Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 329-376
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

Individual Criminal Responsibility before the International Criminal Court

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Goy
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

For more than 15 years the two ad hoc Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), have interpreted the requirements of different forms of individual criminal responsibility. It is thus helpful to look at whether and to what extent the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR may provide guidance to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To this end, this article compares the requirements of individual criminal responsibility at the ICTY/ICTR and the ICC. The article concludes that, applied with caution, the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR – as an expression of international law – can assist in interpreting the modes of liability under the ICC Statute. ICTY/ICTR case law seems to be most helpful with regard to accessorial forms of liability, in particular their objective elements. Moreover, it may assist in interpreting the subjective requirements set out in Article 30 ICC Statute.

Challenges to Criminalizing State Responsibility for Genocide

Postgenocide ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 33-62
Author(s):  
Kevin Aquilina
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Corporate Criminal Liability ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

This chapter shows that although often states are parties in a genocide enterprise, the centrality—and responsibility—of states for genocide does not receive attention commensurate with the severity of the problem. Indeed, genocidal states are not held criminally responsibility for genocide. Underscoring difficulties at proving state criminal responsibility for genocide, the analysis compares and contrasts individual criminal responsibility and state criminal responsible for genocide. Whereas in the former case the matter has been dealt with by domestic and international criminal courts and tribunals, in the latter case there is no international judicial authority which can try states for criminal responsibility. However, non-state corporate criminal liability, and evolution of this institute in international law, may provide some transferable lessons for state responsibility for genocide. The chapter highlights the nexus between individual responsibility and state responsibility, and the failures of international genocide law in establishing state responsibility for genocide.

Legislated Out of Existence: Mass Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality Resulting in Statelessness as an International Crime

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 1026-1067
Author(s):  
Cóman Kenny
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Crime ◽  
World War ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
The Individual ◽  
First Time ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

Abstract A state’s prerogative to legislate for nationality remains subject to international law, with the arbitrary deprivation of nationality prohibited. The human rights implications of statelessness are profound, permeating all aspects of life and resulting in the marginalisation and oppression of those affected. Nonetheless, states have implemented laws depriving particular groups of legal status and making them stateless. In addition to the severe impact on the individual, such targeted discrimination creates a permissive atmosphere of dehumanisation that threatens a group’s existence and has been the precursor to mass atrocity. This article assesses, for the first time, whether individual criminal responsibility could be established for the creation or maintenance of a state policy to arbitrarily deprive a group of its nationality, rendering its members stateless. Based on post-World War ii precedent, it argues that such conduct could constitute a crime under the Rome Statute.

When the Child Surpasses the Father – Admissible Defences in International Criminal Law

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 509-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Fournet
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

AbstractDue to the heinous nature of international crimes, admissible defences in the context of international criminal justice understandably constitute an issue surrounded with controversy. Yet, while International Criminal Law precludes the use of a series of defences, it also admits that certain grounds may exclude individual criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment even in the case of the most serious international crimes. The present study thus proposes to analyse the permissibility of these defences and the availability of such grounds for excluding responsibility by drawing a comparison between Public International Law and International Criminal Law and by highlighting the differences and discrepancies between the two systems. Ultimately, this analysis aims at demonstrating that International Criminal Law, one of Public International Law's children, has now surpassed its parent to become a more sophisticated and a fairer legal and judicial system, for both the defendants and the victims.

The Law and Economics of Humanitarian Law Violations in Internal Conflict

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 394-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Dunoff ◽  
Joel P. Trachtman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Internal Conflict ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Methodological Approaches ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

The problem of criminal responsibility for human rights atrocities committed in internal conflict provides an appropriate vehicle for examining various theoretical and methodological approaches to international law. The issues raised include the following: Does international law provide for individual criminal responsibility for such acts? How best can these atrocities be prevented? Should international law address these matters or are they better left to domestic law? Why does international legal doctrine distinguish between human rights violations committed in international conflict and the identical acts committed in internal conflict?

scholarly journals An overview on Individual Criminal Liability for Crime of Aggression

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 433-444
Author(s):  
Asif Khan ◽  
Shaukat Hussain Bhatti ◽  
Abid Shah
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Proper Definition ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

Over the last few years, international criminal law has included an internationally recognized definition of the crime of aggression. One may sight the respective portion from part two (Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Laws) Article 8 of the respective document. The purpose of this research represents the historical background of individual criminal responsibility under international law and the concept of individual criminal accountability for the crimes falling under the ambit of international criminal law committed by persons. Whereas the idea of how an individual could be brought to justice, for one of the core crimes of ICC's statutes, i.e., crime of aggression, was recently adopted and envisaged into Rome statutes, after the Kampala conference 2010. The concept of individual criminal responsibility for the crime of aggression faced many difficulties in at-least adopting its proper definition, which was leftover for future when Rome statue was formulated. To keep pace, this concept needs further evolution. Such an evolution demands such a condition wherein while granting the characteristics of adaptability with the contextual conditions and principles of criminal law. This article explores the anatomy of the crime of aggression and highlights issues that remain to be resolved

scholarly journals Kankinimo samprata tarptautinėje teisėje

Teisė ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 7-24
Author(s):  
Romualdas Drakšas ◽  
Regina Valutytė
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
State Liability ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

Straipsnyje nagrinėjama kankinimo samprata tarptautinėje teisėje: detalizuojami sudedamieji kankini­mo sąvokos elementai, atskleidžiamos jų turinio nustatymo problemos. Autoriai analizuoja, kas lėmė tarptautinėje teisėje vyraujančios kankinimo sąvokos, siejamos su tyčiniu specialaus subjekto veikimu ar neveikimu, kuriuo aukai sukeliamas stiprus fizinis ar psichinis skausmas ar kančia, nustatymą. Įvardijami kankinimo sampratos skirtumai, atsižvelgiant į tai, ar tarptautinės teisės nuostatomis reguliuojama in­dividuali asmens baudžiamoji ar valstybės, pažeidusios tarptautinius įsipareigojimus, atsakomybė. The article covers the analysis of the concept of torture in international law: it elaborates the elements of the definition of torture and deals with the problems of determination of their content. The authors analyze the factors that might have influenced the establishment of the definition of torture that prevails in international law and is associated with intentional conduct of a public officer causing severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental. The article also identifies the differences in the concept of torture as a basis for individual criminal responsibility and state liability for infringement of international com­mitments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document