Boris Lvin (bbb) wrote,
Boris Lvin
bbb

Еще о Passive Personality Principle

Продолжаю свой ликбез (в развитие http://bbb.livejournal.com/1723340.html). Оказывается, этот принцип чаще всего называется не "passive personal", а "passive personality".

Нашлись интересные статьи на эту тему.

Майкл Шарф рассматривает ряд исторических аспектов глобальной юрисдикции в статье: Michael P. Scharf "Application of Treaty-Based Universal Jurisdiction to Nationals of Non-Party States" (http://www.nesl.edu/lawrev/vol35/2/scharf.pdf). Характерно, что в ней НЕ рассматривается принцип "passive personality". Из статьи видно, что универсальная (глобальная) юрисдикция вполне объяснима характером особо тяжелых преступлений и прослеживается в старых законах о пиратстве. Принцип "passive personality" в этих случаях излишен. Этот принцип он рассматривает в статье: Michael P. Scharf, Melanie K. Corrin "On Dangerous Ground: Passive Personality Jurisdiction and the Prohibition of Internet Gambling" (http://payroll.nesl.edu/intljournal/vol8/scharf_v8n1.pdf), и находит использование этого принципа сомнительным и опасным.

После описания "Cutting Case" (1877 год) он пишет, в частности:
The Cutting Case may be the first recorded incidence when the United States stood in strong opposition to the passive personality principle, but it is certainly not the last. Eight years after the Lotus case, Harvard published an influential study concerning the state of international jurisdictional principles that omitted passive personality as a legitimate basis because it was so controversial and “the most difficult to justify in theory.” Further, the first RESTATEMENT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES refused to recognize passive personality all together, much like the Harvard study, stating that customary international law did not permit the use of passive personality jurisdiction. The United States continued opposition to passive personality jurisdiction led the drafters of THE RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS to explicitly reject the principle as a valid basis of jurisdiction.

After the drafting of RESTATEMENT (SECOND), the United States executive branch continued its staunch rejection of the passive personality principle in a number of instances. In the 1970s, United States officials spoke out against use of the principle when there were Greek attempts to assume jurisdiction over United States nationals who injured Greek citizens in automobile accidents occurring in the United States. Later, in 1989, the executive branch again reiterated its position, opposing legislation to permit United States prosecution for the murder of a United States citizen in Korea.
Крайне интересная статья Карфица и Тене: Eric Carfitz, Omer Tene "Article 113-7 of the French Penal Code: The Passive Personality Principle" (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=943078).

Они показывают, как совершенно беспрецедентная статья французского уголовного кодекса формально делает подсудными французскому суду любого, кто действует не в соответствии с французскими правилами и законами в любой точке земного шара - достаточно, чтобы эти действия затрагивали какого-нибудь француза или французскую компанию.

В частности, они пишут:
France has been particularly outspoken in its resistance to the exercise by any other country of jurisdictional rights perceived by France as extraterritorial. For example, since the adoption in July 2002, of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, French market regulators and commentators have criticized the Act as an overextension of United States law, in its application to foreign private issuers whose securities are traded in the United States. Yet, while the Sarbanes-Oxley Act sets rules for businesses that have chosen to operate in the United States, France itself adopted rules of criminal jurisdiction in the 1990s that extend the reach of French criminal law not only to foreign businesses operating in France, but also to any foreign persons interacting with French nationals abroad.
Замечателен отрывок из стенограммы французского национального собрания, принявшего эту, если честно, безумную норму:
The legislative debate preceding the extension of Article 113-7 from “crimes punishable by imprisonment of no less than five years” to “any misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment” reveals the controversy surrounding its approval and illuminates a populist undertone on the part of some of the participants:

Mr. José Rossi: This amendment will reinforce the protection of French nationals abroad.

The President: What is the opinion of the legislative commission?

Mr. Philippe Marchand (reporting for the legislative commission): The commission considered the amendment suggested by Mr. Rossi as interesting and has therefore chosen to accept it.

Mr. Jacques Toubon: It’s glorious!

Mr. Philippe Marchand (reporting for the legislative commission): It’s true that this amendment serves to reinforce what might be called the “imperialism” of French criminal law; yet it also reinforces the protection of French victims, and it is for this reason that the commission supports it . . . .

The President: What is the opinion of the government?

The Justice Minister: We should know where to stop applying French law to actions committed abroad. We should not forget the basic principle that French law applies within the borders of France. It should not apply to actions outside of France unless the gravity of these actions and the nature of the protected interests so warrant . . . . It is not possible to go any further. Surpassing any threshold and applying French law to any misdemeanor punished by imprisonment is manifest imperialism that is difficult to justify. What would be our reaction, for example, facing identical pretensions by a foreign country, near or far? I am therefore opposed to the adoption of the amendment and, although I know that Mr. Rossi’s amendment has been accepted by the legislative commission, urge the National Assembly to reject it.

The President: I submit the amendment to vote. Amendment is adopted.
Заодно:

USA v.EMMANUEL ORMAND NEIL, aka Emmanuel Ormand Meil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding. Submitted September 10, 2002 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0150459p.pdf)

Анализ passive personality, но, как мне кажется, слабый.

Интересно, что во вполне официальном документе министерства юстиции США - United States Attorneys' Manual - вопрос о passive personality упоминается походя с недопустимой, на мой взгляд, легкостью) (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01103.htm):
In United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the court held that these provisions "reflect an unmistakable Congressional intent, consistent with treaty obligations of the United States, to authorize prosecution of those who take Americans hostage abroad no matter where the offense occurs or where the offender is found." That court also concluded that the assertion of such jurisdiction is fully consistent with norms of customary international law. These include the "universal" principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction under which a state can prosecute certain offenses recognized by the community of nations as of universal concern; and the "passive personality" principle under which a state can prosecute non-nationals for crimes committed outside its territory against its nationals. See Yunis, 924 F.2d at 1091
В реальности решение по делу Юниса содержало гораздо более взвешенную и острожную характеристику passive personality и не записывало его чохом в число общепринятых норм международного права. Не знаю, зачем минюсту потребовалось так поступать.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 5 comments