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.

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.

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.

Reparation to Victims of Sexual Violence: Possibilities at the International Criminal Court and at the Trust Fund for Victims and Their Families

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANNE-MARIE DE BROUWER
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Violence ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Trust Fund ◽  
Female Survivors

In this contribution the reparation possibilities for victims of sexual violence at the Inter-national Criminal Court and at the Trust Fund for Victims and their families are explored. This is done by explaining first of all why victims of sexual violence – and especially women – are in urgent need of reparation during and after conflict, with a special focus on the situation of female survivors of sexual violence in Rwanda. The reparation possibilities for victims of sexual violence at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda are subsequently discussed, followed by a similar discussion with regard to the ICC. Questions such as the nature of the best forms of reparation for victims of sexual violence and at what point they are made are also dealt with. Although the ICC reparations regime offers in theory a good means of providing restorative justice to victims of sexual violence, it is important that the special concerns and needs of such victims are not easily overlooked by the Court and that swift action is taken by the Trust Fund for Victims and their families to address their plight.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS ROUND-UP

2008 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 255-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amna Guellali ◽  
Enrique Carnero Rojo
Keyword(s):  
Sierra Leone ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Criminal Courts

AbstractThe International Criminal Courts Round-Up reports on the most interesting judgements and decisions rendered by international(ized) criminal courts and tribunals during the reporting period. In addition, important developments within the various organs of the courts are highlighted, such as the appointment of new judges and significant amendments to the procedural rules of the courts. The Round-Up presently covers issues concerning the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

Victims and the International Criminal Court: Three major issues

2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 345-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Garkawe
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Protective Measure ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

AbstractThe Statute of the permanent International Criminal Court (the "ICC") agreed to in Rome in 1998 contains many provisions that deal with the specific concerns and rights of victims and survivors of the international crimes that the ICC will have jurisdiction over. It consolidates the work of the two ad hoc international criminal Tribunals (the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda) in this area, but also further enhances the role and rights of victims in a number of innovative ways. These three international criminal Tribunals thus collectively represent an important step forward in the recognition of the suffering and the position of victims and survivors of international crimes. This article will examine three main issues in relation to victims and the ICC. First, after identifying the protective measures for victims allowed at the discretion of the international criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, it will focus on the most controversial measure (which the ICC can also order) - the non-disclosure to the defence of the identity of witnesses. Does this protective measure violate a defendant's right to a fair trial? The Statute of the ICC also allows, for the first time in international criminal justice, for the right of victims to obtain their own legal representation, subject to the discretion of the ICC. The second issue is how is this going to work in practice in light of the fact that international crimes normally involve hundreds, if not thousands or even tens of thousands, of victims? And finally, while the ICC Statute provides for the possibility of reparations to victims, where will the money come from, and thus what are the chances of victims actually being able to receive compensation?

Implementing Legislation for the Application of the Law on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Criteria for its Evaluation

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 35-68
Author(s):  
Ivo Josipović
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
History Of

The establishment of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Since 1991 (ICTY) and the adoption of its Statute heralded a new page in the history of international, particularly international criminal, law. For the first time since World War II, an international criminal court was established. The Tribunal was created in order to achieve important legal and political goals: to punish perpetrators of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the former Yugoslavia since 1991; to prevent further crimes; to facilitate the peace process; and to serve as a test for a future permanent international criminal court.

scholarly journals Building Victim-Led Coalitions to Press for Justice Following Mass Atrocity

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 23-26
Author(s):  
Diane Orentlicher
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Postwar Period ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Victim Participation

Assurances of victim participation in proceedings before the International Criminal Court and Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia have been seen as a welcome corrective to the flawed model of earlier tribunals. The first such tribunal created since the postwar period, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), was established by the UN Security Council in May 1993 without even consulting those who survived the atrocities that gave rise to its creation, the majority of which took place in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Nor were victims formally incorporated into the ICTY's work except for those who provided testimony and other evidence. (The same holds true for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, established by the UN Security Council in 1994; in the interests of brevity, my remarks will focus on the ICTY.)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document