The development of the grave breaches regime and of individual criminal responsibility by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

2003 ◽  
Vol 85 (850) ◽  
pp. 351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Wagner
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
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.

Remarks by Mark Ellis

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 79-88
Author(s):  
Mark Ellis
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

At 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 7, 1994, the first trial under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) began. Dusko Tadić was charged, on the basis of individual criminal responsibility, with grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, violations of the laws or customs of war, and crimes against humanity. Tadić escaped only the charge of genocide.

Individual Criminal Responsibility in the Execution of a "Joint Criminal Enterprise" in the Jurisprudence of the ad hoc International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila Bogdan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Criminal Enterprise ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Joint Criminal Enterprise ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

AbstractThis article explores the development of "joint criminal enterprise" form of responsibility in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (hereinafter "Yugoslav Tribunal"). Although "joint criminal enterprise" does not appear in the Yugoslav Tribunal Statute, this form of responsibility was read into the Statute by the tribunal judges and is repeatedly relied on in finding individuals guilty in cases before the tribunal. In particular, ever since the Appeals Chamber in Prosecutor v. Tadic held that "joint criminal enterprise", as a form of accomplice liability, is "firmly established in customary international law", other Trial and Appeals Chamber decisions continue to follow this holding. This article takes a critical look at some of the fundamental issues associated with the development of "joint criminal enterprise" at the Yugoslav Tribunal, in particular the methodology employed by the Appeals Chamber in Tadic. In addition, the article also examines the similarities between "joint criminal enterprise" and U.S. conspiracy law, and whether the use of "joint criminal enterprise" at the Yugoslav Tribunal violates the "principles of legality".

Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Human Rights Law: The Contribution of the International Criminal Court

1970 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Mohammed
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
The Road ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

The road to developing an international institutional capacity to prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide has been a long one, and has in many ways concluded with the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). By looking at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), as well as the ICC, this paper traces the evolution of the concept of individual criminal responsibility to its present incarnation. It argues that while the ICC presents its own unique ‘added value’ to the prosecution of international criminals, its application of justice continues to be biased by the influence of powerful states.

The Power of the Beaten Path

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Schabas
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Paris Peace Conference

The introductory chapter explains contemporary interest in legal developments a century ago. Discussions and decisions at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 were the beginning of debates that continue to this day. The chapter looks in some detail at the criminality of starting a war, today known as the crime of aggression, the immunity that can be invoked by a Head of State like the Kaiser, and problems of attributing criminal responsibility to those who are not physically involved in the crime. It also addresses the creation of international criminal tribunals, which began with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Plausible Deniability

2019 ◽  
pp. 256-272
Author(s):  
Iva Vukušić
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Military Leaders ◽  
High Ranking

Outsourcing illegal violence and plausible deniability feature among the main reasons for states to establish, finance, equip, and direct actions of paramilitary units. Political and military leaders have an interest in distancing themselves from crimes, which are committed to further their political goals. This chapter discusses some of the reasons that make prosecuting paramilitary violence more difficult by analysing examples from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). After reviewing relevant trials and their outcomes, the main conclusion is that plausible deniability works and results in shielding high-ranking officials from criminal responsibility. Overall, it is the lower-level perpetrators that receive punishment, and not those who have sent them on their missions, especially when those missions are across state borders. If courts do not find ways to hold accountable those that establish, fund, and direct paramilitaries as they persecute civilians, future perpetrators will not be deterred.

The Crime of Indiscriminate Attack and Unlawful Conventional Weapons: The Legacy of the icty Jurisprudence

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Ponti
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Conventional Weapons ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, which encompasses either ‘indiscriminate attacks’ stricto sensu and the so-called ‘disproportionate attacks’, is at the heart of the law governing the conduct of hostilities, as it aims to implement two cardinal principles of international humanitarian law (ihl), distinction and proportionality. This contribution examines the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (icty) establishing the individual criminal responsibility for indiscriminate attack. The author considers the possible rationale to illustrate why the icty has never adjudicated neither indiscriminate attacks nor disproportionate attacks per se, as separate, autonomous offences under customary international law. It is submitted that a possible reason to explain the prudency of the icty judges when dealing with the crime of indiscriminate attack is that from an international criminal law perspective it is more than a challenge to apply these ihl principles of distinction and proportionality. The author contends that the icty jurisprudence that practically examined the principle of prohibiting indiscriminate attacks by means of unlawful conventional weapons confirm such difficulties. In particular, because the icty failed to fully clarify to what extent an attack by means of indiscriminate and/or inaccurate weapons violating fundamental principles of the conduct of hostilities, such as distinction and proportionality, may amount to the crime of indiscriminate attack.

Sexual Violence in Decisions and Indictments of the Yugoslav and Rwandan Tribunals: Current Status

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly D. Askin
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established in 1993 to prosecute war crimes committed during the Yugoslav conflict; the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established in 1994 to prosecute war crimes committed during the Rwandan civil war. The Yugoslav Tribunal has the competence to try alleged offenders for crimes enumerated in Articles 2-5 of its Statute, namely, grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Similarly, the Rwandan Statute accords the Tribunal authority to try defendants for crimes enunciated in Articles 2-4, namely, genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II. Article 7, paragraphs (1) and (3) of the ICTY Statute and Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (3) of the ICTR Statute grant jurisdiction to these ad hoc Tribunals to try the accused for individual criminal responsibility on the bases of individual culpability and superior authority.

From The Hague to the Balkans: A Victim-oriented Reparations Approach to Improved International Criminal Justice

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stathis N. Palassis
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Yugoslav Wars

The international crimes committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s have been the subject of both State responsibility claims and prosecutions establishing individual criminal responsibility. On 26 February 2007 the International Court of Justice handed down its judgment in the Genocide case while it is expected that in 2014 the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia will conclude all appeals from prosecutions. While these initiatives contribute to the acknowledgement of the commission of international crimes they have not provided the victims with any financial reparations. Instead victims have had to make compensation claims under domestic law. The article examines how, in addition to the international initiatives at The Hague, a regionally focused victim oriented reparations approach can assist in attaining improved international criminal justice for international crimes committed during the Yugoslav wars. A victim oriented reparations approach would enhance victims’ rights through the provision of financial reparations, reflect improved international criminal justice and assist in the attainment long-term stability in the war-torn States of the former Yugoslavia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document