主體為雙重或者多重國(guó)籍人時(shí)該如何認(rèn)定和處理；例外，對(duì)“外國(guó)人”的概念做了擴(kuò)展性的理解，將具有外國(guó)國(guó)籍的法人也納入到犯罪主體的范圍內(nèi)來，這樣做是為了有效擴(kuò)展了保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的適用范圍，讓國(guó)家面對(duì)來自外國(guó)的侵害時(shí)更有效地保護(hù)本國(guó)和本國(guó)公民的利益。本章中也論述了對(duì)犯罪罪行的要求，在保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)概念中提到只有當(dāng)外國(guó)人的犯罪行為影響到內(nèi)國(guó)的政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)安全等重大利益時(shí)，才可以適用該管轄權(quán)。因此保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)對(duì)犯罪罪行的要求與其他管轄權(quán)是有所不同的，所以從犯罪損害的客體和刑期的特定要求展開論述，以這兩方面來說明保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)對(duì)于罪行的特殊要求是比較恰當(dāng)?shù)�。論述保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的要件是認(rèn)定保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的前提條件，即在何種情況下可以主張保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)。 本文第三章主要從保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)在特殊領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的表現(xiàn)形式做了細(xì)致的分析，本章在論述時(shí)始終貫穿前一章節(jié)中所論及的犯罪地點(diǎn)和犯罪主體。因?yàn)樵谀承┨厥獾念I(lǐng)域內(nèi)所能體現(xiàn)出的保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)與一般情形時(shí)是不同的，這里的特殊犯罪地點(diǎn)主要包括了航空器內(nèi)的犯罪、海上犯罪，主要是領(lǐng)海之外的區(qū)域即毗連區(qū)、專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)、公海的保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)，此外還包括南北極地區(qū)和外層空間的保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)。特殊的犯罪主體主要包括了無國(guó)籍人和擁有豁免權(quán)人，當(dāng)面對(duì)著此類犯罪主體時(shí)，行使保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)也與一般情形時(shí)不同。本章主要將保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)在一般情形以外的例外納入到整個(gè)保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)體系中，這樣就使保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的理論趨于完整，并有利于進(jìn)一步對(duì)保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的深入研究。 本文第四章主要論述保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)實(shí)施中的引渡措施，并與第五章的國(guó)家綁架行為相并列。在本章中，從傳統(tǒng)引渡措施到引渡措施實(shí)施中的困難，目前困難的原因是多種的，例如：多以雙邊引渡條約為主的形式，使得引渡的實(shí)施只能采取國(guó)家對(duì)國(guó)家的形式，但不適合跨國(guó)性的刑事犯罪，因?yàn)槠鋵?dǎo)致的直接后果就是涉案國(guó)家眾多，不可能要求每一個(gè)國(guó)家與另外一個(gè)國(guó)家之間都簽訂雙邊引渡條約；另一個(gè)是政治的影響，使得被請(qǐng)求引渡的國(guó)家不愿意將罪犯交給對(duì)方受審，而希望由本國(guó)主張屬地管轄權(quán)來受理、審判和執(zhí)行。另外，本章還論述了當(dāng)外國(guó)人在外國(guó)犯罪時(shí)，其又恰好擁有該國(guó)國(guó)籍的問題，即保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)與屬人管轄權(quán)相沖突時(shí)的處理。這又需要對(duì)國(guó)民不引渡原則做更新的詮釋和理解，在傳統(tǒng)做法中，國(guó)民不引渡原則限制了保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的行使，所以若要針對(duì)上述情況則要引入一些新的機(jī)制來解決，以擴(kuò)大保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的適用范圍。 本文的第五章主要論述保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)實(shí)施中的另一種措施，即國(guó)家綁架行為，目前這種行為被大多數(shù)國(guó)家和國(guó)際社會(huì)視為違反國(guó)際法基本原則，但在實(shí)踐中也存在著相關(guān)的案例，并且美國(guó)在實(shí)施保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)時(shí)有時(shí)會(huì)采取這種措施。因而本章介紹了國(guó)家綁架行為的產(chǎn)生和發(fā)展過程，并對(duì)其是否具有國(guó)際法上的合法性做了論證。這一章從國(guó)家綁架行為產(chǎn)生的凱爾規(guī)則入手，分析了國(guó)家綁架行為的法律問題，并且通過凱爾規(guī)則以外的幾個(gè)例外原則，例如特定罪名、條約明示和駭人行為原則來排除適用國(guó)家綁架行為。之后對(duì)于國(guó)家綁架行為合法性的分析，結(jié)合庇護(hù)國(guó)主張反對(duì)的權(quán)利，得出違法性的結(jié)論。此外還分析了國(guó)家綁架行為目前是否已經(jīng)構(gòu)成國(guó)際習(xí)慣法，對(duì)美國(guó)在以往所實(shí)施的國(guó)家綁架行為做出了評(píng)價(jià)。因?yàn)閺拿绹?guó)實(shí)施的此種行為，雖然可以起到保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)本來的作用，但是事實(shí)是大多數(shù)國(guó)家和國(guó)際社會(huì)都反對(duì)美國(guó)采取這種行為，因?yàn)檫@種行為無疑會(huì)損害一個(gè)主權(quán)國(guó)家的屬地與屬人管轄權(quán)，濫用的話則會(huì)擾亂正常的司法程序，雖然保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)實(shí)施的措施從目前來看還是受到了較多局限，像美國(guó)這樣的國(guó)家通過國(guó)內(nèi)立法賦予國(guó)家綁架行為合法性，與國(guó)際社會(huì)對(duì)于此種措施的認(rèn)知是相悖的，所以損害他國(guó)利益來保護(hù)本國(guó)利益的做法是不適合的，并且也不具有持久性的。
[Abstract]:Jurisdiction in international law is the basic theory of international law. Jurisdiction involves the most core issues of international law, namely, who will govern a case, who will try a case, and who will carry out the case. In the general theory of international law, jurisdiction is divided into territorial jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, protective jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction. In theory, territoriality, personal and universal jurisdiction have been studied more in academia, but few studies have been done on the protection of jurisdiction.
The protective jurisdiction belongs to the category of international criminal law. It aims at criminal acts involving foreign factors. For crimes with foreign factors, most of the crimes committed by foreigners are located in a foreign country, and the result of the crime or the object of the crime is the interests of the state or the national of the jurisdiction of the country. The domestic criminal law stipulates the protective jurisdiction, which is beneficial to protect the interests of the internal state from foreign criminal acts. However, the legal system of protective jurisdiction itself is more principled in the domestic legislation and does not stipulate specific measures.
In connection with this situation, all countries have made provisions for the implementation of protective jurisdiction in their domestic criminal law. The provisions on protective jurisdiction have also appeared in the international legislative documents. As these Regulations are scattered in the international legislative documents, there is a lack of a sense of system and protection. In the specific provisions of international legislation, jurisdiction only plays a guiding role in the principle. How to define the protective jurisdiction, how to identify the elements in the protective jurisdiction, and how to implement the protective jurisdiction, there are no specific regulations. In the stage of jurisdiction principle, the legal system that put this principle into practice is still not perfect or even missing.
The purpose of this article is to make a detailed analysis of the protective jurisdiction, starting with the basic theory of jurisdiction, supplementing some contents of the theory of protective jurisdiction, and discussing the implementation mechanism of the protective jurisdiction on the basis of the traditional theory of protective jurisdiction.
The introduction of this article from the significance and angle of the topic, the status quo at home and abroad, and the main methods of research in three aspects. First, from the significance and angle of the topic, the purpose of selecting the protective jurisdiction as the topic of the thesis is to take into account that the social background of the implementation of the extraterritorial jurisdiction has been greatly changed, and more and more offenders are committed. The crime is not confined to the field of one country. More criminal acts are prepared, implemented and the consequences of the crime are far beyond the boundaries between countries. Therefore, criminal activities involving foreign nature have become the main target of domestic criminal law. At the fifty-eight session, a special report on the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by the state was made, in which she mentioned that "when the State advocates extraterritorial jurisdiction, it is the person, property or behavior that tries to govern its interests outside the country without the relevant rules of international law, with its own legislation, justice or enforcement measures. In the domain, it is mainly criminal law and commercial law. Because people abroad, property or behavior are more likely to affect their interests, a country has a more general tendency to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. So as one of the extraterritorial jurisdiction, the protective jurisdiction should also be specific and institutionalized from the legal point of view, and the protective jurisdiction should be concretely and institutionalized. It will demonstrate the conditions of the exercise of protective jurisdiction and how to carry out the implementation of the protective jurisdiction, which makes the protective jurisdiction do not flow to the form, but actually put the jurisdiction system into reality. Secondly, the present study on the status quo at home and abroad shows that the present study on the protective jurisdiction is not yet available. From the point of view of China's jurisdiction, there are few papers and academic works on this area, and the research is limited to the implementation mechanism of the protective jurisdiction, and there is a gap in the study of how to identify the conditions for the exercise of protective jurisdiction; from the perspective of the study of the protective jurisdiction of the foreign countries, the protective management is concerned. The study of jurisdiction is not systematic and incomplete, so it is necessary to carry out systematic and comprehensive theoretical research on the protective jurisdiction. Thirdly, a comprehensive exposition of the protective jurisdiction through different research methods is carried out, for example, the legislative documents based on the protective jurisdiction can be carried out by the method of text research. Through the method of case study, the method of case study can have a comprehensive understanding of the performance of the protective jurisdiction in practice, which is also beneficial to the effective evaluation of various protective jurisdiction implementation measures and the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of various measures through a comparative method, so as to make the best judgment.
The first chapter of this article mainly outlines the protective jurisdiction, which is divided into three aspects: the concept and characteristics of the protective jurisdiction, the historical evolution, the basis of the protective jurisdiction, the origin of the law and the difference between the protective jurisdiction and the other jurisdiction. Through the summary of these three aspects, it plays the following three roles: (1) introduction of the insurance. The basic theory and legal basis of the protection of jurisdiction for the state to seek a reasonable legal basis for the exercise of the protective jurisdiction of the state; (2) the status of the protective jurisdiction in the international law mechanism is dependent on the legal origin of the protective jurisdiction, by enumerating and analyzing the protective jurisdiction involved in the international law documents and the domestic law of various countries. The provisions concerning the protective jurisdiction can have a correct understanding of the identification of the legal origin of the protective jurisdiction; (3) there are obvious differences between the protective jurisdiction and the territorial jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the person and the universal jurisdiction. The third section of this chapter, through a comparative method, makes the protective jurisdiction and the other three kinds of management. The jurisdiction is distinguished, and the boundary between the protective jurisdiction and the three jurisdictions in the theory and content is clarified. The first chapter is to lay the foundation for the subsequent discussion of the Constitution and implementation mechanism of the protective jurisdiction. Only in the origin of the theory and the law can the protective jurisdiction be held in the law.
The second chapter of this article expounds the basic elements of the protective jurisdiction, and analyzes the basic elements of the protective jurisdiction in combination with the basic theory of the criminal law, and starts with the requirements of the crime location, the result of the crime, the subject of the crime, the object of the crime, the object of the crime and the criminal offences, and constructs the system of the constituent elements of the protective jurisdiction. In this part, the crime place is divided into the place of the occurrence of the crime and the place of the result of the crime. It focuses on the analysis of the two connection factors, and finds out the relationship between the place of the crime and the occurrence of the result of the crime. Then, the author demonstrates the nationality of the subject of the crime, and makes the situation of the different subject in the protective jurisdiction. Detailed description, for example, how to identify and handle when the subject of a crime is a double or multiple nationality; exceptions, an extensible understanding of the concept of "aliens", and the incorporation of a legal person with foreign nationality into the scope of the subject of the crime, in order to effectively extend the scope of the application of the protective jurisdiction, The state is more effective in protecting the interests of its own country and its citizens in the face of foreign aggression. In this chapter, the requirements for criminal offences are also discussed. In the concept of protective jurisdiction, it is mentioned that only when the criminal act of a foreigner affects the political, economic security, and other important benefits of the internal state, it can apply that jurisdiction. Therefore, the protection is protected. The requirement of the jurisdiction of the crime is different from the other jurisdiction, so it is discussed from the object of the crime and the specific requirements of the term of the sentence, and it is more appropriate to explain the special requirements of the protective jurisdiction to the crime in these two aspects. That is, under which circumstances, the protective jurisdiction can be claimed.
The third chapter of this article makes a detailed analysis of the manifestation of the protective jurisdiction in the special field. This chapter always runs through the crime location and subject in the previous chapter, because the protective jurisdiction that can be embodied in some special fields is different from the general situation, and the special case here is special. The crime place mainly includes the crimes within the aircraft, the maritime crime, mainly the area outside the territorial sea, the adjacent area, the exclusive economic zone, the protective jurisdiction of the high seas, and the protective jurisdiction of the north and south polar regions and the outer space. When the subject of such a crime is subject, the exercise of protective jurisdiction is different from that of the general case. This chapter mainly integrates the exceptions of the protective jurisdiction beyond the general situation into the whole system of protective jurisdiction, which makes the theory of the protective jurisdiction complete and is beneficial to the further study of the protective jurisdiction.
The fourth chapter mainly discusses the extradition measures in the implementation of the protective jurisdiction and is parallel to the state abduction in the fifth chapter. In this chapter, the difficulties in the implementation of the traditional extradition measures to the implementation of the extradition measures are various, for example, in the form of more than two bilateral extradition treaties, the implementation of extradition can only be adopted. Taking the form of state to the state, but not suitable for transnational criminal offences, because the direct consequence of it is the number of countries involved in the case, and it is impossible to require each country to sign a bilateral extradition treaty with another country; the other is the political influence that the country who is requested to extradite is not willing to give the criminal to the other party. In addition, this chapter also discusses how to deal with the nationality of a foreigner in a foreign crime, that is, to deal with the conflict between the protective jurisdiction and the personal jurisdiction. This also requires a new interpretation and understanding of the principle of non extradition of the people. In the practice, the principle of non extradition of nationals limits the exercise of the protective jurisdiction, so we should introduce some new mechanisms to solve the above situation, so as to expand the scope of the application of the protective jurisdiction.
The fifth chapter of this article mainly discusses the other measures in the implementation of the protective jurisdiction, namely the state kidnapping, which is regarded as a violation of the basic principles of international law by most countries and the international community, but there are also relevant cases in practice, and the United States sometimes takes such measures when implementing protective jurisdiction. This chapter introduces the emergence and development of national kidnapping, and demonstrates its legitimacy in international law. This chapter, starting with the Kell rule produced by the state's kidnapping, analyzes the legal problems of the state's kidnapping and several exceptions, such as a specific crime, through the Kell rules. The principle of explicit and appalling behavior excludes the abduction of the state. After the analysis of the legality of the state's abduction, it combines the rights of the country of asylum to claim the right to oppose it, and draws the conclusion of the illegality. In addition, it also analyzes whether the state abduction is currently constituted by international customary law and the state abduction of the United States in the past. In fact, the fact is that most countries and the international community are opposed to the action of the United States, because such acts will undoubtedly harm the jurisdiction of a sovereign state and the jurisdiction of a sovereign state, and misuse will disrupt the normal judiciary. Procedure, although the implementation of protective jurisdiction is still in the present situation.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D997.9

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 李政謙;;國(guó)家刑事管轄權(quán)的域外行使[J];商;2013年07期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 田野;拒絕引渡的法律條件研究[D];遼寧大學(xué);2013年

本文編號(hào)：1801935