Assessing superior responsibility

1969 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 101 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.P. Sayers
2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (04) ◽  
pp. 881-917
Author(s):  
John Hagan ◽  
Richard Brooks ◽  
Todd Haugh

Internal and international conflicts can often involve a level of impunity that allows sexual violence to persist unchecked by military and political leaders. The recent reversal by an appeals panel at the International Criminal Court of a pretrial decision not to charge President al‐Bashir of Sudan with genocide in Darfur offers an important foundation for introducing new types of evidence that can increase the investigation and prosecution of sexual violence during conflicts. The reversal cited the incorrect use of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard when the lesser standard of “reasonable grounds” applied. Social science provides methods and measures that can be uniquely used to develop reasonable grounds evidence, for example, to demonstrate the roles of physical perpetrators acting together in horizontal relationships, as well as to establish the indirect participation through vertical relationships of higher‐level defendants, in a chain of command of superior responsibility. We illustrate these points by presenting social science evidence of the responsibility of President al‐Bashir and middle‐ and lower‐level figures in genocidal violence in Darfur.


1969 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 177
Author(s):  
D.J. Thomas

Author(s):  
Beth Van Schaack

This chapter identifies three unfortunate gaps in the United States’ federal penal code: The United States lacks a crimes against humanity statute, the war crimes statute has a limited jurisdictional reach and does not conform to US obligations under the Geneva Conventions, and the code lacks express mention of superior responsibility. These gaps significantly hinder the reach of the United States’ prosecutorial authorities and have led to instances of impunity, and incomplete accountability, where perpetrators within US jurisdiction cannot be prosecuted for their substantive crimes and must be dealt with through immigration and other remedies. The chapter then evaluates various proposed amendments to Title 18, drawing upon previous bills, international criminal law, and other federal statutes. It closes by arguing that discrete statutory amendments would enable the United States to exercise leadership in atrocities prevention and response without increasing the risk that US personnel will be subjected to litigation overseas.


Author(s):  
van Sliedregt Elies

While the Nuremberg and Tokyo judgments and the subsequent proceedings are important sources of law and indispensable in developing the concept of individual responsibility in international criminal law, they do not provide us with a system of criminal law and doctrine. For that, we need to turn to municipal law. National criminal law and doctrine not only serves as guidance and inspiration in developing a theory of individual responsibility in international criminal law, it also assists in understanding and describing international criminal law. This chapter begins with a brief discussion of terminology which has proved useful at the tribunals to analyze individual and superior responsibility. It then describes the mental element and material element in civil law systems.


2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-179
Author(s):  
Suhong Yang

On November 16, 2018, the Trial Chamber of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) rendered the judgment in Case 002/02 against Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan. The full written version of the judgment was notified in Khmer, English, and French on March 28, 2019. The Chamber found Nuon and Khieu guilty of crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and genocide of the Vietnamese ethnic, national, and racial group. The Chamber additionally convicted Nuon of genocide of the Cham ethnic and religious group under the doctrine of superior responsibility. Both Nuon and Khieu were sentenced to life imprisonment.


2008 ◽  
Vol 90 (870) ◽  
pp. 303-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie Allan Williamson

AbstractUnder international humanitarian law commanders have been entrusted with the task of ensuring respect for that body of law by their subordinates. This responsibility includes not only the training in IHL of those under their command, but also the taking of necessary measures to prevent or punish subordinates committing violations of IHL. Failure by a commander to do so will give rise to criminal liability, often termed superior responsibility. The following article reviews some of the issues arising from the application and development of this form of responsibility, from both a practical and a legal perspective.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document