Indirect Perpetration Theory: A Defence

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 977-992
Author(s):  
MARIA GRANIK
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Original Presentation ◽  
High Level ◽  
Heads Of State

AbstractThe aim of this article is to show that the concept of perpetration by means as it appears in Article 25 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) accurately reflects liability for crimes committed by high-level perpetrators who exercise control over the actions of the lower-level (fully responsible) perpetrators. Finding the proper mode of liability in these cases is crucial to the International Criminal Court's (ICC) mission of ending impunity for serious international crimes. While international criminal law may be unlikely to deter criminals, especially heads of state and other powerful leaders, it can provide some sense of justice for the victims by convicting and punishing those responsible for their suffering. As such, the functions of international criminal law are to a large extent expressive and retributive. At the same time, it is important to keep the focus of international criminal law on individual responsibility of the perpetrators. It is, therefore, crucial to find proper labels that reflect culpability well. I hope to make a contribution to this search in what follows.This article is divided into five sections. First, I provide a background to the move, recently articulated by the ICC, from the concept of joint criminal enterprise (JCE) to that of indirect perpetration (and indirect co-perpetration) (section 2). Second, I analyse the original presentation of this idea by the German jurist Claus Roxin (section 3). Third, I examine the application of this concept by the German courts, particularly in the 1994 trial of three high level GDR officials held liable as indirect perpetrators for the killings (carried out by the border guards) of refugees at the East/West German border (section 4). Then I present a recent (Winter 2011) proposal by Jens Ohlin to abandon both JCE and indirect perpetration in favour of another mode of collective liability based on joint intentions (section 5). Finally, I defend the concept of indirect perpetration against Ohlin's criticisms, arguing that it offers a more accurate way to label the conduct of high-level perpetrators who carry out crimes by means of direct perpetrators who are themselves liable (section 6).

scholarly journals The Crisis of International Criminal Law in Africa: A Regional Regime in Response?

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-311
Author(s):  
Eki Yemisi Omorogbe
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Crimes

Abstract This article considers the African Union’s (AU) proposal for a regional court for international crimes under the Malabo Protocol 2014 (Protocol). It places that within the AU’s rejection of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants for African Heads of States that are not party to the Rome Statute and a more general protection of incumbents. It argues that the enthusiasm for establishing a regional criminal court, which lacks jurisdiction to prosecute incumbents, has not been sustained and African states remain committed to the ICC. It shows that nevertheless the Protocol’s provisions on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, although imperfect, better address the specific character of armed conflicts in Africa than current international law, including the Rome Statute of the ICC. It concludes that the regional court for international crimes is unlikely to be established unless the ICC takes further action against incumbent leaders but that the Protocol’s provisions could be used in the development of a more Africa-centric international law.

The Legal Personality of Individuals in International Criminal Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Subsequent Development ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Legal Personality

No one seriously disputes that the individual is a subject of international criminal law. But it is much less certain whether international crimes a priori entail individual responsibility, which would be in line with the ‘individualistic’ conception of international legal personality, or whether the responsibility arises a posteriori consistent with the Kelsenian approach. Following a brief account of some historical antecedents, Chapter6 provides a detailed examination of the pivotal post-Second World War trials and the subsequent development of individual responsibility for international crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Criminal Court (ICC). Moreover, the chapter shows that the common practice of categorizing criminal courts as either international, internationalized, or domestic according to the ‘involvement of the international community’ ultimately rests on the orthodox ‘States-only’ conception of international legal personality.

scholarly journals I. THE CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009 AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW: BACKING INTO THE FUTURE?

2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Cryer ◽  
Paul David Mora
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

As a precursor to the United Kingdom's ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2001, the respective Parliaments in the UK adopted two Acts to implement the obligations that treaty imposed on the UK, and to implement the international crimes, as defined in that treaty, into the law of the UK. When the International Criminal Court Act (ICC Act) was being debated in 2001, Baroness Scotland, speaking for the Government, explained that part of the raison d'etre of the Act was that the UK ought not to be seen as a safe haven for international criminals. However, in line with article 11 of the Rome Statute, the jurisdiction of UK courts over such offences, insofar as they were not already covered by the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Genocide Act 1969 (the latter of which was repealed by the ICC Act) only applied prospectively.

scholarly journals The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the crime of aggression

2020 ◽  
pp. 374-378
Author(s):  
Nataliia Plakhotniuk ◽  
Maryna Irzhova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
International Crimes

The article emphasizes that the crime of aggression is considered the most serious crime against peace since the Nuremberg Tribunal,which is recognized by both domestic and Western doctrine. Amendments to the Rome Statute in 2010 defined signs of aggressionas an international crime and clarified the rules for exercising the jurisdiction of the International criminal court. Optimistic expectationsfor establishing effective jurisdiction of the court over this international crime have been dashed. As a result, it is concluded thateffective international criminal prosecution of the crime of aggression is possible only if the norms of the Rome Charter that cause themost negative reaction from the leading States are reviewed.It should be noted that in respect of a state that is not a party to the Rome Statute, the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction overthe crime of aggression committed by nationals of that state or on its territory.The International criminal court should serve as a symbol of international justice, which makes just decisions related to violationsof international law. As for the procedure for implementing the proceedings of the International criminal court, it is worth noting thatsuch a procedure for executing the decision of the ISS is double. The dual procedure for the enforcement of decisions of the InternationalCriminal Court is the Foundation of the Rome Charter and represents a new system in the history of public international law inthe field of international responsibility.Thus, it is possible to see that although at first glance the long process of formulating and adopting a unified definition of thecrime of aggression at the international level to succeed, thorough the consideration allows you to comprehend the profound incompletenessof this process. Features of the crime of aggression provided for in the draft edits the Rome Statute, as well as the amendmentmechanism itself, illustrate the real lack of a mechanism for holding individuals internationally responsible for its Commission, as wellas the rather disappointing prospect of positive changes in the near future.Despite the conflicts that arise between the norms of national criminal law and the provisions of the ISS Charter, the procedureitself is an effective legal instrument aimed at maintaining international peace and security. The joint work of the International CriminalCourt and the UN Security Council makes it possible to try cases of international crimes and take effective measures to counter suchcrimes. As a key component of the International criminal justice system, the International criminal Court is one of the most significantinstitutions of international criminal law, which is constantly developing and to a certain extent affects the patterns in the developmentof mechanisms for the investigation of international crimes and the protection of human rights at the international and national levels.

scholarly journals The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the crime of aggression

2020 ◽  
pp. 374-378
Author(s):  
Nataliia Plakhotniuk ◽  
Maryna Irzhova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
International Crimes

The article emphasizes that the crime of aggression is considered the most serious crime against peace since the Nuremberg Tribunal,which is recognized by both domestic and Western doctrine. Amendments to the Rome Statute in 2010 defined signs of aggressionas an international crime and clarified the rules for exercising the jurisdiction of the International criminal court. Optimistic expectationsfor establishing effective jurisdiction of the court over this international crime have been dashed. As a result, it is concluded thateffective international criminal prosecution of the crime of aggression is possible only if the norms of the Rome Charter that cause themost negative reaction from the leading States are reviewed.It should be noted that in respect of a state that is not a party to the Rome Statute, the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction overthe crime of aggression committed by nationals of that state or on its territory.The International criminal court should serve as a symbol of international justice, which makes just decisions related to violationsof international law. As for the procedure for implementing the proceedings of the International criminal court, it is worth noting thatsuch a procedure for executing the decision of the ISS is double. The dual procedure for the enforcement of decisions of the InternationalCriminal Court is the Foundation of the Rome Charter and represents a new system in the history of public international law inthe field of international responsibility.Thus, it is possible to see that although at first glance the long process of formulating and adopting a unified definition of thecrime of aggression at the international level to succeed, thorough the consideration allows you to comprehend the profound incompletenessof this process. Features of the crime of aggression provided for in the draft edits the Rome Statute, as well as the amendmentmechanism itself, illustrate the real lack of a mechanism for holding individuals internationally responsible for its Commission, as wellas the rather disappointing prospect of positive changes in the near future.Despite the conflicts that arise between the norms of national criminal law and the provisions of the ISS Charter, the procedureitself is an effective legal instrument aimed at maintaining international peace and security. The joint work of the International CriminalCourt and the UN Security Council makes it possible to try cases of international crimes and take effective measures to counter suchcrimes. As a key component of the International criminal justice system, the International criminal Court is one of the most significantinstitutions of international criminal law, which is constantly developing and to a certain extent affects the patterns in the developmentof mechanisms for the investigation of international crimes and the protection of human rights at the international and national levels.

Could International Fact-Finding Missions Possibly Render a Case Inadmissible for the ICC? Remarks on the Ongoing Attempts to Include International Criminal Law in Fact-finding

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry de Vries
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Past ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

Abstract Twenty years after the adoption of the Rome Statute questions concerning complementarity remain. There is no clear indication as to how international involvement would influence the admissibility of a case. One of the responses to human rights violations and possible international crimes that has risen to prominence in the past decades is fact-finding mandated by UN organs. At the same time these mechanisms have started to incorporate a focus on issues of international criminal law and individual criminal responsibility. As these mechanisms are starting to attempt to resemble a criminal investigation in some regards the question starts to rise as to what effect an international fact-finding mechanism can have on the admissibility of a case before the International Criminal Court. This article explains how these mechanisms need to be viewed in the context of the complementarity-regime of the Rome Statute.

Redrawing the Line? Serious Crimes of Concern to the International Community beyond the Rome Statute

2015 ◽  
Vol 52 ◽  
pp. 129-183
Author(s):  
SARA WHARTON
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Inductive Approach

AbstractInternational criminal law, like all areas of law, must continue to evolve to reflect contemporary realities. This article demonstrates that the current subject matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court under the Rome Statute is very much an artefact of history, and it argues that the historical and reactive line that the statute draws between “core” international crimes and other serious international or transnational crimes is inadequate. In order to ensure that international criminal law continues to evolve in a reasoned and principled manner, states need to better articulate the criteria by which conduct is included within the category of “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.” Using a primarily inductive approach, the article considers a number of such criteria that have been considered over the years. It concludes that, when assessed in the context of their systematic and organized perpetration, many other serious international and transnational crimes raise some of the same concerns that underpin the current core international crimes, suggesting that it may be time for the international community to consider redrawing the line.

To Withdraw or Not to Withdraw: A Structural Analysis of the Scope and Limits of Voluntary Withdrawal of Criminal Attempt in the Rome Statute

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 1167-1192
Author(s):  
Igor Vuletić
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Voluntary Withdrawal ◽  
Subjective Conception

Abstract Voluntary withdrawal of criminal attempt is one of the fundamental institutes of the general part of criminal law, originally codified in international criminal law in the Rome Statute. Since the Statute attributed significant legal effects to withdrawal, which excludes the liability for criminal attempt, it is important to establish a clear understanding on its scope and limitations. This article analyses controversial issues related to the legal nature of withdrawal as grounds for exclusion of criminal liability, withdrawal of individual offenders and accomplices, and provides interpretations on potential solutions for these issues. The analysis is based on the subjective conception of withdrawal, under which its essence lays in the rejection of the initial criminal intent, while taking into consideration withdrawal in the context of international crime. Based on the analysis, an original three-level test for the determination of withdrawal in the future practice of the International Criminal Court, (icc) is proposed.

s.VIII Boundaries, Ch.33 The Core Crimes of International Criminal Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schwöbel-Patel Christine
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Core ◽  
History Of ◽  
Political Economic

The ‘core’ crimes set out in the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute - the crime of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression - are overwhelmingly assumed to be the most important international crimes. In this chapter, I unsettle the assumption of their inherent importance by revealing and problematising the civilizational, political-economic, and aesthetical biases behind designating these crimes as ‘core’. This is done by shedding light on discontinuities in the history of the core crimes, and unsettling the progress narrative ‘from Nuremberg to Rome’. More specifically, crimes associated with drug control are placed in conversation with the accepted history of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to exemplify a systematic editing of the dominant narrative of international criminal law.

The Relationship between State Sovereignty and the Enforcement of International Criminal Law under the Rome Statute (1998): A Complex Interplay

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela Melandri
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Current System ◽  
Specific Aspect ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThis article explores the relationship between state sovereignty and the enforcement of international criminal law under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This doing, it attempts to map out the ambivalent and sometimes contradictory roles that different typologies sovereignty play in advancing or hindering the enforcement of international criminal law. After a brief survey of the literature on the debate over 'international law vs. state sovereignty', the paper focuses on one specific aspect of the newly established ICC: the conditions for case admissibility. The analysis will show that the relationship between state sovereignty and international criminal justice is a dynamic and complex one, which needs to be understood and contextualized within the current system of international relations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document