Legal scholars and theorists have recently drawn a more sustained attention to the link between international human rights law (hereafter, IRHL) and international criminal law (hereafter, ICL). This concerns both positive and more normative accounts of the link. Whether positive or normative, however, the predominant approach to constructing the link is substantive. This approach identifies some human rights violations as constituting potential international crimes. This overlap is normatively justified in similar terms by reference to a sub-set of moral human rights. As such, the substantive approach concentrates on the right-holders and the harm committed to the victims of the violations to build the common core between IRHL and ICL. In this paper, I offer an alternative to the substantive approach. After having identified two flaws in the substantive approach (the problem of threshold and the problem of ethical neutrality), I defend what I call a structural account by focusing on the duty-holders of IHRL and ICL. Instead of focusing on the limited overlap between ICL and IRHL provisions (as positive legal scholars tend to), and instead of using substantive moral reasoning to specify this overlap (as normative theorists tend to), I start by reconstructing two structural characteristics that are common to IRHL and ICL qua international legal regimes: who has the authority to address violations of IRHL and ICL, and who can be liable for those violations. I then infer that public authority (functionally construed) constitutes the common core of IRHL and ICL. I rely on the extra-territorial application of IRHL and on the collective dimension of ICL violations to further support the argument. I finally offer an argument explaining the normative point of those structural features. I hold that IRHL and ICL (their adjudicative and liability regimes) are both necessary (but clearly not sufficient) to render this exercise of public authority legitimate to its subjects.

中文翻译：

---

人权法与国际刑法之间的共同核心：结构性说明

法学家和理论家最近对国际人权法（以下简称IRHL）与国际刑法（以下简称ICL）之间的联系给予了更持续的关注。这既涉及链接的肯定说明，也涉及规范性更强的说明。但是，无论是肯定的还是规范的，构建链接的主要方法都是实质性的。这种方法确定了一些侵犯人权行为构成潜在的国际罪行。通过提及道德人权的子集，可以用类似的术语在规范上说明这种重叠。因此，实质性方法侧重于权利人和对侵权行为的受害者造成的伤害，以建立IRHL和ICL之间的共同核心。在本文中，我提供了一种替代实质方法的方法。在确定了实质性方法的两个缺陷（门槛问题和道德中立问题）之后，我通过关注IHRL和ICL的责任人来捍卫我所说的结构性账目。我不是着眼于ICL和IRHL条款之间的有限重叠（正如积极的法律学者倾向于的那样），也没有使用实质性的道德推理来指明这种重叠（规范的理论家倾向于），而是从重构两个共同的结构特征开始致IRHL和ICL的国际法律制度：谁有权解决违反IRHL和ICL的行为，谁应对这些行为承担责任。然后，我推断公共权威（从功能上进行解释）构成IRHL和ICL的共同核心。我依靠IRHL的域外适用和ICL违规行为的集体层面进一步论证。最后，我提供一个论点来解释这些结构特征的规范点。我认为IRHL和ICL（它们的裁决和赔偿责任制度）都是必要的（但显然不够），以使这种行使公共权力对其主体合法的行为。