英语翻译The Trial Chamber in its decision followed the ICJ in th

英语翻译
The Trial Chamber in its decision followed the ICJ in this regard.At this point,itcan be concluded that the practice of the ICJ and the International Tribunal has created an international customary law rule,which is the examination of the constituent element of the Tribunal,with respect to the question whether a subsidiary judicial organ is ICTY under Article 7 (2) of the Charter in compliance with ChapterⅦ to determine individual criminal responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia gives it a degree of independence to perform judicial functions which the Council does not possess and it prevents the Council from interfering and reviewing the decisions of the ICTY.This fact demonstrates that the ICTY ‘is “subsudiary” in name only and can render final judgements that even the Council is not authorized to disturb – and that in turn can disturb the Council by suggesting limits on its powers.’
The Matter of Protection of Humanitarian and Human Rights Law
In the Tadic Case,the defence also contended that the Security Council cannot be involved in the protection of humanitarian and human rights law,the power to deal with human rights having been delegated to the General Assembly,the ECOSOC,the Trusteeship Council and toe their subsidiary organs by Articles 1 (4),13 (1),55,62 (2) and 76 (c) of the Charter.The involvement of the Security Council in international humanitarian law,which is a neutral body of law is unfortunate since the Tribunal cannot function as a neutral body.The defence moreover contended that the Security Council does not have any authority over individuals,and ‘the attribution of jurisdiction over individuals to the Tribunal is not consistent with the Charter’,since it is States which can create threats to the international peace and security,not individuals.

International Tribunal -国际法庭
International Court of Justice (ICJ) 国际法院
(ICTY）国际刑事法庭
the General Assembly- GA 联合国大会/大会
ESC/ECOSOC 经济及社会理事会/经社理事会
Trusteeship Committee 常规军备委员会
Security Council/Coucil-安理会
在此,法庭作出了与国际法院一致的裁决；就这点来看,我们可以得出结论——国际法庭和国际法院通过这次法律实践,开创了一项国际通用的法律规则,也形成了一次对于法庭构成要素的检验,提出这样的问题：国际刑事法庭是否是这样一个根据宪章第7章第7篇第2节所确立的辅助机构——它有权根据国际人权法裁决前南斯拉夫的个人暴力犯罪责任,因而它拥有委员会所没有的独立执法功能,也可以阻止安理会干涉或重审的要求.
这显示出国际刑事法庭的“辅助性”仅仅只是字面表述,它最终裁决的做出甚至连安理会也无权干涉——相反,它却可以籍由“建议”这一类的公文限制安理会的权力.
人道保护主义和人权法的问题
在Tadic 事例中,被告也主张安全理事会会不应该介入人道保护主义和人权法的问题之中,因为根据联合国宪章 1 (4),13 (1),55,62 (2) 和 76 (c) ,其处理人权问题的职责已经由联合国大会,经济及社会理事会,常规军备委员会这些机构接手了.安理会在处理国际人权问题上的角色只能是一个中立的主体,但不幸的是,其法庭却又往往不能作为一个中立主体来发挥作用.被告甚至指出,安理会无权处理个人的问题,“宪章中并没有授予安理会裁决个人罪行的权力”（因为当初制定宪章时考虑到只有国家才能对世界和平与安全构成威胁,个人无法做到这一点.所以宪章中没有做出对安理会对个人裁决的表述）