Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Adjudication Under Particular Consideration of International Criminal Justice: The German Contribution

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European International Law Traditions

  • 490 Accesses

Abstract

The emergence and development of the international criminal justice system is closely linked to Germany. Article 227 of the Peace Treaty of Versailles, which brought World War I to an end, granted the Allied the power to ‘publicly arraign William II of Hohenzollern, formerly German Emperor, for a supreme offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties’. Moreover, the Allied were determined to try other persons before their military courts for violations of the laws and customs of war (Article 228, 229 Peace Treaty of Versailles). Although these provisions did not lead to genuine criminal prosecutions, they prepared the ground for the Military Tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo tasked with the ‘Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis’ in the aftermath of World War II. Germany was initially very sceptical towards the international criminal justice system; the majority of the population saw the Nuremberg trials as ‘victor’s justice’ and criticised that alleged war crimes of the Allied Powers—for example the bombing of Dresden and Königsberg (today Kaliningrad, Russia)—were not investigated. Over the years, however, this attitude has changed, and Germany meanwhile is fully committed to the fight against impunity for international crimes. This paper shows how Germany contributed to the negotiations on the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court (1) and examines the influence of German legal doctrine on the international case law (2). It concludes with an overview on Germany’s efforts to prosecute international crimes on the national level (3).

Professor for Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, International Criminal Law and Comparative Law and Director of the International Research and Documentation Centre for War Crimes Trials at the Philipps University of Marburg.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The German Kaiser Wilhelm II was granted asylum in the Netherlands, Germany refused to extradite German nationals to the Allies and the war crimes trials conducted before the Reichsgericht in Leipzig (so-called Leipzig Trials) cannot be seen as a serious attempt to prosecute (major) war criminals, cf Heiko Ahlbrecht, Geschichte der völkerrechtlichen Strafgerichtsbarkeit im 20. Jahrhundert (Nomos 1999) 36ff.; Kai Ambos, Treatise on International Criminal Law – Volume I: Foundations and General Part (OUP 2013) 2–3; Helmut Satzger, International Criminal Law (2nd edn, CH Beck 2018) § 11 mn 3–4.

  2. 2.

    In detail Christoph Safferling, ‘German Participation in the Nuremberg Trials and Its Implications for Today’ in Beth A Griech-Polelle (ed), The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and its Policy Consequences Today (Nomos 2009) 33.

  3. 3.

    In more detail Gerhard Werle, ‘Deutschland und das Völkerstrafrecht: Zeitgeschichtliche Perspektiven” in Florian Jeßberger and Julia Geneuss (eds), Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (Nomos 2013) 23; Markus Eikel, ‘“Die Herrschaft des Rechts und nicht das Recht des Stärkeren” – Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und die Entstehungsgeschichte des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs’ [2018] Vierteljahresschrift für Zeitgeschichte 9.

  4. 4.

    During the area of the cold war, the development of international criminal law came to a standstill, see Satzger (n 1) § 11 mn 15–17. On the general effort of ‘the new democratic Germany’ to distance itself from the Nazi area and its effect on the German approach towards International Law see the contribution of Christian Tomuschat in this volume; on the influence of World War II on Austrian foreign policy and understanding of International Law see the contribution of Heribert Franz Koeck in this volume.

  5. 5.

    For an overview see Peter Wilkitzki, ‘The Contribution of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Laender to the Work of the ICTY’ in Lal Chand Vohrah and others (eds), Man’s Inhumanity to Man – Essays on International Law in Honour of Judge A. Cassese (Kluwer Law International 2003) 923.

  6. 6.

    Cf, eg, Safferling (n 2) 40 who shows that the extradition of Tadić was a complicated matter for Germany because the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) prohibits the establishment of ex post facto courts (Art. 101 German Basic Law, English translation available at <https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/>, accessed 1 March 2020). On the general concept of “openness of the German Basic Law to International Law” see the contribution of Christian Tomuschat in this volume.

  7. 7.

    The diplomatic main event was the Rome Conference, which took place from 15 June to 17 July 1998 in Rome, Italy.

  8. 8.

    Cf the statement of the then German Minister of Foreign Affairs Klaus Kinkel, ‘Für einen funktionsfähigen Weltstrafgerichtshof’ [1997] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2860, 2861.

  9. 9.

    In more detail Hans-Peter Kaul, ‘Der Beitrag Deutschlands zum Völkerstrafrecht’ in Christoph Safferling and Stefan Kirsch (eds), Völkerstrafrechtspolitik (Springer 2014) 51; Eikel (n 3) 17ff.

  10. 10.

    ‘Proposal submitted by Argentina and Germany, Article 46, Information submitted to the Prosecutor’ (25 March 1998) UN Doc A/AC.249/1998/WG.4/DP.35; see also Kinkel (n 8) 2861. The question of how proceedings can be initiated (‘trigger mechanism’) was very controversial. Some states – among them the USA and China – feared that proprio motu powers might be misused by an overzealous prosecutor to initiate politically motivated, unfounded investigations. Their opponents, to the contrary, argued that proprio motu powers are essential for a strong and independent court, because without them, the ICC would not be able to prosecute international crimes when – for political or other reasons – the state parties and the Security Council decide not to trigger the Court’s jurisdiction, see William A Schabas and Giulia Pecorella, ‘Article 13 – Exercise of Jurisdiction’ in Otto Triffterer and Kai Ambos (eds), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016) mn 2ff.; Morten Bergsmo, Jelena Pejic and Dan Zhu, ‘Article 25 – Prosecutor’ in Otto Triffterer and Kai Ambos(eds), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016) mn 4. The final compromise reached at the Rome Conference corresponds to a large extend to the Argentinean-German Proposal: The Prosecutor has the power to initiate investigations on the basis of information received from any source (United Nations General Assembly ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (last amended 2010)’ [17 July 1998] (ICC Statute), art 13 lit c)), but if she concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed, she must request the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorize the (formal) commencement of investigations (ICC Statute, art 15(3), (4)).

  11. 11.

    Cf ‘Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’ (14 April 1998) UN Doc A/Conf.183/2/Add.1, 30ff.

  12. 12.

    ‘Proposal Submitted by the United States of America, Article 7 ter’ (16 July 1998) UN Doc A/CONF.183/C.1/L.90.

  13. 13.

    Cf only William A Schabas and Giulia Pecorella, ‘Article 12 – Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction’ in Otto Triffterer and Kai Ambos (eds), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016) mn 10.

  14. 14.

    In detail and with further references Kai Ambos, Treatise on International Criminal Law – Volume III: International Criminal Procedure (OUP 2016) 224.

  15. 15.

    Stefanie Bock, Das Opfer vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (Duncker & Humblot 2010) 266; cf, also, Schabas and Pecorella (n 13) mn 6.

  16. 16.

    On the discussion cf Schabas and Pecorella (n 13) mn 5ff.

  17. 17.

    Bock (n 15) 239; also Schabas and Pecorella (n 13) mn 14.

  18. 18.

    Kinkel (n 8) 2861; see also Andreas Zimmermann, ‘Article 5 – Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court’ in Otto Triffterer and Kai Ambos(eds), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016) mn 34.

  19. 19.

    Stefan Barriga and Claus Kreß (eds), Crime of Aggression Library – The Travaux Préparatories of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press 2012) 233.

  20. 20.

    IMT, judgment of 1 October 1946, in The Trial of German Major War Criminals. Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg, Germany, Part 22 (22 August 1946 to 1 October 1946) 427.

  21. 21.

    Barriga and Kreß (n 19) 233.

  22. 22.

    Barriga and Kreß (n 19) 234.

  23. 23.

    Barriga and Kreß (n 19) 235, 237.

  24. 24.

    On Germany’s active role in the discussion on the crime of aggression cf Zimmermann (n 18) mn 34ff.

  25. 25.

    In detail Roger S Clark, ‘Negotiations on the Rome Statute’ in Stefan Barriga and Claus Kreß (eds), Crime of Aggression Library – The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, vol 1(CUP 2017) 244; see also Stefan Oeter, ‘Das Verbrechen der Aggression, die Konferenz von Kampala und das deutsche Strafrecht’ in Florian Jeßberger and Julia Geneuss (eds), Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (Nomos 2013) 101.

  26. 26.

    Barriga and Kreß (n 19) 367.

  27. 27.

    Barriga and Kreß (n 19) 369.

  28. 28.

    ICC Assembly of States Parties Resolution ICC-ASP/1/Res.1 (9 September 2002).

  29. 29.

    Review Conference Res RC/Res.6 (11 June 2010): Article 8 bis – Crime of aggression; Article 15 bis – Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referral, proprio motu); Article 15 ter – Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (Security Council referral).

  30. 30.

    Assembly of the States Parties Res ICC-ASP/16/Res.5 (14 December 2017).

  31. 31.

    In more detail Kai Ambos, Treatise on International Criminal Law – Volume II: The Crimes and Sentencing (OUP 2014) 204ff; Roger S Clark, ‘Individual Conduct’ in Stefan Barriga and Claus Kreß (eds), Crime of Aggression Library – The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, vol 1 (CUP 2017) 565, 583ff.

  32. 32.

    In detail and with further references Ambos (n 31) 198ff.; Claus Kreß, ‘The State Conduct Element’ in Stefan Barriga and Claus Kreß (eds), Crime of Aggression Library – The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, vol 1 (CUP 2017) 412, 507ff.

  33. 33.

    Federal Foreign Office, ‘Explanatory Memorandum to the Act regarding the Amendments of 10 and 11 June 2010 to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998’ <https://crimeofaggression.info/documents/2/Germany_explanatory_memo.pdf> accessed 1 March 2020.

  34. 34.

    Cf Herbert Jäger, Makrokriminalität: Studien zur Kriminologie kollektiver Gewalt (Suhrkamp 1989) 12ff.

  35. 35.

    Ambos (n 1) 83–87; Thomas Weigend, ‘Problems of Attribution in International Criminal Law: A German Perspective’ (2014) 12 Journal of International Criminal Justice 253, 254–55; Stefanie Bock, ‘Zurechnung im Völkerstrafrecht’ (2017) 12 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 410, 410–11, all with further references.

  36. 36.

    As a matter of principle, International Tribunals focus on the prosecution of the persons most responsible, cf, eg, Situation in the Republic of Kenya, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya Doc No ICC-01/09-19 (ICC, 31 March 2010), para 188; UN Security Council ‘Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’ (16 January 2002), art 1(1): ‘prosecute persons who bear the greatest responsibility’; Law on the Establishment of Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea (27 October 2004) Doc No NS/RKM/1004/006, art 1: ‘bring to trial senior leaders […] and those who were most responsible for the crimes“; Charter of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg (IMT Statute), art 1: ‘trial and punishment of the major war criminals’; cf also Frederiek de Vlaming, ‘Selection of Defendants’ in Luc Reydams, Jan Wouters and Cedric Ryngaert (eds), International Prosecutors (OUP 2012) 542.

  37. 37.

    Cf Weigend (n 35) 254; Bock (n 35) 414.

  38. 38.

    In more detail on the jurisprudence of the ICTY Verena Haan, ‘The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’ (2005) 5 International Criminal Law Review 167, 170ff.

  39. 39.

    In more detail on the jurisprudence of the ICTR Kai Ambos and Stefanie Bock, ‘Individual criminal responsibility’ in Anne-Marie de Brouwer and Alette Smeulers (eds), The Elgar Companion to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Edward Elgar 2016) 202, 207.

  40. 40.

    Prosecutor v Tadić, Judgement Doc No IT-94-1-A (15 July 1999), paras 224ff.

  41. 41.

    Ibid para 226.

  42. 42.

    Prosecutor v Tadić (n 40) para 220.

  43. 43.

    Katrina Gustafson, ‘The Requirement of an “Express Agreement” for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability – A Critique of Brdanin’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 134, 139; cf also Elies van Sliedregt, ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 184, 187; Harmen van der Wilt, ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise – Possibilities and Limitations’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 91, 101.

  44. 44.

    Ambos (n 1) 160; in more detail Joachim Vogel, ‘Individuelle Verantwortlichkeit im Völkerstrafrecht’ (2002) 114 Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 403, 420ff.; cf also van Sliedregt (n 43) 187.

  45. 45.

    Gustafson (n 43) 139; in a similar vein Vogel (n 44) 420.

  46. 46.

    Cf Bock (n 35) 382 and the sources cited there.

  47. 47.

    Prosecutor v Brdanin, Appeals Judgement Doc No IT-99-36-A (ICTY, 3 April 2007), para 410ff., 430; Prosecutor v Zigiranyirazo, Judgement Doc No ICTR-01-73-T (ICTR, 18 December 2008) para 384.

  48. 48.

    Ambos (n 1) 125; Ambos and Bock (n 39) 208–09.

  49. 49.

    Cf Ambos (n 1) 174, who points out that the ‘culpability flaws of the JCE [III] may just be the reason for the attractiveness of the doctrine from a prosecutorial perspective.’

  50. 50.

    Cf, eg, Prosecutor v Kvocka et al, Judgement Doc No IT-98-30/1-T (ICTY, 2 November 2001), para 203.

  51. 51.

    Van Sliedregt (n 43) 188; Haan (n 38) 199; cf also van der Wilt (n 43) 101.

  52. 52.

    In detail and with further references Ambos (n 1) 172ff.; cf also George P Fletcher and Jens David Ohlin, ‘Reclaiming Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the Darfur Case’ (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice 539, 550; Haan (n 38) 200–201.

  53. 53.

    Prosecutor v Lubanga, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Doc No ICC-01/04-01/06-803 (ICC, 29 January 2007).

  54. 54.

    Ibid para. 327. In the same vein Prosecutor v Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute Doc No ICC-01/04-1/07-3436 (ICC, 27 March 2014), para 1390ff.

  55. 55.

    Cf Prosecutor v Lubanga (n 53) para 328.

  56. 56.

    Ibid para 333; the relevant part of ICC Statute, art 25(1)(a) provides that a person shall be criminally responsible if that person commits an international crime ‘through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible’.

  57. 57.

    Ibid para 329.

  58. 58.

    Ibid para 329.

  59. 59.

    Cf from the German Jurisprudence (which applied the subjective approach in an extreme form) RGSt (Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Strafsachen) 74, 84 (bathtub case); BGHSt (Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen) 18, 87 (Staschynskij case); thereto Jens David Ohlin, ‘Searching for the Hinterman: in Praise of Subjective Theories of Imputation’ (2014) 12 Journal of International Criminal Justice 325, 333–34.

  60. 60.

    Cf Prosecutor v Al Mahdi, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges against Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi Doc No ICC-01/12-01/15-84 (ICC, 24 March 2016), para 27 (‘It is therefore required that: […] the person charges provides a contribution to the commission of such a crime. The Statue does not require that the contribution under article 25(3)(d) be “significant” or reach a certain minimum degree.’); in a similar vein Prosecutor v Ruto, Kosgey and Sang, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute Doc No ICC-01/09-01/11 (ICC, 23 January 2012), para 354. Note, however, that other Chambers have introduced an objective threshold by arguing that ICC Statute, art 25(3)(d) presupposes a significant (but not necessarily substantial) contribution Prosecutor v Mbarushimana, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Doc No ICC-01/04-01/10-465 (ICC, 16 December 2011), para 283; Prosecutor v Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute Doc No ICC-01/04-01/07-3436 (ICC, 7 March 2014), para 1632.

  61. 61.

    With its reference to a collective entity (the group and its criminal activities), ICC Statute, art 25(3)(d) in a way resembles the JCE Doctrine, cf Prosecutor v Lubanga (n 53) para 335; Kai Ambos, ‘Article 25 – Individual Criminal Responsibility’ in Otto Triffterer and Kai Ambos (eds), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016) mn 29; cf also Prosecutor v Katanga (n 60) para 1625. However, as was rightly noted by the Mbarushimana Pre-Trial Chamber, the two forms of liability differ as to ‘(i) whether a defendant who is found guilty is convicted as a principal or accessory, (ii) whether a defendant must be in the group acting with the common purpose or not, (iii) whether the contribution is to the common purpose or to the crimes committed, and (iv) whether some form of intent or mere knowledge is sufficient for responsibility’, Prosecutor v Mbarushimana (n 60) para 282.

  62. 62.

    Ambos (n 1) 169.

  63. 63.

    Prosecutor v Lubanga (n 53) paras 334–36.

  64. 64.

    Ibid para 329.

  65. 65.

    Claus Roxin, Täterschaft und Tatherrschaft (10th edn, de Gruyter 2019) 67–75.

  66. 66.

    Claus Roxin, ‘Crimes as Part of Organized Power Structures’ (2011) 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice 193, 195.

  67. 67.

    Cf Gerhard Werle and Boris Burghardt, ‘Introductory Note’ (2011) 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice 191; Neha Jain, ‘The Control Theory of Perpetration in International Criminal Law’ (2011) 12 Chicago Journal of International Criminal Law 159, 165. On the different forms of control cf also Prosecutor v Lubanga (n 53) para 332.

  68. 68.

    Roxin (n 66) 201.

  69. 69.

    According to the Lubanga PTC, co-perpetration has two objective requirements, namely the existence of an agreement or common plan between two or more persons and a coordinated essential contribution by each co-perpetrator resulting in the realization of the objective elements of the crime in questions, and two subjective requirements: fulfilment of the subjective elements of the crime in question (usually intent and knowledge in terms of ICC Statute, art 30) and awareness and acceptance that implementing the common plan may result in the realization of the objective elements of the crime, Prosecutor v Lubanga (n 53) paras 343ff.; 346ff.; 349ff.; 361ff.; in a similar vein Prosecutor v Bemba Gombo, Decision Pursuant to Article 67(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo Doc No ICC-01/05-01/08-424 (ICC, 15 June 2009), para 350. In subjective regards, however, the Bemba Gombo Chamber established a third requirement, that is, awareness of the factual circumstances enabling the defendant to control the crimes jointly with the other co-perpetrators; this is criticised by Ambos (n 1) 154.

  70. 70.

    Roxin (n 66) 196–97; cf, also, Jain (n 67) 165.

  71. 71.

    Prosecutor v Lubanga, Judgement pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute Doc No ICC-01/04-01/06-2842 (ICC, 14 March 2012), paras 976ff., Judge Fulford dissenting.

  72. 72.

    See in particular Prosecutor v Lubanga, Judgement pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, Separate Opinion of Judge Adrian Fulford Doc No ICC-01/04-01/06-2842 (ICC, 14 March 2012); Prosecutor v Ngudjolo Chui, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, Concurring Opinion of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert Doc No ICC-01/04-02/12-4 (ICC, 18 December 2012).

  73. 73.

    Cf, eg, Prosecutor v Lubanga, Judgment on the Appeal Of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo Against his Conviction Doc No ICC-01/04-01/06-3121 (ICC, 1 December 2014), para 469; Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui, Decision on Confirmation of Charges Doc No ICC-01/04-01/07-717 (ICC, 30 September 2008), para 480ff.; Prosecutor v Katanga (n 54) para 1394; Prosecutor v Bemba Gombo (n 69) para 348; Prosecutor v Muthaura, Kenyatta and Hussein Ali, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 67(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute Doc No ICC-01/09-02-11-382 (ICC, 23 January 2012), para 296; Prosecutor v Ruto, Kosgey and Sang, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute Doc No ICC-01/09-01/11-373 (ICC, 23 January 2012), mn 291; Prosecutor v Al Mahdi (n 60) mn 24.

  74. 74.

    Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (n 73) para 511ff.; Prosecutor v Katanga (n 54) para 1405; see also Bock (n 35) 384ff. with further references to the case law.

  75. 75.

    Cf ICC Statute, art 25(3)(a): ‘commits a crime […] through another person’.

  76. 76.

    Roxin (n 66) 196–97; also Ambos (n 1) 154–55; Ambos and Bock (n 39) 325.

  77. 77.

    Roxin (n 66) 198.

  78. 78.

    In more detail Ambos (n 1) 159.

  79. 79.

    Roxin (n 66) 248; Roxin (n 66) 198ff.; also Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (n 73) para 511ff.; Ambos (n 1) 157; Ambos and Bock (n 39) 329.

  80. 80.

    On the application of the Organisationsherrschaftslehre in Latin America and Spain cf Francisco Muñoz-Conde and Héctor Olásolo, ‘The Application of the Notion of Indirect Perpetration through Organized Structures of Power in Latin America and Spain’ (2011) 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice 113; in particular on the Fujimori Judgment of the Peruvian Supreme Court Kai Ambos, ‘The Fujimori Judgement – A President’s Responsibility for Crimes Against Humanity as Indirect Perpetrator by Virtue of an Organized Power Apparatus’ (2011) 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice 137.

  81. 81.

    Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (n 73) para 505; cf also Ambos (n 1) 160.

  82. 82.

    Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (n 73) para 510.

  83. 83.

    From the German discussion, cf only the critical assessment in Michael Köhler, Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil (Springer 1997) 510; Günther Jakobs, Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil (2nd edn, De Gruyter 1993) 21st Abschn mn 103; with a particular view on the ICC Statute Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert in Prosecutor v Ngudjolo Chui (n 72) para 52.

  84. 84.

    Bock (n 35) 385 with further references; cf also the reasoning in Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (n 73) para 501ff; Prosecutor v Lubanga (n 73) para 465.

  85. 85.

    Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (n 73) para 498ff.

  86. 86.

    ‘Indirect co-perpetration ‘must be distinguished from ‘indirect perpetration within co-perpetration’, that is, cases where several co-perpetrators control one organisation, Ambos (n 1) 157; Bock (n 35) 385.

  87. 87.

    Ambos (n 1) 157.

  88. 88.

    Bock (n 35) 385.

  89. 89.

    See also Otto Triffterer, Morten Bergsmo and Kai Ambos, ‘Preamble’ in Otto Triffterer and Kai Ambos (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016) mn 13.

  90. 90.

    The state’s duty to prosecute international crimes is also stressed in Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial Chamber II of 12 June 2009 on the Admissibility of the Case Doc No ICC-01/04-01/07-1497 (ICC, 25 September 2009), para 85; Prosecutor v Ruto, Kosgey and Sang, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19(2)(b) of the Statute Doc No ICC-01/09-01/11-101 (ICC, 30 May 2011), para 44; see also Andreas Zimmermann, ‘Auf dem Weg zu einem deutschen Völkerstrafgesetzbuch. Entstehung, völkerrechtlicher Rahmen und wesentliche Inhalte’ [2002] Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 97, 98.

  91. 91.

    Gerhard Werle and Florian Jeßberger, ‘International Criminal Justice is Coming Home: The New German Code of Crimes against International Law’ (2002) 12 Criminal Law Forum 191, 193; Helmut Satzger, ‘German Criminal Law and the Rome Statute – A Critical Analysis of the New German Code of Crimes against International Law’ (2002) 2 International Criminal Law Review 261, 263.

  92. 92.

    Cf only Errol P Mendes, Peace and Justice at the International Criminal Court – A Court of Last Resort (2nd edn, Edgar Elgar 2019).

  93. 93.

    On the (not explicitly regulated) inaction scenarios Prosecutor v Lubanga, Decision concerning Pre-Trial Chamber I’s Decision of 10 February 2006 and the Incorporation of Documents into the Record of the Case against Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo Doc No ICC-01/04-01/06-8 (ICC, 24 February 2006), para 29; in more detail and with further references Ambos (n 14) 296ff.

  94. 94.

    Ambos (n) 269–70, 296; William A Schabas and Mohamed El Zeidy, ‘Article 17’ in Otto Triffterer and Kai Ambos (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016) mn 27, 38, both with further references; cf also Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (n 90) para 85; Prosecutor v Ruto, Kosgey and Sang (n 90) para 44.

  95. 95.

    Triffterer, Bergsmo and Ambos (n 89) mn 22; Werle and Jeßberger (n 91) 194.

  96. 96.

    On the legislative history Werle and Jeßberger (n 91) 199.

  97. 97.

    Cf Bundestagsdrucksache (Parliamentary Documents) 14/2682, 7.

  98. 98.

    German Criminal Code (StGB), s 220a, old version.

  99. 99.

    StGB, ss 80 and 80a, old version.

  100. 100.

    In more detail Stefanie Bock, ‘Western Sahara and Universal Jurisdiction in Germany’ [2010] Revue belge de droit international 43, 44ff.

  101. 101.

    Satzger (n 91) 265; Werle and Jeßberger (n 91) 198; Bock (n 100) 49.

  102. 102.

    Satzger (n 91) 263; Werle and Jeßberger (n 91) 199; Bock (n 100) 49; cf also Zimmermann (n 90) 98.

  103. 103.

    Cf Stefanie Bock, ‘Brexit and the Future of European Criminal Law: A German Perspective’ (2017) 28 Criminal Law Forum 311, 315.

  104. 104.

    BVerfG (Bundesverfassungsgericht, German Federal Constitutional Court), BVerfGE (Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts) 113, 273 para 98 (official English translation available at <https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2005/07/rs20050718_2bvr223604en.html;jsessionid=1265B70C3BD62356019229C7030AC125.2_cid361> accessed 17 September 2019).

  105. 105.

    Cf also Werle and Jeßberger (n 91) 199, who argue that one aim of the CCIL is ‘to prevent German nationals to be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court’.

  106. 106.

    This is ratio of the constitutional ban on extradition, cf BVerfG (n 104) para 67.

  107. 107.

    Cf also the overview on the CCIL by Werle and Jeßberger (n 91) 200ff.; Satzger (n 91) 267ff., Steffen Wirth, ‘Germany’s New International Crimes Code: Bringing a Case to Court’ (2003) 1 Journal of International Criminal Justice 151, 152ff.

  108. 108.

    The provisions on the crime of aggression (CCIL, s 1 sent 2, s 13) were recently introduced into the CCIL in order to implement the Kampala compromise. They entered into force on 1 January 2017.

  109. 109.

    On remaining incongruences cf Satzger (n 91) 274–75; Wirth (n 107) 156–57.

  110. 110.

    See Prosecutor v Dusko Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction Doc No IT-94-1-A (ICTY, 2 October 1995), paras 71ff.

  111. 111.

    Article 8 of the ICC Statute is still based on the traditional two box approach and distinguishes between crimes committed in international (lit. a] and b]) and in non-international (lit. c] and e]) armed conflicts, in more detail Ambos (n 31) 161ff.

  112. 112.

    In more detail Kai Ambos, ‘Vorbemerkung zu §§ 8 ff.’ in Wolfgang Joecks and Klaus Miebach (eds), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch – Band 8, Nebenstrafrecht III (3rd edn, CH Beck 2018) mn 17ff.; also Wirth (n 107) 157.

  113. 113.

    In addition to Article 8bis of the ICC Statute, but with no changes in substance, s 13 CCIL also refers to the ‘waging of a war of aggression’. This is the traditional wording as used in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg, cf Ambos (n 31) 208.

  114. 114.

    This corresponds to Element 3 Article 8bis – Crime of Aggression of the ICC’s Elements of Crime.

  115. 115.

    Cf Matthias Herdegen, ‘Art. 26’ in Theodor Maunz and Günter Dürig (eds), Grundgesetz – Kommentar (81st suppl, CH Beck, September 2017) mn 56.

  116. 116.

    Werle and Jeßberger (n 91) 213; Thomas Weigend, ‘Das Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – nationale Kodifikation internationalen Rechts’ in Otto Triffterer (ed), Gedächtnisschrift für Theo Vogler (CF Müller 2004) 197, 205; Kai Ambos, ‘§ 1 VStGB - Anwendungsbereich’ in Wolfgang Joecks and Klaus Miebach (eds), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch – Band 8, Nebenstrafrecht III (3rd edn, CH Beck 2018) mn 1; Bock (n 100) 50 with further references.

  117. 117.

    In accordance with the ICC Statute, the CCIL conceives the crime of aggression as a leadership crime which can only be committed by a person who is in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a state, cf also above n 31 and accompanying text.

  118. 118.

    Cf Bundestagsdrucksache (Parliamentary Documents) 18/8621, 13 arguing that the ICC is the most appropriate forum to prosecute acts of aggression not linked to Germany. On the ‘pitfalls of domestic prosecution of aggression’ cf only Michael P Scharf, ‘Universal Jurisdiction and the Crime of Aggression’ (2012) 53 Harvard International Law Journal 358, 381ff.

  119. 119.

    Cf s 152(2) CPC (‘Except as otherwise provided by law, the public prosecution office shall be obliged to take action in relation to all prosecutable criminal offences, provided there are sufficient factual indications.’) and s 170(1) CPC (‘If the investigations offer sufficient reason for preferring public charges, the public prosecution office shall p)refer them by submitting a bill of indictment to the competent court.’); official English translation of the CPC available at <https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/> accessed 27 September 2019.

  120. 120.

    Florian Jeßberger, ‘Universality, Complementarity, and the Duty to Prosecute Crimes Under International Law in Germany’ in Wolfgang Kaleck and others (eds), International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes (Springer 2007) 213, 216; Ambos (n 116) mn 25; Bock (n 100) 52 with further references.

  121. 121.

    In more detail Bock (n 100) 52ff.

  122. 122.

    BVerfG Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2013, 353, 352–54; Ambos (n 116) mn 2; Bock (n 100) 53.

  123. 123.

    See in particular the notorious decision to dispense with prosecuting the former US Secretary of the Defence Donald Rumsfeld for torture and abuse of prisoners in the Iraqi Abu Ghraib prison, Generalbundesanwalt, ‘Keine deutschen Ermittlungen wegen der angezeigten Vorfälle von Abu Ghraib/Irak’ [2005] Juristenzeitung 311; in more detail on this decision Kai Ambos, ‘International Core Crimes, Universal Jurisdiction, and § 153f of the German Criminal Procedural Code: A Commentary on the Decision of the Federal Prosecutor General and the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court in the Abu Ghraib/Rumsfeld Case’ (2007) 18 Criminal Law Forum 43; Denis Basak, ‘Der Fall Rumsfeld – ein Begräbnis Dritter Klasse für das Völkerstrafgesetzbuch?’ [2007] Kritische Vierteljahresschrift 335; Tobias Singelnstein and Peer Stolle, ‘Völkerstrafrecht und Legalitätsprinzip – Klageerzwingungsverfahren bei Opportunitätseinstellung und Auslegung des § 153f StPO’ (2006) 1 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 118; Bock (n 100) 54ff.

  124. 124.

    Thomas Beck, ‘Das Völkerstrafgesetzbuch in der praktischen Anwendung – ein Kommentar zum Beitrag von Rainer Keller’ in Julia Geneuss and Florian Jeßberger (eds), Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (Nomos 2013) 161.

  125. 125.

    Cf in particular the investigations against Oberst Klein who ordered an air strike against a crowd and two fuel tankers on the riverbank of the Kunduz River in Afghanistan in the course of which more than 100 persons were killed or injured, <http://www.generalbundesanwalt.de/docs/einstellungsvermerk20100416offen.pdf> accessed 27 September 2019; the proceedings were terminated due to the lack of proof of intent, in more detail Kai Ambos, ‘Afghanistan-Einsatz der Bundeswehr und Völker(straf)recht’ [2000] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1725; Christian Richter, ‘Tödliche militärische Gewalt und strafrechtliche Verantwortung’ [2012] Onlinezeitschrift für Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung zum Strafrecht 28.

  126. 126.

    Christian Ritscher, ‘“Foreign Fighters“ und Kriegsvölkerstrafrecht’ (2016) 11 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 807; in more detail Kai Ambos, Internationales Strafrecht (5th edn, CH Beck 2018) § 6 mn 40.

  127. 127.

    Criticised by Lars Berster, ‘Entscheidungsbesprechung – Leichenschändung als Kriegsverbrechen’ (2016) 11 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 264.

  128. 128.

    OLG Frankfurt aM, Judgement of 8 November 2016 (5 - 3 StE 4/16 - 4 - 3/16); confirmed by the German Federal Court of Justice BGH (Bundesgerichtshof), Judgement of 27 July 2017 (3 StR 57/17).

  129. 129.

    As the indictment refers to events that took place in 1994 (and thus before the entry into force of the CCIL), it is not based on the CCIL, but on the previous legal regime, which already allowed for the universal prosecution of genocide (s 220a StGB, old version).

  130. 130.

    In the first instance, Onesphore R was convicted for aiding and abetting genocide, OLG Frankfurt aM, Judgement of 18 February 2014 (5-3 StE 4/10-4-3/10); this judgement, however, was squashed on appeal; the Supreme Court took the view that Onesphores R’s conduct might constitute not only aiding and abetting, but co-perpetration (which would lead to a more severe sentence) and ordered a re-trial, BGH, Judgement of 21 May 2015 (3 StR 575/14); a few months later, the OLG Frankfurt aM sentenced Onesphore R to life imprisonment for co-perpetration in genocide and noted his particularly serious guilt (which means that he cannot be granted conditional early release after having served fifteen years of the sentence), OLG Frankfurt aM, Judgement of 29 December 2015 (4-3 StE 4/10-4-1/15); this judgement was meanwhile confirmed on appeal and has thus become final, BGH, Decision of 26 July 2016 (3 StR 160/16); in more detail Kai Ambos, ‘The German Rwabukombe Case: The Federal Court’s Interpretation of Co-perpetration and the Genocidal Intent to Destroy’ (2016) 14 Journal of International Criminal Justice 1221; Christoph Safferling and Johanna Grzywotz, ‘Die Völkermordabsicht nach Karlsruher Meinung’ [2016] Juristische Rundschau 186; Daniela Demko, ‘Die Zerstörungsabsicht bei dem völkerstrafrechtlichen Verbrechen des Genozids – Zugleich eine Anmerkung zur deutschen Rechtsprechung im Verfahren gegen Onesphore R’ (2017) 12 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 766; on the course of the proceedings see Nicolai Bülte and others, ‘Monitoring the Trial of Onesphore R. Before the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt’ (2015) 16 German Law Journal 285; Patrick Kroker, ‘Universal Jurisdiction in Germany: The Trial of Onesphore R. Before the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt’ (2011) 54 German Yearbook of International Law 671.

  131. 131.

    Notably, this case is not based on universal jurisdiction, but on the principle of territory, since the accused were suspected of having coordinated the activities of the FDLR from within Germany.

  132. 132.

    OLG Stuttgart, Judgement of 28 August 2015 (5 - 3 StE 6/10) and others.

  133. 133.

    See, eg, Beate Lakotta, ‘Zu weit weg für die Wahrheit’ (spiegel online, 28 September 2015) <http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/ruanda-prozess-zu-weit-weg-fuer-die-wahrheit-a-1055142.html> accessed 27 September 2019.

  134. 134.

    Cf Denise Bentele, ‘Völkerstrafprozess in Deutschland voranbringen’ (2016) 11 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 803.

  135. 135.

    In more detail Bentele (n 134) 803.

References

  • Ahlbrecht H, Geschichte der völkerrechtlichen Strafgerichtsbarkeit im 20. Jahrhundert (Nomos 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K, ‘Afghanistan-Einsatz der Bundeswehr und Völker(straf)recht’ [2000] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1725

    Google Scholar 

  • – – ‘International Core Crimes, Universal Jurisdiction, and § 153f of the German Criminal Procedural Code: A Commentary on the Decision of the Federal Prosecutor General and the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court in the Abu Ghraib/Rumsfeld Case’ (2007) 18 Criminal Law Forum 43

    Google Scholar 

  • – – ‘The Fujimori Judgement – A President’s Responsibility for Crimes Against Humanity as Indirect Perpetrator by Virtue of an Organized Power Apparatus’ (2011) 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice 137

    Google Scholar 

  • – – Treatise on International Criminal Law – Volume I: Foundations and General Part (OUP 2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • – – Treatise on International Criminal Law – Volume II: The Crimes and Sentencing (OUP 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • – – ‘Article 25 – Individual Criminal Responsibility’ in O Triffterer and K Ambos (eds), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016) 979

    Google Scholar 

  • – – ‘The German Rwabukombe Case: The Federal Court’s Interpretation of Co-perpetration and the Genocidal Intent to Destroy’ (2016) 14 Journal of International Criminal Justice 1221

    Google Scholar 

  • – – ‘§ 1 VStGB  – Anwendungsbereich’ in W Joecks and K Miebach (eds), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch – Band 8, Nebenstrafrecht III (3rd edn, CH Beck 2018)

    Google Scholar 

  • – – Internationales Strafrecht (5th edn, CH Beck 2018)

    Google Scholar 

  • – – ‘Vorbemerkung zu §§ 8 ff.’ in W Joecks and K Miebach (eds), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch – Band 8, Nebenstrafrecht III (3rd edn, CH Beck 2018)

    Google Scholar 

  • – – and Bock S, ‘Individual criminal responsibility’ in AM de Brouwer and A Smeulers (eds), The Elgar Companion to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Edward Elgar 2016)

    Google Scholar 

  • Barriga S and Kreß S (eds), Crime of Aggression Library – The Travaux Préparatories of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Basak D, ‘Der Fall Rumsfeld – ein Begräbnis Dritter Klasse für das Völkerstrafgesetzbuch?’ [2007] Kritische Vierteljahresschrift 335

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck T, ‘Das Völkerstrafgesetzbuch in der praktischen Anwendung – ein Kommentar zum Beitrag von Rainer Keller’ in J Geneuss and F Jeßberger (eds), Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (Nomos 2013) 161

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentele D, ‘Völkerstrafprozess in Deutschland voranbringen’ (2016) 11 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 803

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergsmo M, Pejic J and Zhu D, ‘Article 15 – Prosecutor’ in K Ambos and O Triffterer (eds), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016) 725

    Google Scholar 

  • Berster L, ‘Entscheidungsbesprechung – Leichenschändung als Kriegsverbrechen’ (2016) 11 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 264

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock S, Das Opfer vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (Duncker & Humblot 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • – – ‘Western Sahara and Universal Jurisdiction in Germany’ [2010] Revue belge de droit international 43

    Google Scholar 

  • – – ‘Brexit and the Future of European Criminal Law: A German Perspective’ (2017) 28 Criminal Law Forum 311

    Google Scholar 

  • – – ‘Zurechnung im Völkerstrafrecht’ (2017) 12 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 410

    Google Scholar 

  • Bülte N and others, ‘Monitoring the Trial of Onesphore R. Before the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt’ (2015) 16 German Law Journal 285

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark RS, ‘Individual Conduct’ in S Barriga and C Kreß (eds), Crime of Aggression Library – The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, vol 1 (CUP 2017) 565

    Google Scholar 

  • – – ‘Negotiations on the Rome Statute’ in S Barriga and C Kreß (eds), Crime of Aggression Library – The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, vol 1 (CUP 2017) 244

    Google Scholar 

  • Demko D, ‘Die Zerstörungsabsicht bei dem völkerstrafrechtlichen Verbrechen des Genozids – Zugleich eine Anmerkung zur deutschen Rechtsprechung im Verfahren gegen Oneshore R’ (2017) 12 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 766

    Google Scholar 

  • Eikel M, ‘“Die Herrschaft des Rechts und nicht das Recht des Stärkeren” – Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und die Entstehungsgeschichte des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs’ [2018] Vierteljahresschrift für Zeitgeschichte 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher GP and Ohlin JD, ‘Reclaiming Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the Darfur Case’ (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice 539

    Google Scholar 

  • Generalbundesanwalt, ‘Keine deutschen Ermittlungen wegen der angezeigten Vorfälle von Abu Ghraib/Irak’ [2005] Juristenzeitung 311

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson K, ‘The Requirement of an “Express Agreement” for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability – A Critique of Brdanin’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 134

    Google Scholar 

  • Haan V, ‘The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’ (2005) 5 International Criminal Law Review 167

    Google Scholar 

  • Herdegen M, ‘Art. 26’ in T Maunz and G Dürig (eds), Grundgesetz – Kommentar (81st suppl, CH Beck, September 2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger H, Makrokriminalität: Studien zur Kriminologie kollektiver Gewalt (Suhrkamp 1989)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain N, ‘The Control Theory of Perpetration in International Criminal Law’ (2011) 12 Chicago Journal of International Criminal Law 159

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobs G, Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil (2nd edn, De Gruyter 1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeßberger F, ‘Universality, Complementarity, and the Duty to Prosecute Crimes Under International Law in Germany’ in W Kaleck and others (eds), International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes (Springer 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaul HP, ‘Der Beitrag Deutschlands zum Völkerstrafrecht’ in C Safferling and S Kirsch (eds), Völkerstrafrechtspolitik (Springer 2014) 51

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinkel K, ‘Für einen funktionsfähigen Weltstrafgerichtshof’ [1997] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2860

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhler M, Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil (Springer 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreß C, ‘The State Conduct Element’ in S Barriga and C Kreß (eds), Crime of Aggression Library – The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, vol 1 (CUP 2017) 412

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroker P, ‘Universal Jurisdiction in Germany: The Trial of Onesphore R. Before the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt’ (2011) 54 German Yearbook of International Law 671

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakotta B, ‘Zu weit weg für die Wahrheit’ (spiegel online, 28 September 2015) <http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/ruanda-prozess-zu-weit-weg-fuer-die-wahrheit-a-1055142.html> accessed 27 September 2019

  • Mendes EP, Peace and Justice at the International Criminal Court – A Court of Last Resort (2nd edn, Edward Elgar 2019)

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz-Conde F and Olásolo H, ‘The Application of the Notion of Indirect Perpetration through Organized Structures of Power in Latin America and Spain’ (2011) 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice 113

    Google Scholar 

  • Oeter S, ‘Das Verbrechen der Aggression, die Konferenz von Kampala und das deutsche Strafrecht’ in F Jeßberger and J Geneuss (eds), Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (Nomos 2013) 101

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlin JD, ‘Searching for the Hinterman: in Praise of Subjective Theories of Imputation’ (2014) 12 Journal of International Criminal Justice 325

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter C, ‘Tödliche militärische Gewalt und strafrechtliche Verantwortung’ [2012] Onlinezeitschrift für Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung zum Strafrecht 28

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritscher C, ‘“Foreign Fighters” und Kriegsvölkerstrafrecht’ (2016) 11 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 807

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxin C, ‘Crimes as Part of Organized Power Structures’ (2011) 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice 193

    Google Scholar 

  • – – Täterschaft und Tatherrschaft (10th edn, de Gruyter 2019)

    Google Scholar 

  • Safferling C, ‘German Participation in the Nuremberg Trials and Its Implications for Today’ in BA Griech-Polelle (ed), The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and its Policy Consequences Today (Nomos 2009) 32

    Google Scholar 

  • – – and Grzywotz J, ‘Die Völkermordabsicht nach Karlsruher Meinung’ [2016] Juristische Rundschau 186

    Google Scholar 

  • Satzger H, ‘German Criminal Law and the Rome Statute – A Critical Analysis of the New German Code of Crimes against International Law’ (2002) 2 International Criminal Law Review 261

    Google Scholar 

  • – – International Criminal Law (2nd edn, CH Beck 2018)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA and Pecorella G, ‘Article 12 – Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction’ in O Triffterer and K Ambos (eds), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016)

    Google Scholar 

  • – – and El Zeidy M, ‘Article 17’ in O Triffterer and K Ambos (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016)

    Google Scholar 

  • – – and Pecorella G, ‘Article 13 – Exercise of Jurisdiction’ in O Triffterer and K Ambos (eds), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016) 690

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharf MP, ‘Universal Jurisdiction and the Crime of Aggression’ (2012) 53 Harvard International Law Journal 358

    Google Scholar 

  • Singelnstein T and Stolle S, ‘Völkerstrafrecht und Legalitätsprinzip – Klageerzwingungsverfahren bei Opportunitätseinstellung und Auslegung des § 153f StPO’ (2006) 1 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 118

    Google Scholar 

  • Sliedregt E van, ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 184

    Google Scholar 

  • Triffterer O, Bergsmo M and Ambos K, ‘Preamble’ in O Triffterer and K Ambos (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016) 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlaming F de, ‘Selction of Defendants’ in L Reydams, J Wouters and C Ryngaert (eds), International Prosecutors (OUP 2012) 542

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel J, ‘Individuelle Verantwortlichkeit im Völkerstrafrecht’ (2002) 114 Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 403

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigend T, ‘Das Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – nationale Kodifikation internationalen Rechts’ in O Triffterer (ed), Gedächtnisschrift für Theo Vogler (CF Müller 2004) 197

    Google Scholar 

  • – – ‘Problems of Attribution in International Criminal Law: A German Perspective’ (2014) 12 Journal of International Criminal Justice 253

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle G, ‘Deutschland und das Völkerstrafrecht: Zeitgeschichtliche Perspektiven’ in F Jeßberger and J Geneuss (eds), Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (Nomos 2013) 21

    Google Scholar 

  • – – and Burghardt B, ‘Introductory Note’ (2011) 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice 191

    Google Scholar 

  • – – and Jeßberger F, ‘International Criminal Justice is Coming Home: The New German Code of Crimes against International Law’ (2002) 12 Criminal Law Forum 191

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkitzki P, ‘The Contribution of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Laender to the Work of the ICTY’ in LC Vohrah and others (eds), Man’s Inhumanity to Man – Essays on International Law in Honour of Judge A. Cassese (Kluwer Law International 2003) 923

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilt H van der, ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise – Possibilities and Limitations’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 91

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirth S, ‘Germany’s New International Crimes Code: Bringing a Case to Court’ (2003) 1 Journal of International Criminal Justice 151

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann A, ‘Auf dem Weg zu einem deutschen Völkerstrafgesetzbuch. Entstehung, völkerrechtlicher Rahmen und wesentliche Inhalte’ [2002] Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 97

    Google Scholar 

  • – – ‘Article 5 – Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court’ in O Triffterer and K Ambos (eds), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (3rd edn, CH Beck 2016) 111

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    Stefanie Bock

Authors
  1. Stefanie Bock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefanie Bock .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Italian Law, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Peter Hilpold

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bock, S. (2021). International Adjudication Under Particular Consideration of International Criminal Justice: The German Contribution. In: Hilpold, P. (eds) European International Law Traditions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52028-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52028-1_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52027-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52028-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation