题记:2016年1月,我校学生去往上海参加模拟联合国大会,模联是对联合国大会和其他多边机构的仿真学术模拟,是为青年人组织的公民教育活动。活动的三天里,同学们扮演不同的国家或其它政治实体的外交代表,参与围绕国际上的热点问题,为了国家利益辩论、磋商、游说。我校袁寅同学这一次就成为了一名法官,在她变身法官的这三天的经历如何?让我们来听一听她的感受吧。

 

难忘的模拟国际刑事法庭体验

         2016年1月15日至17日,我成为了模拟国际刑事法庭里的一名法官并接受了高强度的浓缩版法学院标准训练。在这次体验中,我有幸详细了解了国际刑事法庭的工作流程和身为国际法庭法官的责任。我还认识了一群来自世界各地,对法学同样拥有浓厚兴趣的朋友们。

         我的案件当事人是Mr. Erdemovic,他因为违反人道罪被起诉。在去模联之前,我阅读了大量关于这个案件的背景资料和当时真实的庭审记录。在翻阅这些资料的过程中,我的英语阅读能力和速度得到了很大的提升。并且,在阅读过程中,我随手记下了案件的关键点和疑点,写下了自己对于案件的问题。到达上海的第一天,我本以为是个很轻松的一天,只需要听听介绍和开幕式。出乎意料的是,早上十点,我们的模拟国际刑事法庭就开始了培训。不大的房间里满满当当地挤下了三十六个“学生”,还没算上随堂听讲的记者和其他同学老师。我们总共有三位指导老师。每一位都是律师,拥有必备的专业知识和丰富的实战经验。上课前,大家都跟自己身边的同学熟络起来了。我认识的第一个同学是一个亚裔的美国公民,她告诉我她对自己的案件很了解也很感兴趣,甚至还特意去看了这个案件的电影。我们就这样有一句没一句地聊到上课。虽然上课前教室里很热闹,可老师一宣布上课了,大家便都静了下来。三位老师分别做了自我介绍,随后又介绍了现实中的国际刑事法庭成立的意义和罗马规约起到的作用。随后,我们以职能角色为小组,分成了三个小组,每个小组都跟着自己的指导老师进行更深一步的了解。我们对案件的理解是由浅及深,由大及小,就像在一个画好的大的框架里再慢慢补充进新的小细节。我们小组的指导老师是Mr. Fischer,他先给我们补充了当时南斯拉夫的地理政治分割,分析了内战产生的原因,让我们对这个案件发生的历史背景有了更深层次的理解。吃完午饭,我们继续“解剖”案情,并在老师的指导下开始对法条进行逐条解析,找出法条的关键点和必须满足的条件。然后我们再用自己的话解释一遍法条,把符合法条的案情逐一列出,以此来说明Mr. Erdemovic的确是被违反人道罪起诉。在解析法条和运用案情的同时,我因为需要考虑这个案情的运用是不是还有被推翻的可能而锻炼了批判性思维。我们小组在完成了案件介绍和案件所涉及的实体问题后,又开始了对其他有可能被双方律师运用的法条的分析,并且我还提出了对个别关键点的疑问。比如Mr. Erdemovic到底是不是有意击杀无辜的平民,他到底有没有企图造成比他试图避免的伤害更大的伤害。然后,我们就散伙去吃晚饭了,打算第二天再好好想想(脑细胞实在是不够了)。

         第二天,我们依旧沿着前一天留下的“线索”继续分析案情。因为很多细节的把控需要看双方律师到底如何运用,所以我们第二天上午被指导老师逼着练嗓门。具体怎么练呢,也就是一个法官站在一个隔着一整个餐厅的走廊一边,另外三个法官站在走廊另一边。那个孤独的法官一定要练到嗓门大到能让其他三人听清楚还能复述一遍。对于我这种嗓门不大的人简直是噩梦(练了好多遍)。我们的德国指导老师居然还对我说:发音要从“丹田”(?)。还好我有强大的意大利队友,最后终于放我过关了。下午的庭审很精彩,双方律师都竭尽全力地进行着引人入胜的辩论。庭审以后,我们法官的好日子就到头了。当天下午和晚上,我们四个法官因为要把双方律师的论点概括在判决书里,所以就在拼命地赶判决书。最难的部分还是法庭的判决,因为要想好久才能想通到底怎样的判决才是无懈可击又能以理服人的(就是很锻炼逻辑思维能力吧)。到最后我们因为好多想不通的点,还剩了差不多一半的判决书留着给第三天早上了。

         第三天,我们法官八点半就到了法庭,根据案件分成三组,各自跟着三个指导老师完成最终的判决书。很幸运,我不用挪窝(三天都待在一个教室),也不用换老师。Mr. Fischer先给我们对症下药,让我们自主提出问题。我就提了Mr. Erdemovic到底有没有有意去射杀平民和有没有企图造成更大的伤害。Mr. Fischer先举了个很贴切的生活中的例子,让我们四个讨论法官到底如何判定这个生活中例子里的当事人有没有意图去做这件事。随后,Mr. Fischer给我们指出了意图(intention)和动机(motive/motivation)的区别,并且还给我们补充了国际法中,法庭只考虑当事人的意图。即便当事人的动机是善良的或者是不愿意的,还是不考虑动机。第二个关键点是Mr. Erdemovic到底是不是处于人身安全受威胁的强迫下射杀那些无辜的平民的。第三个关键点是Mr. Erdemovic到底有没有试图避免更大的伤害。Mr. Fischer因为案件事实证据不足,给我们四个举了两个当时可能的有利于当事人的情形并引入了“疑点利益”的概念。于是,我们的三大疑难迎刃而解。留给我们的最后一关是到底该判Mr. Erdemovic有罪还是无罪。因为我个人认为Mr. Erdemovic享有两个疑点利益,即使Mr. Erdemovic是有意射杀那些平民,考虑到他的自首表现,在认罪后的良好表现和冒着失去以正常人的身份生活在世界上的危险对更高层内的罪犯(他曾经的长官)作人证的表现,我最终投给了Mr. Erdemovic无罪一票。令人宽慰的是,最后四位法官的决定是三比一,三人认为无罪胜过一人认为有罪,Mr. Erdemovic因此被判为无罪释放并获得赔偿。

         这次模拟刑事法庭的体验让我深刻体会到了身为一名法官的责任,不仅仅是完成一份判决书那么简单,更重要的是一个人未来的生活将由我们的判决所改变。在庭审结束后,我们三十六个学生又重新聚集在那个小小的教室,围成了两圈,安静地听着Mr. Fischer讲述当下刑事法庭的成就和所面临的挑战。这段讲课引发了大家的深深思考和无数的发言,大家都想表达出自己心中正义的定义。在这次体验的最后,我们在彼此的职能牌上签上自己的姓名,关系更好的会留下长长的一段寄语,期待着在某个时间某个地点大家还会再来一场精彩的重逢。

 

My Memorable days in CISSMUNICC

         From the 15th to the 17th of January, 2016, I was honored tobe part of the team in MICC(Model International Criminal Court). I was one ofthe four judges for the prosecution vs. Drazen Erdemovic who was charged withhaving committed murder as a crime against humanity. My experience during thewhole three days in MICC was, in fact, a thoroughly real training pertaining tolaw school. 

         Before I went to CISSMUN ICC, I have read through all thebackground information and different materials related to the real case of Mr.Erdemovic which, to a great extent, improved my reading speed, textual analysisand critical thinking. Though I thought I was well-prepared for the approachingtrial, I was incredibly impressed by the effort devoted by the judges beforethe announcement of verdict. On my first day in MICC, I learned why thereal-world International Criminal Court has been established, what roles RomeStatute play in different cases and about the most famous cases from ICC. In theafternoon, we were separated into three groups of four judges who focused onthree different cases. My colleagues come from various places, one from Italy,one from Korea and another from Taiwan. Before the trial, we were directed byJens Henning Fischer to start on our introduction which included the backgroundof the case, the indictment, and the merits of the case excluding the argument from the Prosecution team the reply fromthe Defence team and the conclusion of the Court. At the beginning, I wascompletely lost because never have I written any formal judgment. So we askedMr. Fischer for help who exhaustively explained to us the way we can make surewhether or not the case of Mr. Erdemovic is a crime against humanity. Afterlistening attentively to the instructions from Mr. Fischer, I found my way tothe question: quoting from the Rome Statute, paraphrasing the article,filtering out the requirements which are needed to be fulfilled for the case tobe a crime against humanity and listing the facts which are corresponding tothe requirements. When considering whether or not the attack was widespread orsystematic, and Mr. Erdemovic was shooting at civilians, I had to paytremendous attention to the usage of words in the article, such as "or",  and had to go to the detailed materials tofind cues which implied that the victims were all civilians. After finishingthe introduction of the judgment, my three colleagues and I talked about thepotential main argument from both the Prosecution team and the Defence team aswell as the articles in the Rome Statute which would possibly be used by bothof the teams to support their arguments. We had a number of disagreement aboutthe Articles, especially about the question whether or not Mr. Erdemovic was "notintended to cause a greater harm than the one sought to beavoided"(Article 31 (1)(d) Rome Statute). We were divided into two groupsof two each had a different interpretation of the harm "sought to beavoided" since we viewed from two different perspectives. On the firstday, I acquired the ability to look critically at the definition of theArticles and applied the Articles properly to the details of the actual case.Even did I realize that I was a judge who would, in some sense, decide the lifeof a person, and that as judges, we can have different opinions and should beflexible enough to change our mind at any point where our own standpoint is notwell-illustrated.

         On the second day, before the Court hearing, Mr. Fischertrained all the four judges to project our words aloud in turn: one personstood on one side of the corridor while others stood on the other side betweenwhom there is a canteen. I was the person who tried the most times to make mycolleagues to understand every word from me because I was not used to speakloudly. I practiced over and over again and my volume increased every time Irepeated my words. Eventually, I did it. During the trial, both the Prosecutionteam and the Defence team splendidly illustrated their opinion with supportingfacts. Pertaining to several specific questions which I could not clearly cometo the conclusion, I attempted to make some connection between the argumentsfrom both teams by asking particular questions to both of them. Immediatelyafter the trial, my colleagues and I rearranged fragments of informationcollected from the trial and divide the work between the four of us. On thenight of the 16th of January, 2016, I thought over the relationship between thetwo shooting in which Mr. Erdemovic was implicated and the relationship betweenthe disparate choices made by Mr. Erdemovic. Whether or not the second case canbe used as supportive fact by the Defence to show that Mr. Erdemovic was notintended to kill the civilians was the key point of the disagreement between mycolleagues and I. Eventually, I confidently came up with the conclusion thatthe first shooting participated by Mr. Erdemovic could have influence on thechoice made by him on the second occasion. Therefore, it was illogic to deducethat Mr. Erdemovic was not intended to kill the victims. I learned from mysecond day that I should be confident enough to speak out my idea and mycompelling reasons even though others disagree with me on some specificquestions.

         Unwittingly, my last day in MICC arrived and I spent thewhole morning finishing up the final judgment. Before we drew conclusions fromthe three major aspects of the case, Mr. Fischer led us to the reading andinterpretation of the Articles again. After Mr. Fischer gave out severaleveryday examples, I recognized that one man's intention may be completelydifferent from his or her motive. However, by law, the Court would only take aperson's intention, thus the short term will, into account, disregarding theperson's motivation, thus the long term reason for the person's behavior. Also,I learned from Mr. Fischer that when we lack actual evidence to certainly drawconclusion, we should offer the Benefit of the Doubt to Mr. Erdemovic by givingsome possible instances. Finally, the time for the verdict of the Prosecutionvs. Mr. Erdemovic came. When reading my part of judgment, I tried my best toproject aloud because I was not satisfied my performance in the previous daywhen asking the questions. I wanted to make difference, to improve myself bychallenges. At the end of the morning, my Italian colleague told me that shewas impressed by how loudly I can speak. I was really blissful and moved tohear that for I knew that my effort received returns. In the afternoon, all themembers of MICC came together and concentrated on the crimes committed in theworld every day and what should we, who potentially would purchase a career inlaw, do in this real world where injustice exist. All of us participatedpassionately to express our views. From my perspective, although the world hasinjustice, I should not be dishearten; instead, I should try to be a person whohelp those people suffering from unfairness out of their miseries due toinjustice. To be candid, I used to be depressed by the cruel behaviors shown inhistory, it was this experience with the guidance of Mr. Fischer, that wake meup and look at this world differently.

 

浏览地址: