The article is devoted to the issues of implementation of international humanitarian law provisions into Russian criminal law. The article provides an outline of key problems presented in the provisions of the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as of their possible solutions. The author also analyzes the fundamental issues concerning sources of criminal law and their conformity with international obligations.
The author is seeking for an answer for the question whether a person is responsible for aggressive policy of his national leader. In order to find an answer Arendt’s, Walzer’s and McMahan’s views on the problem of personal responsibility were juxtaposed. The author agrees with Arendt and McMahan that responsibility presupposes thinking. Taking into account a number of reasons author concludes responsibility should be interpreted as a collective duty. On the other hand, guilt finds itself on the individual level. A person may be guilty for his own decisions and be responsible for decisions of the government, but he could not be condemned for the crimes of the latter. The author ends claiming that this rule appeals to the international level too, since states are collectively responsible for keeping justice and peace on the Earth.
The article discusses the activities of Serbian courts and courts of the unrecognized “Republic of Kosovo” in connection with the international, particularly war crimes committed in the Autonomous Region in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The exclusively positive role played by the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in overcoming the impunity of the perpetrators of these atrocities is emphasized. The creation of appropriate judicial structures for the investigation of the core crimes within the framework of the Serbian and Kosovo judicial systems is assessed as a logical result of the “Completion Strategy” for the activities of the designated tribunal, approved by the UN Security Council. The “dualism” of the earlier unified judiciary of Serbia, which has been outlined, including in the field of overcoming the “gap of impunity,” is stated. As a result, a paradoxical situation is described when in relation with the crimes committed on the territory of Kosovo at the end of the XXcentury, both the official Serbian courts and the courts of the unrecognized Republic have got almost the same jurisdiction. It is concluded that the failures of the Serbian authorities in the investigation of crimes against Serbs on the territory of Kosovo are explained by the fact that they have no real opportunity to conduct investigative actions in this region. Serbian “parallel” judicial and police structures continue to operate in Kosovo either on paper or exclusively in civil and administrative proceedings on a very limited range of issues. In any way the article analyzes the practice of criminalizing international crimes, which is taking shape in both formerly hostile camps. Particular attention is paid to the special chamber for war crimes, established as part of the Belgrade District Court, which has the right to consider and resolve this category of cases. A detailed analysis is made of the trials conducted by that chamber, primarily in the cases of the “Jackals” and the Gnilyansk group, as well as the obstacles that arose. The plot of the sensational case of the “Bytyqi brothers”, which at one time attracted the attention of the world community, is summarized. A general description of the procedural infrastructure of transitional justice in Kosovo is given, the difficulties that stand in the way of interethnic reconciliation are briefly analyzed. Statistical indicators of the activity of the Kosovo judiciary are examined, these results are compared with similar indicators of the Serbian judiciary. So the authors come to some extend paradoxical conclusion that the national authorities of Serbia are more interested in prosecuting persons who have committed international crimes in Kosovo than the authorities of the Kosovo themselves.
The article defines the limits of qualification of terrorist crimes. The author distinguishes them from common criminal offences, sabotage, military crimes and analyzes the notion of “State Terrorism”, stating limits of terrorism from the point of subject of crime.
由于冷战后俄罗斯学界对国际刑法研究不重视，目前《刑法典》中仅存有关普遍 管辖权和诉讼时效的规定。但刑法典总则对缺席判决下普遍管辖权的适用、指挥责任和排除 违法性理由的判断标准规定模糊，而分则的犯罪体系过于粗略和封闭，没有规定反人类罪和非 武装冲突中对战争手段和方法的使用等，需要根据“日内瓦公约”和“海牙议定书”予以重构。