Part 3 General Principles of Criminal Law: Principes Généraux Du Droit Pénal, Art.32 Mistake of fact or mistake of law/Erreur de fait ou erreur de droit

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

General Rule ◽

Criminal Court ◽

This chapter comments on Article 32 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 32 addresses defences of mistake of fact or mistake of law. The drafters of the Statute did not want to leave the determination of defences to the discretion of judges, an approach used in all of the earlier models including the final draft Code of Crimes adopted by the International Law Commission in 1996. In general, the purpose of codifying defences in the Rome Statute is not to authorize them but rather to confine them. Thus, article 32 admits defences of mistake of fact and law but under certain conditions. If article 32 were not in the Statute, the general rule on mens rea set out in article 30 would apply without restriction, possibly subject to limitation by the Elements of Crimes.

Part 3 General Principles of Criminal Law: Principes Généraux Du Droit Pénal, Art.27 Irrelevance of official capacity/Défaut de pertinence de la qualité officielle

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0032 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Responsibility ◽

Criminal Court ◽

International Criminal Law ◽

Customary International Law ◽

Head Of State

This chapter comments on Article 27 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 27 consists two paragraphs that are often confounded but fulfil different functions. Paragraph 1 denies a defence of official capacity, i.e. official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall not exempt a person from criminal responsibility under the Statute. Paragraph 2 amounts to a renunciation, by States Parties to the Rome Statute, of the immunity of their own Head of State to which they are entitled by virtue of customary international law. In contrast with paragraph 1, it is without precedent in international criminal law instruments.

The Forty-Sixth Session of the International Law Commission

10.2307/2204212 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 89 (2) ◽

pp. 390-395 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Robert Rosenstock

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

State Responsibility ◽

Current Term ◽

Sixth Session ◽

State Succession ◽

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its forty-sixth session from May 2 to July 22, 1994, under the chairmanship of Professor Vladlin Vereshchetin of Russia.The Commission had one of its most productive sessions. It completed a second draft of a statute for an international criminal court; completed its second reading on nonnavigational uses of international watercourses; completed, provisionally on first reading, a discrete portion of its work on liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law; considered aspects of state responsibility; began its second reading on the Draft Code of Crimes; and appointed Vaclav Mikulka and Alain Pellet, respectively, as special rapporteurs for the new topics of “State succession and its impact on the nationality of natural and legal persons” and “the law and practice relating to reservations to treaties.” It is the intention of the Commission to conclude its work on these two topics during the current term, i.e., by 1996.

Completing the ``International Criminal Order''

Nordic Journal of International Law ◽

10.1163/15718109820295525 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 67 (2) ◽

pp. 107-137 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Criminal ◽

International Community ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Criminal Jurisdiction ◽

Draft Statute ◽

Domestic Jurisdiction ◽

AbstractRecent efforts in the United Nations to establish a comprehensive system of international criminal repression by creating a permanent international criminal court are by no means free from doubts regarding the possibility ever to enforce such law. The preamble of the draft statute prepared by the International Law Commission states the basis on which the court is to assert jurisdiction in an ambitious manner: it is the ``International Community'', joining against ``the most serious crimes of international concern''. The project cannot, however, ignore decades of realist criticism against the assumption of the existence of an international community that is ready to accept an international criminal jurisdiction. In the negotiations, this contradiction is dealt with by a technique provided with an ambiguous name: ``complementarity'', i.e. the coordination of the tasks of the international and domestic jurisdiction. The writer discusses the various ideas and proposals presented under the heading of ``complementarity'' in order to examine the tension between communitarian and sovereignty-based strands in the international project to create an effective criminal jurisdiction.

The Forty-Fourth Session of the International Law Commission

10.2307/2203858 ◽

1993 ◽

Vol 87 (1) ◽

pp. 138-144

Author(s):

Robert Rosenstock

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

State Responsibility ◽

Future Plan ◽

International Liability ◽

Fourth Session ◽

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its 44th session from May 4 to July 24, 1992, under the chairmanship of Professor Christian Tomuschat. The Commission considered aspects of state responsibility, the possible establishment of an international criminal court, international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, and its future plan of work and working methods.

The Forty-Second Session of the International Law Commission

10.2307/2202845 ◽

1990 ◽

Vol 84 (4) ◽

pp. 930-943 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Stephen C. McCaffrey

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Organizations ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

State Responsibility ◽

Peace And Security ◽

International Liability ◽

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its forty-second session from May 1 to July 20, 1990, under the Chairmanship of Professor Shi Jiuyong. In the context of its work on the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the Commission considered the establishment of an international criminal court and adopted three articles of the code. Also at the forty-second session, the Commission adopted six articles on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses and discussed reports on state responsibility, relations between states and international organizations, international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law and jurisdictional immunities of states and their property.

International Criminal Responsibility Concerning ‘Control over an Organization’ and Command Responsibility Lato Sensu

International Criminal Law Review ◽

10.1163/157181212x634162 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

pp. 293-300 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Hiromi Satō

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Responsibility ◽

Criminal Court ◽

International Criminal Law ◽

Customary International Law

The International Criminal Court recently presented its arguments concerning criminal responsibility arising pursuant to the theory of ‘control over an organization’. This theory is based on the notion of ‘perpetrator-by-means’ found in the Rome Statute, Article 25(3)a. The court appears to have utilized this theory to establish principal responsibility for ordering in contrast to accessorial responsibility prescribed in Article 25(3)b of the said Statute. However, it should be noted that customary international law has long established the notion of command responsibility lato sensu, recognizing the serious and primary nature of superiors’ responsibility for ordering. This article argues that there should be some conscious sequence between the discussions of ‘control over an organization’ and command responsibility lato sensu for the sake of the integrity of the discourse in international criminal law.

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

Law Review of Kyiv University of Law ◽

10.36695/2219-5521.3.2020.69 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 374-378

Author(s):

Nataliia Plakhotniuk ◽

Maryna Irzhova

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Criminal Law ◽

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.

Canadian Implementing Legislation for the Rome Statute

Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law ◽

10.1017/s1389135900000684 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 3 ◽

pp. 337-346 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

William A. Schabas

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

General Assembly ◽

Ongoing Work ◽

Preparatory Committee ◽

Draft Statute ◽

Canada has been very much at the centre of the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) since the momentum shifted in late-1994 from the International Law Commission (ILC) to more broadly representative bodies established by the General Assembly. It was Canada that chaired the ‘like-minded’, a group of states active during the several sessions of the Preparatory Committee and during the Diplomatic Conference in Rome from 15 June to 17 July 1998. The ‘like-minded’ were committed to invigorating the ILC's draft statute by enhancing the independence of the Prosecutor and trimming the sails of the Security Council. At Rome, Canadian diplomat Philippe Kirsch was elected chair of the Committee of the Whole, and he directed the intense negotiations throughout the five-week session. Kirsch crafted the final package of compromises that was submitted to the Conference at its close, on the morning of 17 July, and that succeeded in rallying the vast majority of delegations when put to a vote later that day. Since then, Kirsch and his team have presided over the ongoing work of the Preparatory Commission.

The Statute of the International Criminal Court

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s0020589300063247 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 48 (2) ◽

pp. 387-404 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Danesh Sarooshi

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Turning Point ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Legal Norms ◽

Draft Code ◽

The conclusion and adoption of the Statute of a permanent International Criminal Court2 (“Statute”) in Rome in July 19983 represent a turning point in the enforcement of legal norms regulating armed conflict. Th e Rom e Conference was the latest, and most important, chapter in a long saga concerning the broader issue of the conclusion and adoption of a Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, an important part of which was the establishment of an international criminal court to try such crimes.4 The International Law Commission (ILC), the UN organ responsible for the preparation of the Code,5 decided to separate the two objectives and to proceed with the drafting of a statute for an international criminal court that was distinct from the Draft Code of Crimes: the ILC envisaged a court that would exercise jurisdiction in respect of crimes of international concern which existed as such in various treaties already in force.6 This approach is reflected in the provisions of the Statute adopted at Rom e concerning the jurisdiction of the Court, as explained below.7

The Forty-Fifth Session of the International Law Commission

10.2307/2204030 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 88 (1) ◽

pp. 134-140

Author(s):

Robert Rosenstock

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

State Responsibility ◽

Draft Statute ◽

Working Groups ◽

Future Work ◽

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its forty-fifth session from May 2 to July 23, 1993, under the chairmanship of Ambassador Julio Barboza of Argentina. The Commission elaborated a substantially complete draft statute of an international criminal court in a working group, considered aspects of state responsibility, commenced drafting articles on liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, began its second reading on non-navigational uses of international watercourses, and made recommendations for its future work. The Commission continued its innovative use of working groups and subgroups to expedite its work and, consequently, had a highly productive session.