Project Details
Funding Scheme : General Research Fund
Project Number : 14608422
Project Title(English) : Post-Conviction Justice in International Criminal Law: Lessons from Hong Kong and Other Mature Domestic Legal Systems 
Project Title(Chinese) : 國際刑法中定罪後的司法: 來自香港和其他成熟的國內法律體系的經驗 
Principal Investigator(English) : Prof Gordon, Gregory Steven 
Principal Investigator(Chinese) : N/A 
Department : Faculty of Law
Institution : The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Co - Investigator(s) :
Prof Young, Simon Ngai Man
Panel : Humanities, Social Sciences
Subject Area : Social and Behavioural Sciences
Exercise Year : 2022 / 23
Fund Approved : 660,819
Project Status : On-going
Completion Date : 31-12-2025
Abstract as per original application
Is the post-conviction phase of modern international criminal law (ICL) serving the interests of justice? Since the Nuremberg Trials ICL project was resurrected post-Cold War via prosecutions for 1990s Balkan ethnic cleansing and Rwandan genocide, various mass atrocity architects and perpetrators convicted by the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been given relatively light sentences (sometimes no more than 20 years) and routinely released well before the prescribed imprisonment period. Moreover, these early release decisions, which have been the model for subsequent international criminal mechanisms (e.g., the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court), are plagued by lack of due process, transparency and resource commitment to investigate release eligibility and/or assure adequate supervision post-release. In contrast, mature domestic justice systems, such as those of Hong Kong, the United States (US), and France, punish comparable crimes, e.g., mass murder or other violent offenses motivated by group hate, much more severely and are far more restrictive in commuting the sentences handed down. Additionally, the attendant sentencing and early release processes in these jurisdictions bear the hallmarks of due process, transparency, and proper resource investment. This project will identify lessons for ICL from a comparative domestic law study of appropriate punishment criteria, and empirical data for sentencing consistent with such criteria, for the most serious crimes in relation to the possibility for early release. It will also discern best policies and practices – both in terms of procedure and infrastructure – for early release decisions and supervised release in the three chosen domestic systems: Hong Kong, the US and France. The latter two have been selected as good common law and civil law representatives, respectively. Moreover, these countries were two of the principal framers of the Nuremberg Charter, which gave birth to ICL (including its punishment/early release components, from which modern ICL has strayed). Hong Kong, with its “one country two systems” legal framework, incorporating British and Mainland Chinese influences, is an excellent hybrid model and, given its core English legal lineage, largely represents the UK, another of the four framers of the Nuremberg Charter (the now defunct USSR being the fourth). Moreover, these three jurisdictions provide an excellent geographic comparative sample, covering Asia, the Americas and Europe. Thus, as a bonus, the comparative analysis of the domestic jurisdictions studied may also yield recommendations for improvements in one or more of those individual jurisdictions.
現代國際刑法(ICL)定罪後的階段是否為正義服務?在紐倫堡審判後 , ICL 項目在冷戰後通過起訴 1990 年代巴爾幹種族清洗和盧旺達種族滅絕而復興,前南斯拉夫和盧旺達國際刑事法庭定罪的各種大規模暴行策劃者和肇事者的刑期相對較輕(有時沒有超過 20 年)並且通常在規定的監禁期之前就被釋放。此外,這些提前釋放的決定,因缺乏適當程式、透明度和資源來調查釋放資格和/ 或確保發佈後有足夠的監督,已成為其後國際刑事機構的模式(例如,獅子山問題特別法庭和國際刑事法院)。相比之下,成熟的國內司法系統,例如香港、美國和法國的司法系統,對類似的犯罪行為(例如大規模謀殺或其他出於群體仇恨動機的暴力犯罪)的懲罰要更爲嚴厲,在減刑中限制性也更大。此外,這些司法管轄區伴隨的量刑和提前釋放程式具有正當程式、透明度和適當資源投資的特點。 該項目將比較成熟的國內司法系統關於適當懲罰的標準, 和與此類標準一致的量刑經驗資料,以此來探討ICL 提前釋放極嚴重罪行罪犯的經驗教訓。它還在三個選定的國內系統:香港、美國和法國,分辨最佳的政策和法律實踐。 其中包括提前釋放和監控下釋放罪犯的程式和基礎結構。其中,美國和法國是良好的普通法和民法系統代表。此外,這些國家是紐倫堡憲章的兩個主要制定者,它催生了 ICL(包括現代 ICL 偏離的懲罰/提前釋放部分)。香港以其“一國兩制”的法律框架,融合了英國和中國大陸的影響,是一個優秀的混合模式。鑒於其核心的英國法律血統,它在很大程度上代表了英國,英國是《紐倫堡憲章》的四個制定者之一(現在解散的蘇聯是第四個)。此外,這三個司法管轄區提供了出色的地理比較樣本,涵蓋亞洲、美洲和歐洲。因此,作為附加的優點,是次比較分析也可能為改進相關司法管轄區提出一些建議。
Research Outcome
Layman's Summary of
Completion Report:
Not yet submitted