摘要： 法律对屠杀问题的回应，始终在两种模式之间徘徊：一种是以国家刑法为给养来源的“刑法上的敌人”模式，另一种是源于国际刑法的“刑法上的不人道”模式。后者更适合屠杀的定性标准，它暗示了在大量死难者面前，对人性的否定。建立“刑法上的不人道”模式需要回应三个方面的问题：第一，罪的含义；第二，归责；第三，惩罚的实质。首先，根据《国际刑事法院规约》第7条，我们至少可以认为反人道模式中被保护的“人性”包含着两个相辅相成的要素：每个人的特殊性，以及每个人都平等地归属于人类共同体。其次，在归责问题上，我们不能满足于只制裁处于权力链条最顶端的人，还必须考虑等级体系的所有级别。最后在惩罚实质上，我们不仅要在刑罚制裁上考虑惩罚的本质，而且还需要从修复以及协商的角度看待这一问题。文章最后指出，刑法上的不人道模式成为一个可以实现的、普世的理想，尚需国际法与国内法的合作以及各个学科之间的协力。

关键词: 国际刑法, 战争法, 刑法上的敌人, 刑法上的不人道, 暴力与屠杀, 战争, 战争罪

Abstract: he law’ s responses to massacres seem to vacillate between two models: the model of the “criminal law ofthe enemy” inspired by the national criminal law and rendered topical again by the attacks of September 11；andthe model of the “criminal law of inhumanity” symbolized by the paradigm of crimes against humanity. The lattermodel is better suited to take account of the qualitative dimension of massacres, i.e. the fact that they, besidesbeing mass offences (quantitative criterion)，also offend against humanity. To establish a “criminal law of inhu-manity” as a model with a universal, or universalizable dimension, three conditions are necessary, which concern（1）the definition of the crimes, (2) the assignment of responsibility and (3) the nature of the punishment. Asfor the definition of the crime, one could implicitly deduce from the list of acts constituting crimes against human-ity (Article 7 of the International Criminal Court Statute) that humanity so protected has two inseparable compo-nents：the individuality of each human being, not reducible to membership in a group, and the equal membershipof each in the human community as a whole. With regard to the second condition, it is not sufficient to hold re-sponsible the de jure or de facto leaders, the intermediaries and perpetrators at all levels of hierarchy must alsobe held accountable. As for the third condition, it is not sufficient to content oneself with the watchword of thefight against impunity without bringing up the nature and functions of the punishment; hence the necessity not on-ly to rethink the role “criminal” law can play in a policy of punishment, but also to focus on prevention, repara-tion and reconciliation. Finally, the author suggests that the proposed model of a “criminal law of inhumanity”must be built through the interplay between municipal law and international law and through the cooperation ofother human and social sciences.

Key words: International Criminal law, Law of War, Enemy Model of Criminal Law, Inhumanity Model of Criminal Law, Violence and Massacre