Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface to the Second Edition
- Table of Cases
- Table of Treaties and other International Instruments
- Table of Abbreviations
- PART A INTRODUCTION
- PART B PROSECUTIONS IN NATIONAL COURTS
- PART C INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTIONS
- PART D SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMES
- PART E PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES OF INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTIONS
- 15 General Principles of Liability
- 16 Defences/Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility
- 17 Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions
- 18 Victims in the International Criminal Process
- 19 Sentencing and Penalties
- PART F RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS
- Index
- References
15 - General Principles of Liability
from PART E - PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES OF INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTIONS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface to the Second Edition
- Table of Cases
- Table of Treaties and other International Instruments
- Table of Abbreviations
- PART A INTRODUCTION
- PART B PROSECUTIONS IN NATIONAL COURTS
- PART C INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTIONS
- PART D SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMES
- PART E PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES OF INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTIONS
- 15 General Principles of Liability
- 16 Defences/Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility
- 17 Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions
- 18 Victims in the International Criminal Process
- 19 Sentencing and Penalties
- PART F RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
The substantive definitions of crimes (on which, see Chapters 10–13) provide only a part of the picture of criminal liability. The general principles of liability apply across the various different offences and provide for the doctrines by which a person may commit, participate in, or otherwise be found responsible for those crimes. They include forms of liability such as aiding and abetting, which are familiar to all domestic criminal lawyers, as well as principles like command responsibility, which are specific to international criminal law. It is important to note at the outset that the various forms of liability not only have different conduct elements, but also different mental elements, and the extent to which principles of accomplice liability have been used in some cases to avoid high mens rea requirements for primary commission of international crimes has been controversial. Unlike in domestic law, where the traditional image of a criminal is the primary perpetrator such as the person who pulls the trigger, in international criminal law, the paradigmatic offender is often the person who orders, masterminds, or takes part in a plan at a high level. As a result, principles of liability play a comparatively large role in international criminal law.
This chapter will discuss the principles of liability from two points of view, the ambit of liability recognized in customary and conventional international law, alongside the appropriateness of those principles from the point of view of foundational principles of criminal law.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure , pp. 361 - 401Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
, ‘Superior Responsibility’ in Cassese, Commentary, 823.
, Der Allgemeine Teil des Völkerstrafrechts: Ansätze einer Dogmatisierung (Berlin, 2004).Google Scholar
and , ‘Article 28’ in Triffterer, Observers' Notes, 795.
, Principles of Direct and Superior Responsibility in International Humanitarian Law (Manchester, 2002).Google Scholar
, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge, 2005) ch. 6.Google Scholar
, ‘Crimes of the Commander: Superior Responsibility Under Article 7(3) of the ICTY Statute’ in and (eds.), International Criminal Law Developments in the Case Law of the ICTY (The Hague, 2003) 239.Google Scholar
, The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principals to International Crimes (Oxford, 2009).Google Scholar
, ‘International Criminal Law Principles’ in Lee, The Making of the Rome Statute, 189.
, The UN International Criminal Tribunals: The former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone (Cambridge, 2006) ch. 9.Google Scholar
, The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law (The Hague, 2003).Google Scholar
, ‘Enforcing Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Criminal Law: Prosecuting the Accomplices’ (2001) 843 International Review of the Red Cross439Google Scholar
, ‘General Principles of Liability in International Criminal Law’ in , and (eds.), The International Criminal Court: Legal and Policy Issues (Oxford, 2004) 233Google Scholar
, ‘Stretching the Boundaries of Commission Liability’ (2008) 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 8 August 1949 (Geneva, 1987) 1009
, ‘Claus Roxin's Lehre von der Organisationsherrschaft und das Völkerstrafrecht’ (2006) Goltdammers Archiv für Strafrecht304Google Scholar
, The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial 1963–1965: Genocide, History and the Limits of Law (Cambridge, 2006Google Scholar
, ‘The Banality of Good: Aligning Incentives Against Mass Atrocity’ (2005) 105 Columbia Law Review1751, 1831–7Google Scholar
and , ‘On the Application of the Theory of Indirect Perpetration in Al Bashir: German Doctrine at the Hague?’ (2008) 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice853Google Scholar
, ‘The Continuous Quest for Proper Modes of Criminal Responsibility’ (2009) 7 Journal of International Criminal Justice307.Google Scholar
‘Nuremberg IMT: Judgment and Sentences’ (1947) 41 American Journal of International Law172, 221–2
, ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise: Possibilities and Limits’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice91, 102–8.Google Scholar
, ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise: Possibilities and Limits’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice91.Google Scholar
, ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise: Criminal Liability by Prosecutorial Ingenuity and Judicial Creativity?’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice606, 609–10.Google Scholar
, ‘Three Conceptual Problems with the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 69 at 70, 72–4.Google Scholar
, ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice159 at 167–76Google Scholar
, ‘The Proper Limits of Criminal Liability Under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 109 at 114–5.Google Scholar
and , ‘Guilty Associations: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility and the Development of International Criminal Law’ (2005) 93 California Law Review75, 110–17Google Scholar
, ‘Just Convict Everyone! – Joint Perpetration from Tadić to Stakić and Back Again’ (2006) 6 International Criminal Law Review302Google Scholar
, ‘The Requirement of an “Express Agreement” for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability: A Critique of Brđanin’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice134Google Scholar
, ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice184.Google Scholar
, ‘Importance of the Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine for ICTY Prosecutorial Policy’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice446.Google Scholar
, ‘“Complicity in Genocide” versus “Aiding and Abetting Genocide”’ (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice56Google Scholar
, ‘The Crime of Genocide in the ICTR Jurisprudence’ (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice989.Google Scholar
and , ‘Ten Years Later, the Rwanda Tribunal still Faces Legal Complexities: Some Comments on the Vagueness of the Indictment. Complicity in Genocide, and the Nexus Requirement for War Crimes’ (2004) 17 Leiden Journal of International Law544–51Google Scholar
, ‘Genocide, Complicity in Genocide and International v. Domestic Jurisdiction’ (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Enforcing International Humanitarian Law: Catching the Accomplices’ (2001) 842 International Review of the Red Cross439.Google Scholar
(1947) 41 American Journal of International Law274
(1947) 41 American Journal of International Law282
, ‘Mugesera v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration’ (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law529Google Scholar
, ‘Black Letter Lawyering vs Constructive Interpretation: The Vasiljević Case’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice265, 266–71Google Scholar
, ‘The Mental Element in International Criminal Law: The ICC Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Elements of Offences’ (2002) 12 Criminal Law Forum291, 321Google Scholar
, ‘War Crimes in the Elements of Crimes’ in , and (eds.), International and National Prosecution of Crimes Under International Law: Current Developments (Berlin, 2001) 95, 98Google Scholar
, ‘A First Attempt to Adjudicate Conduct of Hostilities Offences: Comments on Aspects of the ICTY Trial Decision in the Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić’ (2000) 13 Leiden Journal of International Law931, 936–43.Google Scholar
‘Report of the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War’ (1920) 14 American Journal of International Law95, 121CrossRef
, Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, 2nd edn (The Hague, 1999) 427–31Google Scholar
, ‘Race and War Crimes: the 1945 War Crimes Trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita’ (1992) 14 Human Rights Quarterly303, 318–19Google Scholar
, ‘Command Responsibility and the Hadžihasanović Decision’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice598Google Scholar
, ‘Commanders on Trial: The Blaškić Case and the Doctrine of Command Responsibility Under International Law’ (2000) 47 Netherlands International Law Review293, 314–22Google Scholar
, The Conduct of Hostilities Under the Law of International Armed Conflict (Cambridge, 2004) 24Google Scholar
, ‘The Jurisprudence of the Yugoslav and Rwandan Criminal Tribunals on Their Jurisdiction and on International Crimes’ (2000) 69 British Yearbook of International Law259, 301Google Scholar
, ‘The Doctrine of Command Responsibility: Current Problems’ (2000) 3 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law131, 155–60.Google Scholar
, ‘Command Responsibility of Civilian Superiors for Genocide’ (2001) 14 Leiden Journal of International Law591Google Scholar
, ‘Command Responsibility of Non-Military Superiors in the International Criminal Court (ICC)’ (2000) 25 Yale Journal of International Law89Google Scholar
, ‘Command Responsibility: Victor's Justice or Just Deserts?’ in , and (eds.), International Conflict and Security Law: Essays in Memory of Hilaire McCoubrey (Cambridge, 2005) 68, 82–3Google Scholar
, ‘Causality, a Separate Element of the Doctrine of Superior Responsibility as Expressed in Article 28 of the Rome Statute?’ (2002) 15 Leiden Journal of International Law179.Google Scholar
, ‘The Shadow Side of Command Responsibility’ (2001) 49 American Journal of Comparative Law455, 460–71Google Scholar
, ‘Command Responsibility: Mode of Liability for Subordinates or Separate Offence of the Superior?’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice619Google Scholar
, ‘Superior Responsibility Under Article 28 of the Rome Statute: For Exactly What is the Superior Held Responsible?’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice665Google Scholar
, ‘General Principles of Criminal Law in the International Criminal Court Statute (Part III)’ (1998) 6 European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice400, 417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Jelisić Case and the Mens Rea of Genocide’ (2001) 14 Leiden Journal of International Law 125 at 132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by