Part 2 Attributing Criminal Responsibility, 4 Perpetration and Participation

Author(s):  
van Sliedregt Elies

National criminal law has been an important source for drafting provisions of individual criminal responsibility in international law. Notions that we know from national criminal law, such as aiding/abetting, conspiracy and instigation, are used to refer to modalities of criminal responsibility. To gain a better insight into the modalities of participating in international crime as codified in international statutes, they need to be analyzed in light of national criminal law. This chapter discusses five models of participation in crime and international models of participation.

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 1026-1067
Author(s):  
Cóman Kenny

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.


2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 509-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Fournet

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.


Author(s):  
Asif Khan ◽  
Shaukat Hussain Bhatti ◽  
Abid Shah

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


Author(s):  
Werle Gerhard ◽  
Jeßberger Florian

This chapter focuses on the general principles of international criminal law. It first develops a general theory of crimes under international law by considering the concept of crimes under international law as well as the context of organised violence. The structure of crimes under international law is also explored. Next, the chapter studies the material and mental elements of crimes under international law. Individual criminal responsibility and superior responsibility are also discussed, as are the grounds for excluding criminal responsibility. Next, the chapter covers inchoate crimes, omissions within the context of the ICC Statute, immunity, the multiplicity of offences, and finally, the requirements for prosecution.


Author(s):  
Yuliya Khobbi ◽  

The article considers topical issues of definition and implementation of the institution of extradition in the criminal law of Ukraine. There is a view that extradition should be understood only as the institution of extradition of offenders, and the transfer of convicts to serve their sentences is an independent institution of criminal law. In our opinion, this statement cannot be accepted, as it concerns an identical procedure, the systemic material and legal feature of which is its security focus on the realization of individual criminal responsibility, and this view is supported by lexical analysis of terminological concepts "extradition" and «transfer». as identical in factual content. It is noted that the obligatory legal condition for extradition (as well as transfer) is a valid international agreement, the parties to which must be Ukraine and the state requesting the extradition of the person. It is proved that the institution of extradition has a complex interdisciplinary nature, because it arises at the crossroads of constitutional law, criminal law, criminal procedure and international law. It allows to define it as a comprehensive legal procedure for transferring a person to another state to implement the principle of inevitability of criminal liability, regardless of the place of temporary actual stay. It is shown that the main task of the institute of extradition is to ensure the inevitability of bringing a person guilty of a crime to criminal responsibility, which allows to determine the fundamental basis and essence of this institution as a criminal law. It is emphasized that the institution of extradition is complex, combining the extradition of persons suspected of committing a crime and persons convicted of a crime, and both cases of its application have a common purpose – to ensure that the person guilty of the crime is prosecuted.


Author(s):  
van Sliedregt Elies

This chapter begins with a discussion of the concept of individual criminal responsibility covering developments in municipal criminal law and international criminal responsibility. It then discusses system criminality, Colonel Murray C. Bernays' collective criminality theory, and subsequent proceedings. The concept of individual criminal responsibility in international law is modelled on criminal responsibility in national law. While it is premised on the principle of individual fault it has gained collective traits enabling liability for the acts and omissions of others. In that, it follows trends and developments in national criminal law. Liability for international crimes does, however, have specific features.


Author(s):  
Kai Ambos ◽  
Alexander Heinze

International Criminal Justice is a controversial concept, and there is a burgeoning body of literature on its exact contours. Understood broadly, the term “international criminal justice” covers a broad category, integrating international criminal law (ICL) within an overarching interdisciplinary enterprise also “incorporating philosophical, historical, political and international relations, sociological, anthropological and criminological perspectives” (Roberts, 2007). International criminal law consists, at its core, of a combination of criminal law and public international law principles. The idea of individual criminal responsibility and the concept of prosecuting an individual for a specific (macrocriminal) act are derived from criminal law, while the classical (Nuremberg) offenses form part of (public) international law and thus the respective conduct is directly punishable under ICL (principle of direct individual criminal responsibility in public international law). The dualistic base of international criminal law is also reflected in the reading of the mandates of the international criminal tribunals; one can either take a “security, peace, and human rights”–oriented approach or a “criminal justice”–oriented approach, either of which may entail a paradoxical goal or purpose ambiguity of international criminal law. In any case, the strong grounding in criminal law, together with the actual enforcement of international criminal law by way of international criminal proceedings and trials, converts international criminal law into criminal law on a supranational level and thus entails the full application of the well-known principles of liberal, post-enlightenment criminal law, in particular the principles of legality, culpability, and fairness. These principles constitute the minimum standard of any criminal justice system based on the rule of law and thus must also apply in an international criminal justice system. The adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998 and the effective establishment of the Court in 2002 have led to an institutionalization of international criminal law, turning the page on ad hoc imposition in favor of a treaty-based universal system. In addition, the Rome Statute provides for the first codification of international criminal law, with a potentially universal reach. Therewith, international criminal law was not only united into a single penal system of the international community, but it was also extended beyond its fundamental core areas of substantive and procedural law into other branches of criminal law (law of sanctions, enforcement of sentences, and judicial assistance).


2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Goy

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document