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 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.

scholarly journals Joint criminal enterprise in the practice of international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Crimen ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-99
Author(s):  
Irena Čučilović
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Criminal Enterprise ◽  
Extended Form ◽  
Joint Criminal Enterprise

Joint criminal enterprise (JCE) is the institute first applied by the International criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Tadić case, and thereafter further shaped through the practice of the ICTY despite the fact that JCE as a form of individual responsibility is not mentioned anywhere in the Statute of ICTY, neither implicitly nor explicitly. Although today there is no doubt that the Joint criminal enterprise is an institute of international criminal law, which was very often applied in the practice by both ICTY and other international ad hoc tribunals, the serious remarks to this institute do not abate. It's pointed out that this is an institute that "was created" to ensure the conviction of the defendants, which procedurally affects the prosecution, which is relieved of the burden of proving criminal responsibilities and the specific roles of each of the participants in the JCE. Besides that, at the time when this doctrine was formulated, it was not entirely clear whether it was a form of commission or a form of complicity. Only a couple of years later, in the Milutinović et al. case, the ICTY stands out that the liability based on the JCE doctrine, in fact, is a responsibility for the commission, which further compromised this doctrine. Questionless, the application of the Joint criminal enterprise doctrine in practice leads to serious violation of the fundamental principles of contemporary criminal law. With general review of the Joint criminal enterprise doctrine, in this piece of work, the author considers one case of conviction under the third (often referred to as "extended") form of JCE, in order to point out the key problems which this doctrine produces in practice.

To What Degree is the Concept of Extended Joint Criminal Enterprise Coherent? A Discussion with Regard to the International Criminal Tribunal of the Former Yugoslavia

2015 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-279
Author(s):  
Christopher Cowley
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Criminal Enterprise ◽  
Extended Form ◽  
Joint Criminal Enterprise

Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) is a mode of liability designed to capture the individual’s relationship to a crime committed by a group, including—in its ‘extended form’, also known as JCE III—crimes committed by other individuals in that group that were foreseen as possible, even if not likely. Although the ICTY made no mention of JCE in its statutes, the court introduced JCE and extended JCE in the Tadić case (1999). This article examines the use of the concepts and defends them against complaints by various critics. It concludes by supporting their use in the International Criminal Court.

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.

International Criminal Court and Ad Hoc Tribunals

2008 ◽  
pp. 462-478
Author(s):  
Richard Goldstone
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Single Model ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

This article discusses contemporary international efforts to consolidate and codify significant portions of existing customary international law. It studies the ad hoc tribunals of the UN and pinpoints the successes and failures of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The ‘completion strategy’ of both international criminal tribunals is discussed. The article also covers the creation of ‘mixed’ courts and a single model for international criminal justice, namely the International Criminal Court.

Point of No Return: Joint Criminal Enterprise in Brđanin

2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
CLIFF FARHANG
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Enterprise ◽  
Precise Nature ◽  
Joint Criminal Enterprise ◽  
Point Of No Return ◽  
The Common ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Traditional Doctrine

AbstractIn the Brđanin and Krajišnik judgments, the ICTY Appeals Chamber found that the accused may incur criminal liability for crimes carried out by low-level non-joint criminal enterprise (JCE) physical perpetrators who are used as tools or are otherwise instrumentalized by JCE members other than the accused to carry out the crimes of the common plan. Similarly, the Appeals Chamber held that the accused may also incur liability for crimes of excess committed by non-JCE perpetrators. However, as for the precise nature of liability in such cases, no clarification was provided. From this ambiguity the author detects an inclination on the part of the Appeals Chamber to construe JCE not only as an expression of commission but also of complicity. The author then identifies and elaborates the theoretical difficulties that this construction would instil in the traditional doctrine of JCE as formulated by the Tadić Appeals Chamber and the international law of individual criminal responsibility. He suggests that awareness of these very problems of theory is the reason behind the conspicuous ambiguity in Brđanin and Krajišnik as to the nature of JCE liability.

Joint Criminal Enterprise: Cambodia's Reply to Tadić

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Marsh ◽  
Michael Ramsden
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Appeal Chamber ◽  
Criminal Enterprise ◽  
Joint Criminal Enterprise ◽  
Legal Foundation ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Expanded Form

AbstractThe doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE), which imposes individual criminal responsibility on an accused for their participation in a group's common criminal plan, rose to prominence in the ICTY Appeal Chamber decision, Prosecutor v. Tadić. Since Tadić, there has been a general reluctance by international ad hoc tribunals to review the legal foundation of JCE. However, on 20 May 2010, the ECCC Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) considered the applicability of JCE to the atrocities which occurred in Cambodia during 1975-1979 - the period within the tribunal's temporal jurisdiction. The PTC has, unlike any other ad hoc tribunal to date, subjected the reasoning in Tadić to close scrutiny. This article will analyse the PTC's decision. In squarely contradicting Tadić on the expanded form of JCE, its findings are to be welcomed. The PTC's decision should be upheld on appeal in order to uphold the principle of legality; to safeguard the continued respect, credibility and future legacy of the ECCC trial process.

The Judgement of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Vasiljević Case

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-330
Author(s):  
ELENA MARTÍN SALGADO
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Key Aspects

This case note focuses on two key aspects of the Vasiljević Judgement. The first one is the accused's acquittal of the charge of ‘violence to life and person’ under common Article 3 for the reason that the trial chamber was not satisfied that it constituted a crime under customary international law. The second aspect is the trial chamber's analysis of state practice to identify the definition under customary law of extermination as a crime against humanity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document