《羅馬規約》侵略罪修正案的生效程序及其對國際刑事法院管轄侵略罪的影響

Entry into Force of the Aggression Amendments of the Rome Statute and its Impact

侵略罪修正案對締約國的生效是國際刑事法院對侵略罪行使管轄權的基本要求，但是由於規約關於修正案生效程序的規定十分覆雜且侵略罪修正案本身對此問題的沈默，以致這個問題充滿爭議。這篇文章考察了侵略罪特別工作組在談判過程中對這一問題的討論，分析了這些觀點各自的法理基礎，認為侵略罪修正案的生效不得繞開規約所規定的生效程序，也無法共同適用規約第121條第4款和第5款兩個條款；基於對有關條款的文字解釋、目的解釋以及嗣後實踐的印證，侵略罪修正案的生效應當適用規約第121條第5款。這篇文章緊接著對適用規約第121條第5款的法律後果進行了分析，認為該款與規約第15條之二第4款、第5款一樣，在締約國提交或檢察官自行開始調查的情況下對國際刑事法院管轄侵略罪起到了限制作用，但是這種限制不適用於安理會提交情勢。從這點上講，安理會在國際刑事法院管轄侵略罪中有望發揮極其關鍵的作用。

Entry into force of the aggression amendments to State Parties is the fundamental requirement for the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. However, the procedure regarding entry into force of the amendments is quite complex and the aggression amendments themselves keep silent about this issue, making this issue into a controversy. In review of the SWGCAs discussion during the negotiation, this essay analyzes the respective legal basis of existing opinions, arguing that the entry into force of the aggression amendments shall not steer clear of the procedure stipulated in the Statute, and cannot commonly be applied both paragraph 4 and 5 of Article 121; upon the literal interpretation, teleological interpretation and the verification of subsequent practice, Article 121, paragraph 5 of the Statute shall apply to the entry into force of the aggression amendments. Next, this essay scrutinizes the legal consequences of paragraph 5 of Article 121s application, considering that this provision, same as paragraph 4 and 5 of Article 15bis, may restrict the ICCs jurisdiction in the context of State referral and proprio motu, but such restriction is not applicable to Security Council referral. From this point, Security Council is expected to play a pivotal role in the ICCs exercise of jurisdiction over crime of aggression.