Grounds Excluding Criminal Responsibility in International Criminal Law

Marchuk, Iryna

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28246-1_7

Iryna Marchuk²

1592 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

The substantive part of criminal law distinguishes between excuses and justifications. The harm caused by the justified behaviour remains a legally recognised harm that breaches certain fundamental values protected by criminal law, however, the infliction of that harm is motivated by the need to avoid an even greater harm. In other words, justificatory defences apply in rather exceptional situations that require a proportional and necessary response. If such triggering conditions are non-existent, a person engages in illegal conduct that entails criminal responsibility. The classic example of a justificatory defence is the exercise of the right to self-defence. The right is triggered by the imminent attack or a threat of violence directed against an individual, which gives him a legitimate right to protect himself or others. The right to self-defence is not absolute and has certain boundaries. The two mandatory conditions are that the response towards any form of violence is necessary and proportional. This warrants against the arbitrary use of violence towards others. One can hardly justify stabbing another person with a knife if one was merely slapped in the face.

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)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
In common law, the distinction was revived with the publication of Fletcher’s authority in 1978: Fletcher (2000) (reprint of the book first published by Little, Brown in 1978). The distinction is noted in many academic sources on the subject: Cassese (2008), pp. 255–258; Lippman (2009), pp. 228–229, 282; Ashworth (2009), pp. 84–87.
2.
Danish Criminal Code (Straffeloven), § 13; French Criminal Code, Article 122-5; German Criminal Code, § 32–33; Russian Criminal Code, Article 37.
3.
Tröndle and Fischer (2006) (in German), Commentary on § 32; Greve et al. (2009) (in Danish), Commentary on § 13; Simester and Sullivan (2007), pp. 704–708.
4.
Tadros (2001) at 498.
5.
Robinson (1982) at 274–275.
6.
LaFave (2003b), p. 448.
7.
Danish Criminal Code (Straffeloven), § 16; French Criminal Code, Article 122-1; German Criminal Code, § 20; Russian Criminal Code, Article 21.
8.
R v McNaughten, 8 E.R. 718; (1843) 10 Cl. & F. 200, at 201.
9.
Ibid., at 203.
10.
Ibid., at 210.
11.
Model Penal Code, § 4.01(1).
12.
In Sullivan [1984] AC 156, Lord Diplock construed the phrase “disease of mind” as encompassing any disease which affects the functioning of the mind—whether its cause be organic or functional, and whether its effect be permanent or intermittent—so long as it was operative at the time of the alleged offence. In the same case, the defendant successfully invoked the insanity defence on the account of his epileptic state at the time he caused grievous bodily harm. In R v Kemp 1957 1 QB 399, “arteriosclerosis” was recognised as amounting to the disease of mind. In R v Quick & Paddison (1973) 3 AER 397 and R v Hennessy (1989) 1 WLR 287, both defendants were entitled to the insanity defence because they engaged in criminal conduct in a state of hyperglycaemia caused by diabetes.
13.
Model Penal Code, § 2.01 (1).
14.
Model Penal Code, § 2.01 (2).
15.
Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] A.C. 386 at 412.
16.
German Criminal Code, § 20; Russian Criminal Code, Article 21; French Criminal Code, Article 122-1.
17.
Davis v United States, 160 U.S. 469, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499 (1895).
18.
LaFave (2003b), pp. 427–428.
19.
Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals, Nuremberg, 30^th September and 1^st October, 1946, Defendant Hess, p. 489. The judgement is also available at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judhess.asp.
20.
Čelebići Appeal Judgement, para. 580.
21.
Ibid., paras. 585–588.
22.
Ibid., para. 588.
23.
Ibid., para. 590.
24.
Ibid., para. 590.
25.
Rome Statute, Article 31(1).
26.
Ashworth (2009), p. 197. Article 23 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not exculpate a person who acts in the state of intoxication, whereas it accepts it as a defence only in a situation of pathological drunkenness. See: Brilliantov (2010), pp. 67–68.
27.
LaFave (2003b), pp. 474–475.
28.
Schabas (2010), p. 486.
29.
Kvočka Trial Judgement, para. 706.
30.
In English criminal law, consult: Ashworth (2009), pp. 205–206. The requirement of death or serious harm is upheld in the jurisprudence of English courts, whereas threats to property or reputation do not trigger the application of the duress defence. See: Graham (1982) 74 Cr App R 235; Howe (1987) AC 417; DPP v Lynch (1975) AC 653. In American criminal law, consult: Lippman (2009), p. 309. In Russian criminal law, consult: Kosachenko (2009), pp. 387–390. In French criminal law, see: Soyer (2004), p. 113.
31.
LaFave (2003b), pp. 493–495 citing in support, among others, United States v LaFleur, 971 F.2d 200 (9^th Cir.1991); Hunt v State, 753 So.2d 609 (Fla.App.2000); Arp v State, 97 Ala. 5, 12 So. 301 (1893); People v Merhige, 212 Mich. 601, 180 N.W. 418 (1920); People v Pantano, 239 N.Y. 416, 146 N.E. 646 (1925).
32.
Model Penal Code, § 2.09 (1).
33.
Lippman (2009), p. 310.
34.
LaFave (2003b), p. 497.
35.
D.P.P. v Lynch [1975] A.C. 653 (House of Lords).
36.
Abbott v The Queen [1977] A.C. 755 (Privy Council).
37.
R. v Howe [1987] 1 A.C. 417 (House of Lords).
38.
The Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide, (Law Com No.304), (2006), paras 6.36–6.53.
39.
R v Hudson and Taylor [1971] 2 All ER 244.
40.
Ibid.
41.
R v Safi and others [2003] EWCA Crim 1809, (2003) LR 721.
42.
Ibid.
43.
R. v Martin (1989) 88 Cr.App.R.343 (Court of Appeal, Criminal Division).
44.
R v Pomell [1995] 2 Cr.App.R.607 (Court of Appeal, Criminal Division).
45.
German Criminal Code, § 34; French Criminal Code, Article 122-7; Russian Criminal Code, Article 39.
46.
Clarkson et al. (2007), pp. 360–361.
47.
Model Penal Code, § 3.02.
48.
R v Dudley & Stephens, L.R. 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884).
49.
United States v Holmes, 26 F.Cas. 360 (No. 15-383) (C.C.E.D.Pa. 1842).
50.
Llandovery Castle Case, German Supreme Court at Leipzig, Annual Digest of International Law Cases, 1923–1924, Case No. 235, British Command Paper (1921) Cmd. 1422, p. 45.
51.
According to paragraph 47 (2) of the German Military Penal Code: “a subordinate obeying […] an order is liable to punishment if it was known to him that the order of his superior involved the infringement of civil or military law”.
52.
Trial of Max Wielen and 17 Others (The Stalag Luft III Case), British Military Court, reprinted in Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Selected and Prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission, Vol. XI, London: HMSO, 1949, p. 49. The judgement held that “the killing of enemies in war is in accordance with the will of the State that makes war only insofar as such killing is in accordance with the conditions and limitations imposed by the law of nations”.
53.
United States v. List and Others (Hostage case), United States Military Tribunal, reprinted in Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Selected and Prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission, Vol. VIII, London: HMSO, 1949, p. 50.
54.
Ibid.
55.
Ibid.
56.
The United States v Otto Ohlendorf et al. (The Einsatzgruppen Case), Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume IV, Nuremberg October 1946-April 1949, p. 480.
57.
Prosecutor v Erdemović, Case No. IT-96-22-T, 31 May 1996, Trial Transcript, at 9.
58.
Erdemović Trial Judgement, para. 91.
59.
Erdemović Appeal Judgement, para. 11.
60.
Ibid., para. 13.
61.
Ibid., para. 16.
62.
Ibid., para. 19.
63.
Ibid., Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald and Judge Vohrah, para. 49.
64.
Ibid., para. 59.
65.
Ibid., para. 60.
66.
Ibid., para. 88.
67.
Ibid., para. 34.
68.
Ibid., Dissenting Opinion, Judge Cassese, para. 11.
69.
Ibid., para. 12. Judge Cassese expounded that in the context of international criminal law is not often a question of saving your own life by killing another person, but of simply saving your own life when the other person will inevitably die. With respect to the factual circumstance of the case, he maintained that the right approach would be to determine “whether the choice faced by the Appellant was between refusing to participate in the killing of the Muslim civilians and being killed himself or participating in the killing of the Muslim civilians who would be killed in any case by other soldiers and thus being allowed to live” (See: ibid., para. 50).
70.
Ibid., Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Stephen, para. 67.
71.
Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Draft Statute for the International Criminal Court, A/CONF.183/2/Add.1 14 April 1998. Article 31(1)(d) speaks of the concept of duress stricto sensu, whereas Article 31(1)(e) embraces the necessity defence which is triggered by external circumstances.
72.
Ashworth (2009), p. 114.
73.
Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 45 (2).
74.
Brilliantov (2010), p. 118. See also: French Criminal Code, Article 122-5; German Criminal Code, § 32.
75.
Clarkson et al. (2007), pp. 302–303. See also: D.P.P v Bayer [2004] 1 Cr.App.R. 38; Hussey [1924] 18 Cr.App.R.160.
76.
French Criminal Code, Article 122-5. See also: Crim. 17 Juin 1927: “L’agression consiste dans un mal imminent qui n’a pu être autrement qu’en commettant le délit”. An interesting discussion arose in the domestic violence case when a wife killed her husband as a result of his incessant mistreatment, which is commonly referred to as the “battered woman syndrome”. The commentators are generally divided into two categories: those who argue that the imminence of the attack requirement shall be abolished in such cases, and those who wish to keep the requirement as the way to discourage the unnecessary taking of human life (see: LaFave (2003b), pp. 545–546). In English criminal law, the only defence available in such a situation may be diminished responsibility. Clarkson et al. (2007), p. 319.
77.
Waaben (2011), pp. 139–140; Brilliantov (2010), p. 120.
78.
R v Rose [1884] 15 Cox 540; R v Williams (Gladstone) [1984] 78. Cr.App.R.276.
79.
R. v Owino [1996] 2 Cr.App.R.128.
80.
Gul v Turkey (2002) 34 E. H. R. R. 28.
81.
Model Penal Code, § 3.04(1).
82.
As an example, in the French jurisprudence, it was reckoned proportional to injure a burglar in the thigh who was breaking into the person’s house (Crim. 11 Oct. 1994). In another case, it was recognised disproportional to shoot with a pistol in response to the person’s slap (Crim. 4 Août 1949).
83.
Any other less serious consequences caused by a person who exceeds the limits of self-defence do not attract criminal responsibility.
84.
Brilliantov (2010), p. 123. The Criminal Code encompasses a special legal provision on the crime of murder committed in exceeding the limits of the right to self-defence, which attracts the maximum imprisonment term of 3 years (Article 108) in comparison to the maximum term of 15 years for murder (Article 105).
85.
R. v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482.
86.
Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide, Law Com No.304, paras 5.53-5.57.
87.
Kordić and Čerkez Trial Judgement, para. 448.
88.
Ibid., para. 449.
89.
Ibid., para. 451.
90.
Ibid., para. 452.
91.
Rome Statute, Article 31(c).
92.
The category of “property” was put in brackets in the draft of the Rome Statute. See: Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Draft Statute for the International Criminal Court, A/CONF.183/2/Add.1 14 April 1998, Article 31(1)(c).
93.
German Criminal Code, § 16.
94.
Clarkson et al. (2007), pp. 187–188.
95.
Ashworth (2009), p. 217.
96.
Davenport (2008), p. 44. The author defines “transferred intent” as the type of intent in which a person tries to harm one person and as a result harms someone else.
97.
The distinction is acknowledged in a number of academic pieces on defences in international criminal law. See: Ambos in Brown (2011), p. 318; Van Sliedregt (2003b), p. 27.
98.
R v Tolston [1889] 23 Q.B. 168.
99.
D.P.P. v Morgan [1976] A.C. 182.
100.
B (A Minor) v D.P.P. [2000] A.C. 428; R v K [2002] 1 A.C. 462.
101.
Ashworth (2009), pp. 217–218. The approach was welcomed in Clarkson et al. (2007), pp. 200–201.
102.
Heller (2008) at 445.
103.
A classic example of a strict liability crime is statutory rape that imposes criminal responsibility for engaging in sexual acts with minors. The claim that a person was mistaken as to the age of a victim does not serve as a defence.
104.
Grant v Borg [1982] 1 W.L.R. at 646.
105.
Robinson (1984), pp. 375–376 (original footnote omitted).
106.
Clarkson et al. (2007), pp. 202–203.
107.
Ashworth (2000) at 637–641.
108.
Lackner and Kühl (2004), pp. 115–116.
109.
Youngs (2000) at 339.
110.
The Peleus Trial, Trial of Kapitanleutnant Heinz Eck and Four Others for the Killing of Members of the Crew of the Greek Steamship Peleus, Sunk on the High Seas, British Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals Held at the War Crimes Court, Hamburg, 17^th-20^th October 1945, para. 12.
111.
Ibid.
112.
United States v. List and Others (Hostage case), United States Military Tribunal, reprinted in Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Selected and Prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission, Vol. VIII, London: HMSO, 1949, pp. 69–70; United States v. Wilhelm von Leeb et al., (High Command Case), United States Military Tribunal, reprinted in Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Selected and Prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission, Vol. XII, London: HMSO, 1949, p. 74.
113.
Rome Statute, Article 32(1).
114.
Rome Statute, Article 32(2).
115.
Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Draft Statute for the International Criminal Court, A/CONF.183/2/Add.1 14 April 1998, Article 30.
116.
Werle (2005), p. 152.
117.
Van Sliedregt (2003b), p. 29.
118.
Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 29 January 2007, para. 294.
119.
Ibid., paras 296–297.
120.
Ibid., paras 303, 306–307 and 312.
121.
Ibid., para. 316 citing in support Cassese et al. (2002), p. 961.
122.
Weigend (2008) at 475.
123.
Ambos in Brown (2011), p. 321.
124.
Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals, Nuremberg, 30^th September and 1^st October, 1946, p. 447. It is also available at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judlawch.asp.
125.
Control Council Law No. 10, Art. II, Sections 4 (a) and 4 (b).
126.
United States v. Wilhelm von Leeb et al., (High Command Trial), United States Military Tribunal sitting in Nuremberg, Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunal under Control Council Law No. 10, Volume XI, pp. 71–72.
127.
Ibid.
128.
Ibid.

References

Ambos K (2011) Defences in international criminal law. In: Brown B (ed) (2011) Research handbook on international criminal law. Cheltenham et al: Elgar
Google Scholar
Ashworth A (2000) Testing fidelity to legal values: official involvement and criminal justice. Modern Law Rev 63(5):633–659
Article Google Scholar
Ashworth A (2009) Principles of criminal law, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Brilliantov AV (ed) (2010) Commentary of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: article-by-article. Prospect, Moscow
Google Scholar
Cassese A (2008) International criminal law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD (2002) The Rome statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary, vol I. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Clarkson CMV, Keating HM, Cunningham SR (2007) Clarkson and Keating criminal law: text and materials, 6th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Davenport AU (2009) Basic criminal law: the constitution, procedure and crimes, 2nd edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Google Scholar
Fletcher GP (2000) Rethinking criminal law. Oxford University Press, USA (reprint of a book first published by Little, Brown in 1978)
Google Scholar
Greve V, Jensen A, Jensen PD, Nielsen GT (2009) Kommenteret straffelov: almindelig del, 9. omarbejdede udgave. Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag
Google Scholar
Heller KJ (2008) Mistake of legal element, the common law, and Article 32 of the Rome Statute: a critical analysis. J Int Crim Justice 6(3):419–445
Article Google Scholar
Kosachenko I (ed) (2009) Criminal law: general part, 4th edn. NORMA, Moscow (in Russian)
Google Scholar
Lackner K, Kühl K (2004) Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 25th edn. C. H. Beck, München
Google Scholar
LaFave WR (2003b) Criminal law, 4th edn. Thomson West, St. Paul
Google Scholar
Lippman M (2009) Contemporary criminal law: concepts, cases, and controversies. Sage Publications, USA
Google Scholar
Robinson PH (1982) Criminal law defences: a systematic analysis. Columbia Law Rev 82:199–291
Article Google Scholar
Robinson PH (1984) Criminal law defences, vol 2. West Publishing, St. Paul
Google Scholar
Schabas W (2010) The International Criminal Court: a commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Simester AP, Sullivan GR (2007) Criminal law theory and doctrine, 3rd edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Google Scholar
Soyer JC (2004) Droit pénal et procédure pénale, 18eth edn. LGDJ, Paris
Google Scholar
Tadros V (2001) The characters of excuse. Oxford J Legal Stud 21(3):495–519
Article Google Scholar
Tröndle H, Fischer T (2006) Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze, 53rd edn. C. H. Beck, ünchen
Google Scholar
Van Sliedregt E (2003b) Defences in International Criminal Law. Paper presented at the conference “Convergence of Criminal Justice Systems: Building Bridges Bridging the Gap”, The International Society For The Reform Of Criminal Law. 17th International Conference
Google Scholar
Waaben K (2011) Strafferettens almindelige del, I ansvarslæren, 5. reviderede udgave, 1. oplag ved Lars Bo Langsted, Karnov Group Denmark A/S, København
Google Scholar
Weigend T (2008) Intent, mistake of law, and co-perpetration in the Lubanga decision on confirmation of charges. J Int Crim Justice 6(3):471–487
Article Google Scholar
Werle G (2005) Principles of international criminal law. T M C Asser Press, The Hague
Google Scholar
Youngs R (2000) Mistake of law in Germany – opening up Pandora’s box. J Crim Law 64(3):339–344
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Iryna Marchuk

Authors

Iryna Marchuk
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Marchuk, I. (2014). Grounds Excluding Criminal Responsibility in International Criminal Law. In: The Fundamental Concept of Crime in International Criminal Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28246-1_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28246-1_7
Published: 09 May 2013
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-28245-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-28246-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics