Chapter 19. Developments In The Distinction Between Principal And Accessorial Liability In Light Of The First Case Law Of The International Criminal Court

2009 ◽  
pp. 339-359 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
First Case

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.

The Role Played by External Case Law in Promoting the Legitimacy of International Criminal Court Decisions

2018 ◽  
Vol 87 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-211
Author(s):  
Joanna Nicholson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
The Law

International criminal courts and tribunals (ICTs) often refer to jurisprudence from other ICTs when reaching a decision. This can help increase the legitimacy of their decision-making. This article focuses on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and examines when the ICC may refer to the decisions from other courts; when it in fact does so; when it has chosen to deviate from the decisions of other ICTs; and how this has affected the legitimacy of its decisions. The ICC has generally been mindful in its approach towards referring to jurisprudence from other ICTs, but has not been afraid to deviate from it on occasion in decisions concerning both substantive and procedural law. The article argues that where possible the Court should interpret the law in line with other ICTs’ decisions. This will help increase the legitimacy both of the Court’s own decisions and the field of ICL as a whole.

The International Criminal Court

2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-160
Author(s):  
Noora Arajärvi ◽  
Dov Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Democratic Republic Of Congo ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
High Expectations ◽  
Outreach Programs ◽  
The Past ◽  
Raising Awareness

AbstractThis article covers the past two years of the activity of the International Criminal Court. Ten years after the signature of the Rome Statute, the Court has continued investigating situations in four countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, the Sudan and the Central African Republic). The activity of the Court has accelerated, with four indictees in custody in the DRC situation, one public arrest warrant in the CAR situation and two in the Sudan situation. The Court has developed its case law on victim participation and refined its procedural framework, through constant debate between the Prosecutor and the pre-trial chambers. It has also pursued its goal of increasing cooperation with State parties, and raising awareness of the Court through outreach programs. The Court faces difficult challenges in establishing itself as a credible court, balancing the necessary requirements of fairness in a criminal trial and the high expectations of victims and the international community. The recent stay of proceedings and granting of release in the Lubanga case, which is supposed to be the first trial of the Court, is an illustration of this challenge and the difficulty in finding this balance.

The International Criminal Court

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Relationship

Established as one of the main sources for the study of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, this volume provides a detailed analysis of the Statute; the detailed analysis draws upon relevant case law from the Court itself, as well as from other international and national criminal tribunals, academic commentary, and related instruments such as the Elements of Crimes, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and the Relationship Agreement with the United Nations. Each chapter includes accompanied by an overview of the drafting history as well as a bibliography of academic literature relevant to the provision. The text aims to avoid duplication and inconsistency, providing a comprehensive presentation to assist those who must understand, interpret, and apply the complex provisions of the Rome Statute. The fully updated second edition of this book incorporates new developments in the law, including discussions of recent judicial activity and the amendments to the Rome Statute adopted at the Kampala conference.

Prosecutor v. Bemba et al.

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-479
Author(s):  
Jonas Nilsson
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
First Case ◽  
Systematic Scheme ◽  
Administration Of Justice

The case against Jean-Pierre Bemba, Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo, Fidèle Babala Wandu, and Narcisse Arido is the first case before the International Criminal Court (ICC) dealing with offenses against administration of justice. The case is exceptional in terms of scope and size in comparison to other international prosecutions dealing with this kind of offense. The charges concern a systematic scheme aimed at producing false testimony of a large number of witnesses. Five people, including members of a defense team in another case before the ICC, carried out this operation over a period of many years. The case also involves several interesting evidentiary and procedural issues, including the overall regime for admission of evidence before the ICC.

scholarly journals IMPORTANCE OF THE BEMBA CASE FOR THE INSTITUTE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMANDERS AND OTHER SUPERIORS FOR THE COMMITMENT OF CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW BY THEIR SUBORDINATES

2021 ◽  
pp. 109-114
Author(s):  
B. I. Nedilko
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
First Case

This article is devoted to the analysis of the Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo case of the International Criminal Court. He was a Congolese politician, as well as the founder and the head of non-governmental armed group, named “Movement for the Liberation of Congo”, which members committed number of crimes during armed conflict in Central African Republic. The importance of this case lies in the fact, that it was the first case of the International Criminal Court, where the accused was charged with crimes, committed by his subordinates, and not by the accused himself. This article reveals the main contradictions between the judgments of the Trial Chamber, which found Bemba guilty, and the Appeals Chamber, which acquitted him. The legal basics of the institute of personal responsibility of commanders and other superiors in international criminal law, which were formed in the decision of the Appeals Chamber in the Bemba case, are highlighted therein. The author addresses and analyzes the grounds for recognizing commanders and other superiors guilty for committing crimes by their subordinates. It was discovered, that Article 28 of the Rome Statute requires the commanders to take only necessary or reasonable measures to prevent or punish the crimes, committed by their subordinates, not all possible measures at the relevant time. The Trial Chamber should specify what exactly the accused had to do to prevent or punish the crimes, as well as inform the accused of it prior to the hearing. It is also necessary to take into account objective circumstances, that could prevent the commander from adequately responding to the commission of crimes by his subordinates, especially if they operated in the territory of another state. The commander's ability to take the necessary or reasonable measures to prevent or punish the crimes, committed by his subordinates, should be analyzed in relation to each individual crime he is charged with, and not in relation to all the actions of subordinates as a whole. At last, the Appeals Chamber provided an exhaustive list of criteria for determining whether the measures, taken by the commander, were sufficient.

Part 1 Establishment of the Court: Institution de la Cour, Art.1 The Court/La Cour

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Salient Features ◽  
Legal Consequences

This chapter comments on Article 1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 1 is a sixty-word digest of the salient features of the International Criminal Court. It establishes the Court as a permanent institution with the ‘power’ to exercise jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of international concern. It is to be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The provision has not been subject to any significant consideration in the case law of the Court. In a sense, it might well have been omitted from the Rome Statute, as it adds little or nothing in terms of legal consequences.

Burden and Standard of Proof in Defence Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-155
Author(s):  
MICHAIL VAGIAS ◽  
JANOS FERENCZ
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Law

AbstractThe jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court has remained largely uncontested during the first 10 years of its operation. Today, the jurisdictional cooling-off period seems to have run its course. The Prosecutor has opened the first Article 15 investigations and prosecutions in Kenya. The defence has been active in challenging the jurisdiction of the Court. Judges at the pre-trial stage have taken a more inquisitive approach to jurisdictional assessments. This awakening has led to the identification of novel legal issues. One of them is the applicable burden and standard of proof for defence challenges to jurisdiction. So far, this issue has been addressed largely through interpretation of the Statute. The Court's first decisions seem to fluctuate significantly on this point. From pronouncements accepting that such burden and standard do exist and seeking to articulate them, to rulings implying that they do not exist altogether, the Court's case law reveals a measure of inconsistency and a lack of reasoning. This article seeks to expose the different positions assumed on the matter, typically as a result of the judges’ efforts to balance procedural efficiency and fair trial considerations. In doing so, we will reflect critically on the causes and effects of the current state of the law and propose a reorientation of the case law through the use of other relevant international jurisprudence.

Legality, Culpability and Dogmatik: A Dialogue between the ECtHR, Comparative and International Criminal Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 823-860
Author(s):  
Giulio Vanacore
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Constitutive Element

This article aims to analyse a peculiar interplay between the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), comparative and international criminal law. The discussion focuses on legality, foreseeability of the criminal nature of conduct, knowledge of a fact’s wrongfulness and mistakes of law. Starting from foreseeability as a constitutive element of legality in the ECtHR case-law, the author examines ‘knowability’ of a fact’s wrongfulness as a component of the Continental law Dogmatik category of culpability, the issue of ignorance in common law and the general interaction between the principles of legality and culpability. With regard to the International Criminal Court, there is a problematic need to establish a personal mental link between an individual’s actions and the system criminalising such action. In this context, the issue of foreseeability as applied to modes of liability has proven to be problematic. The upshot is this paper’s appeal for a truly international criminal Dogmatik.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document