Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T05:27:31.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enforcing international humanitarian law: Catching the accomplices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2010

William A. Schabas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 83 , Issue 842 , June 2001 , pp. 439 - 460
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), of 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9. See text of Article 25 $$$ Individual criminal responsibility, in the Annex to this paper.

2 Nyberg, Maurice, “At risk from complicity with crime”, Financial Times, 27 July 1998.Google Scholar

3 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), of 25 May 1993, UN Doc. S/RES/827.

4 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), of 8 November 1994, UN Doc. S/RES/955.

5 Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 191.

6 Eighth report on the draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, by Doudou Thiam, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/430 and Add. 1, para. 38, p. 32.

7 Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of Major War Criminals of the European Axis, and Establishing the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (I.M.T.), 1951, 82 UNTS 279, Art. 6, in fine.

8 United States of America v. Alstötter et al. (“Justice trial”), 1948, 6 L.R.T.W.C. 1, p. 62.

9 Formulation of Nurnberg Principles, Report by J. Spiropoulos, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/22, para. 43. In Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-T), Opinion and Judgment, 7 May 1997, para. 674, the Trial Chamber noted that the post-Second World War judgments generally failed to discuss in detail the criteria upon which guilt was determined.

10 Control Council Law No. 10, Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace and Against Humanity, 20 December 1945, Official Gazette of the Control Council for Germany, No. 3, Berlin, 31 January 1946, pp. 50–55, Art. II.2.

11 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of 9 December 1948, Art. III(e).

12 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of 10 December 1984, Art. 4(1).

13 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, 30 November 1973, Art. III.

14 ICTY Statute, Art. 7(1); ICTR Statute, Art. 6(1).

15 ICTY Statute, Art. 4(3)(e); ICTR Statute, Art. 2(3)(e).

16 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May – 26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, p. 18.

17 ICC Statute, Art. 25(3)(c).

18 Prosecutor v. Akayesu (Case No. ICTR-96-4-T), Judgment, 2 September 1998, para. 423. According to Smith and Hogan, the words aiding and abetting connote different forms of activity. “The natural meaning of ‘to aid’ is ‘to give help, support or assistance to’; and of ‘to abet’, ‘to incite, instigate or encourage’.” Smith, J.C./Brian Hogan, Criminal Law, 7th ed., Butterworths, London, 1992, p. 126.Google ScholarPubMed

19 Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana (Case No. ICTR-95-1-T), Judgment, 21 May 1999, para. 197.

20 United Kingdom v. Tesch et al. (“Zyklon B Case”), (1947) 1 L.R.T.W.C. 93 (British Military Court).

21 Ibid., p. 102.

22 United States of America v. Carl Krauch et al. (“I.G. Farben Case”), (1948) 8 T.W.C. 1169.

23 United Kingdom v. Kramer et al. (“Belsen trial”), (1947) 2 L.R.T.W.C. 1 (British Military Court), p. 4.

24 Ibid., pp. 109, 120.

25 Loc. cit. (note 22), p. 1180.

26 United States of America v. Friedrich Flick et al. (“Flick Case”), (1948) 6 T.W.C. 1217–1221.

27 Prosecutor v. Tadic, loc. cit. (note 9), paras. 678, 691. In Tadic, the Trial Chamber cited United Kingdom v. Golkel et al., (1948) 5 L.R.T.W.C. 45 (British Military Court), pp. 53 (“it is quite clear that [concerned in the killing does] not mean that a man actually had to be present at the site of the shooting”), pp. 45–47 and 54–55 (defendants who only drove victims to woods to be killed there were found to have been “concerned in the killing”), and United Kingdom v. Wielen et al., (1948) 9 L.R.T.W.C. 31 (British Military Court, Hamburg), pp. 43–44, 46 (not necessary that a person be present to be “concerned in a killing”).

28 United Kingdom v. Tesch et al. (“Zyklon B Case”), (1947) 1 L.R.T.W.C. 93 (British Military Court), pp. 93–101.

29 France v. Becker et al, (1948) 7 L.R.T.W.C. 67 (Permanent Military Tribunal at Lyon), pp. 70–71.

30 “If war crimes are being committed in Indochina, not every member of the armed forces is an accomplice to those crimes.” Switkes v. Laird, 316 F. Supp. 358, 365 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).

31 France et al. v. Goering et al., (1946) 22 I.M.T. 203, pp. 536–537.

32 United States v. Weiss, (1948) 11 L.R.T.W.C. 5 (General Military Government Court of the United States Zone), pp. 12–14.

33 Mauthausen Concentration Camp Case, (1948) 11 L.R.T.W.C. 15 (General Military Government Court of the United States Zone), pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

34 United States of America v. Alfried Krupp et al. (“Krupp Case”), (1948) 9 L.R.T.W.C. 1, 151, 9 T.W.C. 1448.

35 See Prosecutor v. Jelesic (Case No. IT-95-10-T), Judgment, 14 December 1999, para. 87.

36 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, loc. cit. (note 18), para. 530.

37 Loc. cit. (note 9), para. 681, citing Paust, Jordan, “My Lai and Vietnam”, Mil. L. Rev., Vol. 57, 1972, p. 168.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., para. 671.

39 Ibid., paras. 691, 692. See also Prosecutor v. Delalic et al. (Case No. IT-96-21-T), Judgment, 16 November 1998, para. 326; Prosecutor v. Furundzija (Case no. IT-95-17/1-T), Judgment, 10 December 1998, paras. 223, 234; Prosecutor v. Aleksovski (Case No. IT-95-14/1-T), Judgment, 25 June 1999, para. 61.

40 The International Law Commission required that accomplices participate “directly and substantially” in the commission of the crime. In addition, the commentary to the draft Code noted that “the accomplice must provide the kind of assistance which contributes directly and substantially to the commission of the crime, for example by providing the means which enable the perpetrator to commit the crime. Thus, the form of participation of an accomplice must entail assistance which facilitates the commission of a crime in some significant way.” Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May $$$ 26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, p. 24.

41 Prosecutor v. Tadic, loc. cit. (note 9), para. 688.

42 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, loc. cit. (note 39), para. 209.

43 Loc. cit. (note 40), p. 24.

44 Prosecutor v. Tadic, loc. cit. (note), para, 674. See also United Kingdom v. Rohde et al., (1948) 15 L.R.T.W.C. 51 (British Military Court, Wuppertal); United States of America v. Alstötter, loc. cit. (note 8), p. 88 (L.R.T.W.C); United States of America v. List, (1948) 11 T.W.C. 1261 (United States Military Tribunal).

45 Loc.cit. (note 9), para. 677.

46 UN Doc. S/RES/1315 (2000).

47 Global Witness, A Rough Trade, December 1998, <www.oneworld.org/globalwitness/Angola/cover.htm> (consulted 17/08/00).

48 <www.unglobalcompact.org> (consulted 17/08/00).

49 <www.amnesty.it/ailib/aipub/1998/ACT/A7000198.htm> (consulted 17/08/00).

50 United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Business and Human Rights: A Progress Report, January 2000, <www.unhchr.ch/business.htm> (consulted 18/08/00).

51 Res. 1998/8.

52 See Principles relating to the human rights conduct of companies, Working paper prepared by David Weissbrodt, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/WG.2/WP.1.

53 France et al. v. Goering et al., loc. cit. (note 31), p. 447. Cited in Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case no. IT-94-1-AR72), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para. 128.

54 Loc. cit. (note 7), Arts. 9 and 10.

55 UN Doc. S/25704 (1993), para. 51.

56 See Saland, Per, “International criminal law principles”, in Lee, Roy (ed.), The International Criminal Court – The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1999, p. 199.Google Scholar

57 Colvin, Eric, “Corporate personality and criminal liability”, Criminal Law Forum, Vol. 6, 1995. P. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58 UN Doc. S/RES/864 (1993), para. 21.

59 UN Doc. S/RES/1295 (2000), para. 27.

60 UN Doc. S/RES/1306 (2000), para. 17.

61 UN Doc. S/2000/203, para. 110.

62 Ibid., para. 112.

63 ICC Statute, Arts. 121(5), 123.

64 UN Doc. S/2000/203, para. 109.

65 Ibid., paras. 126-128.

66 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act, s. 1350: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

67 Some of the cases: lota v. Texaco, 157 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 1998); Dow Chemical Co. v. Castro Alfaro, 786 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. 1990); Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 969 F.Supp. 362 (E.D.La. 1997); John Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 963 F.Supp. 880 (C.D.Cal. 1997); Recherches Internationales Quebec v. Cambior Inc., Superior Court of Quebec No. 500-06-000034-971,14 August 1998.