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

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.

2015 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-279
Author(s):  
Christopher Cowley

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.


SEEU Review ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-116
Author(s):  
Viona Rashica

Abstract The tradition of international criminal tribunals which started with the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals was returned with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. As a result of the bloody wars in the territory of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the Security Council of the United Nations decided to establish the ICTY as an ad hoc tribunal, that was approved by the resolutions 808 and 827. The main purpose of the paper is to highlight the features of the ICTY during its mandate from 1993 to 2017. For the realization of this research are used qualitative methods, based on the bibliography that is related with international criminal law, with special emphasis with the activities of international criminal tribunals. Furthermore, some data are also collected from the credible internet sources, which have valuable information about the procedures of the ICTY and for the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. The results of the study demonstrate that during its mandate, the ICTY was accompanied with a lot of successes which distinguish it from the other international criminal tribunals. At the same time, the ICTY has also a lot of failures, which have come as a result of various political influences within it. The conclusions of this paper aim to increase knowledge about the activity of the ICTY, by offering important information for its establishment and organs, and for its main successes and failures.


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 761-795
Author(s):  
Natalia Perova

Joint criminal enterprise (jce) has caused a lot of concern amongst international criminal law practitioners and academics since its first appearance at the ad hoc Tribunals. A recent landmark decision, by the uk Supreme Court in Jogee, that overruled 30 years of common law development on joint enterprise, stimulates further discussions on whether jce in its current form fairly reflects the balance between culpability and corresponding liability of the defendant. This article explores this issue by suggesting that the level of culpability of defendants does not match the degree of liability they incur under jce iii. The article dissects the jce iii mode of liability by considering it a ‘two-crime liability’: a common purpose crime and a foreseeable crime, and compares it with aiding/abetting. This article argues that the level of culpability of defendants under jce iii is much lower than their liability for the crimes they are convicted of.


2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (03) ◽  
pp. 585-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hagan ◽  
Ron Levi ◽  
Gabrielle Ferrales

This article develops a conflict approach for studying the field of international criminal law. Focusing on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, we draw on Burawoy's (2003 ) elaboration of reflexive ethnography to determine how external political changes affect the work of an international legal institution. We explore how political frameworks of legal liberalism, ad hoc legalism, and legal exceptionalism result in internal office, organizational, and normative changes within this Tribunal, thereby linking national political transformations with the construction of the global. Drawing on rolling field interviews and a two-wave panel survey, we conclude that the claims to universals that underwrite transnational legal fields cannot be understood solely through an analysis of external political forces, but must be combined with attention to how these are refracted through internal organizational change within international institutions.


2016 ◽  
Vol 80 (6) ◽  
pp. 436-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Ranieri

This article examines the doctrine of extended joint criminal enterprise (‘JCE’) as a mode of liability within international criminal law (‘ICL’). The article first provides an overview of extended JCE based on its current expression in international customary law by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Tadić case. Consideration will then turn to the problems associated with the application of extended JCE. In particular, recent developments in the United Kingdom in the case of R v Jogee will be discussed, and the implications for the future of extended JCE in ICL as a matter of international custom. Next, the viability of the JCE doctrine will be considered for the purposes of proceedings before the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’). Ultimately, it is concluded that extended JCE has a limited jurisprudential basis before the ICC. However, it is suggested that extended JCE may live on through art 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute.


2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila Bogdan

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".


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 245-250
Author(s):  
Bing Bing Jia

Legacy is a matter that may become topical when its creator finally stops producing. Normally, the silent years would be many before the thought of legacy enters into open, formal discourse among lawyers and decision-makers. This comment treats the meaning of the word as relative to the circumstances in which it is invoked. The more closely it is used in relation to the present, the more distant it drifts from its literal meaning, to the extent that it denotes what the word “impact” signifies. This essay questions whether the word “legacy” is apt in describing the footprint of the work of the two ad hoctribunals in China, where its influence has, as a matter of fact, been waning ever since the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998 (“Rome Statute” ). The Chinese example suggests that the work of the tribunals is (at least so far) no more significant to international criminal law than the illustrious Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials of the 1940s. The most major impact (a more apposite term than legacy) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) for China may be that China’s policy with regard to the tribunals, manifested mostly in the United Nations, has determined its approach to the International Criminal Court (“ICC” ). For that, the work of the tribunals could be considered as having left China something in the nature of an indirect legacy.


2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 459-476
Author(s):  
PASCALE CHIFFLET

In its Judgement issued on 30 November 2005 in Prosecutor v. Limaj et al., Trial Chamber II of the ICTY found that an armed conflict existed in Kosovo between the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Serbian forces as of the end of May 1998. It held, however, that the evidence did not establish that there was a widespread or systematic attack by the KLA directed against a civilian population at the relevant time. The first trial of former members of the Kosovo Liberation Army also gave rise to a number of significant developments in the ICTY's jurisprudence relating to issues of international criminal law and procedure, such as the treatment of hostile witnesses and of eyewitness identification evidence, as well as the proof of the existence of a joint criminal enterprise.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document