劝返与诱捕的差异性比较.docxVIP

经典专科、本科、硕博、研究生、期刊毕业论文 仅供参考 精心整理 仅供参考 勿用作商业用途 劝返与诱捕的差异性比较 摘要 跨国诱捕作为引渡的非常规替代措施很容易触犯国家主权这条“高压线”。本文通过对劝返和诱捕的差异性进行比较，旨在构建更为完善的境外追逃措施，尽量避免侵犯他国的主权，也能更好地保护我国的主权不受侵犯。通过对劝返和诱捕的差异性比较，不仅可以弥补我国在引渡的替代性措施上的制度缺失，也可以通过比较构建一个相对制度化的标准。劝返和诱捕有着类似的行为外观，因此，我们需要具体的操作规则来约束这类引渡措施，以免让行为变质，损害我国法律的权威和严肃性。从而加强我国的防护措施，保护我国公民和国家主权。 本文的主要研究结论如下： 1.劝返和诱捕具有相同的行为外观。两者都是作为引渡的替代措施，在引渡的实施过程中出现法律障碍时而采取的促使被引渡犯罪嫌疑人被遣返的措施。 2.劝返和诱捕在合法性上存在差异。诱捕直接越过疑犯所属国的管辖权和引渡程序，直接对疑犯实施诱骗，押至国内或在第三国直接实施审判，这是对国家法的公然违背。诱捕从本质上是采用非法手段，从而达到逾越法律的目的。 3.劝返和诱捕在对待人权上存在差异。诱捕构成了对人权的侵犯，如非法逮捕、强制转移、扣押拘留、断绝外界通讯、秘密审判等，上述行为都是对国际法及国际条约的无视，严重侵犯了犯罪嫌疑人基本的人身自由、平等权和生命健康权。 4. 劝返和诱捕在国际司法中的思考。在国际司法合作中寻求协作的首要前提是对他国主权和管辖权的尊重，从而促使双方在平等合作的基础上共同打击违法犯罪行为。 关键词：劝返；诱捕；引渡。 The difference between Persuasion and Entrapment Abstract It is easy to violate the high line of national sovereignty by transnational ensnare as an unconventional substitute for extradition. Based on the comparison, the difference of the QuanFan and trapping aims to build a more perfect pursuit measures abroad, avoid to infringe upon other countries sovereignty, can better protect our countrys sovereignty is inviolable. By comparing the differences between persuasion and entrapment, we can not only make up for the lack of system in our countrys substitutional measures, but also construct a relatively institutionalized standard. QuanFan trap with similar behavior and appearance, so, we need the specific operating rules governing such extradition measures, so as not to make behavior deterioration, damage of our countrys legal authority and seriousness. The main conclusions of this paper are as follows: 1. Persuasion and trapping have the same behavior appearance. Both are alternatives to extradition, and there are legal impediments in the implementation of the extradition process to facilitate the repatriation of suspects who have been extradited. 2. There are differences in the legality of persuasion and trapping. It is a flagrant violation of the national law to ensnare the suspects directl