Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing the National Approaches: Theorising About the Issue

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mistake of Law

  • 627 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter follows a further investigation into the theoretical implications of applying a threefold structure of offences. It contains a discussion of the distinction between justification and excuse, wrongdoing and attribution, defeasible and comprehensive rules, conduct rules and decision rules. Other issues under discussion, which also bring to light important consequences of applying one system instead of the other, are: (1) criminal intent, (2) putative justifications, (3) the meaning of an element of unlawfulness or wrongfulness in the crime definition and (4) the principle of legality. This chapter reveals that the mistake of law defence leads to less convincing results in a twofold structure compared with in a threefold structure. In a twofold structure the perpetrator may still be punishable even though he is not culpable and he may still be exculpated even though his mistake is blameworthy. These problems do not arise in a threefold structure, where the issue of culpability is separated from the issue of intent.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ambos 2006, pp. 664–665. Fletcher uses the terms bipartite and tripartite systems, see e.g. Fletcher 2007, pp. 43–55.

  2. 2.

    Fletcher 2007, pp. 42–46.

  3. 3.

    Ambos 2004, p. 759.

  4. 4.

    Fletcher 2007, pp. 49–55.

  5. 5.

    Fletcher 1998, p. 93.

  6. 6.

    See also Fletcher 1998, pp. 101–102.

  7. 7.

    SeeSect. 2.3.2.5supra.

  8. 8.

    SeeSect. 2.2supra.

  9. 9.

    Fletcher 1985, p. 962.

  10. 10.

    Fletcher 1978, p. 735.

  11. 11.

    Fletcher 1985, p. 955.

  12. 12.

    See also Ambos 2006, p. 666. On the applicability of this principle in international criminal law, see, e.g., Ibid., p. 671 (referring to the IMT, The Trial of Major War Criminals, vol. 22, p. 469).

  13. 13.

    See also Ambos 2007, p. 2660.

  14. 14.

    See also Fletcher 1998, p. 90.

  15. 15.

    See Sect. 2.3.2.2 (discussing Bundesgerichtshof, 18-03-1952 1952) and Sect. 2.3.2.5 supra.

  16. 16.

    See for a comparable argument Heller 2008, p. 444.

  17. 17.

    Prosecutor v. Erdemović 1997b.

  18. 18.

    See Fletcher 2007, pp. 90–91; Ambos 2002, pp. 1044–1047; Sliedregt 2003, pp. 273–274 and 290; and Fletcher and Ohlin 2008, p. 123.

  19. 19.

    Prosecutor v. Erdemović 1997a, at §§ 44 and 50.

  20. 20.

    Wilt 1999, p. 656.

  21. 21.

    Dinstein 2000, pp. 375–376.

  22. 22.

    Ambos 2002, p. 1046. See also Ambos 2004, p. 869.

  23. 23.

    Ambos 2002, p. 1046; See also Eser 2008, footnote 162, p. 888.

  24. 24.

    Eser 2008, footnote 162, at p. 888. See also, Ambos 2004, p. 842.

  25. 25.

    Ambos 2008a, p. 183; Ambos 2004, pp. 842–843.

  26. 26.

    Cryer 2005, p. 58.

  27. 27.

    Ambos 2002, p. 1036; and Ambos 2008a, pp. 181–184. See also Eser 2008, pp. 883–884.

  28. 28.

    Ambos 2008a, pp. 181–184; Ambos 2004, p. 838.

  29. 29.

    Sliedregt 2003, pp. 267–291.

  30. 30.

    See also Ambos 2008a, pp. 182–183; and Fletcher and Ohlin 2008, pp. 122–123.

  31. 31.

    Ambos repeatedly stresses the importance of the distinction, see e.g. Ambos 2008b, p. 272 e.v.; Ambos 2004, pp. 826–829, 868; Ambos 2008a, p. 172, § 82 with further references.

  32. 32.

    See also Fletcher 1978, p. 577. ‘wrongdoing' refers to the crime definition and absence of justifications. As we will see below, in order to comprehend the issue of putative justification, it is also important to distinguish between these two concepts (crime definition and justifications).

  33. 33.

    If this mental element is ‘intent'; excuses (and justifications) do negate the mental element of ‘negligence'. As indicated before (Sects. 1.5, 2.2.2., footnote 29 and Sect. 3.3.1 supra), here, only the theory in relation to crimes of intent will be discussed, since international crimes are generally crimes of intent. See e.g. Ambos 2002, p. 1031 footnote 156 and accompanying text and Ambos 2004, pp. 807–808 and 816.

  34. 34.

    Fletcher 1998, p. 96.

  35. 35.

    Fletcher 1998, p. 97.

  36. 36.

    Fletcher 1998, p. 97.

  37. 37.

    As Van der Wilt pointed out to me, however, this trend took place on different grounds: in Germany the trend was based on the development of a principle of individual culpability (see Chap. 2) and the US the basis can be found in the principle of presumption of innocence.

  38. 38.

    Fletcher 1998, p. 99. See also Husak and Hirsch 1993, p. 159.

  39. 39.

    Fletcher 1998, p. 99.

  40. 40.

    See Dan-Cohen 1984.

  41. 41.

    See also Fletcher 1978, pp. 491–492.

  42. 42.

    As seen earlier, however, according to Roxin the fact that someone has doubts about the lawfulness of his intended acts does not mean that he is per se precluded from invoking mistake of law (see Sect. 2.3.2.3., 1 supra). The point made here is that the defendant will not be excused if he thought to himself: I can commit the act because I will be excused because I made a mistake of law. Justifications on the other hand indeed require awareness of the justifying circumstances.

  43. 43.

    See also Ambos 2004, pp. 820–821 (holding that in this respect (excluding mistake of law as to the applicability of an excuse) article 32(2) first sentence corresponds to national approaches).

  44. 44.

    Fletcher 1978, p. 734.

  45. 45.

    Fletcher 1978, p. 734.

  46. 46.

    Fletcher 1978, p. 735.

  47. 47.

    See e.g. Robinson 1984, §184(a), p. 398 en §184(e), p. 412 (the (subjective) requirements of justification are linked to the subjective requirements of the crime definition).

  48. 48.

    See e.g. May 1999, p. 53; and Fletcher 1998, pp. 94–97+108.

  49. 49.

    See e.g. Fletcher 1998, p. 160.

  50. 50.

    See also Ambos 2002, p. 1031 and Fletcher 2007, p. 108.

  51. 51.

    For the lack of such a requirement in Anglo-American law see also Sliedregt 2003, p. 232 (she calls this neutral intention and refers to §2.02(9) MPC).

  52. 52.

    The ICC Statute arguably only provides in one provision for a criminal intent requirement, see Sect. 6.2.1.2.1 infra.

  53. 53.

    See also, on the application of this rule in Dutch threefold system, Hullu 2006, p. 345.

  54. 54.

    Ambos 2007, pp. 2661–2664.

  55. 55.

    Ambos 2007 p. 2662. See also Roxin 2006, p. 629, § 14 H (where he argues in favour of the eingeschräkten Schuldtheorie). See also a similar proposal by Robinson: Robinson 1984, §184(a), p. 398 and §184(e), p. 412.

  56. 56.

    Ambos 2007, p. 2662. At another place Ambos describes how he favours this approach because under the ICC provisions (artt. 30 and 32) it is the only way to take account of putative justifications; this mistake of fact does not negate the required intent, as formulated by art. 30, but it is a relevant mistake nevertheless. Ambos 2004, pp. 809–810.

  57. 57.

    Triffterer 2008, p. 901. This is also the German approach, see Roxin 2006, pp. 626–627, § 14, Rn 64.

  58. 58.

    See on the German position to the contrary (i.e. that such a mistake of fact should be treated as a mistake of fact which negates the required intent) Roxin 2006, pp. 626–627, § 14, Rn 64.

  59. 59.

    This is a so called ‘indirect mistake of law’ (Grenzirrtum or Bestandsirrtum), see Sect. 2.3.2.3, (2) supra.

  60. 60.

    See also Roxin 2006, pp. 632–633, § 14, Rn 79–80.

  61. 61.

    See also Roxin 2006, pp. 632–633, § 14, Rn 79–80.

  62. 62.

    See e.g.: art. 8(2)(a)(vii) (unlawful deportation) and article 7(1)(e) (imprisonment in violation of fundamental rules of international law).

  63. 63.

    The Dutch scholarly debate on this issue is illuminating; hence, the numerous references to Dutch authors in this paragraph.

  64. 64.

    Veen 1972, p. 467.

  65. 65.

    Koopmans 2007, pp. 90–91; Kelk 2005, p. 125.

  66. 66.

    Kelk 2005, p. 199.

  67. 67.

    Kelk 2005, pp. 129–130.

  68. 68.

    Roxin 2006, p. 489, Rn. 105. See also Sect. 2.3.2.3 supra.

  69. 69.

    See also Hullu 2006, pp. 209–210.

  70. 70.

    See also Hullu 2006, p. 375. But see Heller 2008 (who does not regard legal elements as objective). For a discussion of his arguments see Sects. 4.2.2 and 6.2infra.

  71. 71.

    Roxin 2006, p. 945 Rn. 38, see also Sect. 2.3.2.3, (3) supra.

  72. 72.

    Case of K.-H. W. v. Germany 2001, § 46.

  73. 73.

    Arnold et al. 2003, p. 85.

  74. 74.

    Arnold et al. 2003, p. 87.

  75. 75.

    Arnold et al. 2003, pp. 86–87.

  76. 76.

    Fletcher 1978, p. 496.

  77. 77.

    Fletcher 2007 pp. 54–55.

References

  • Ambos K (2002) Other grounds for excluding criminal responsibility. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary, vol I. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1003–1048

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2004) Der allgemeine teil des Völkerstrafrechts. Ansätze einer Dogmatisierung, 2nd edn. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2006) Remarks on the general part of international criminal law. J Int Crim Justice 4:660–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2007) Towards a universal system of crime: comments on George Fletcher’s grammar of criminal law. Cardozo Law Rev 28(6):2647–2673

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2008a) Internationales Strafrecht, 2nd edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2008b) May the state torture suspects to save the life of innocents? J Int Crim Justice (6):261–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold J, Karsten N, Kreicker H (2003) The German border guard cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 11(1):67–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R (2005) Superior orders and the International Criminal Court. In: Burchill R, White ND, Morris J (eds) International conflict and security law essays in memory of Hilaire McCoubrey. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 49–67

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dan-Cohen M (1984) Decision rules and conduct rules: on acoustic separation in criminal law. Harv Law Rev 97(3):625–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2000) Defences. In: McDonald GK, Swaak-Goldman O (eds) Substantive and procedural aspects of international criminal law. The experience of international and national courts. Commentary, vol 1. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 369–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Eser A (2008) Article 31: grounds for excluding criminal responsibility. In: Triffterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: observers’ notes, article by article, 2nd edn. C.H. Beck oHG, München, pp 863–893

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher GP (1978) Rethinking criminal law, Oxford University Press, Oxford (reprinted in 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher GP (1985) The right and the reasonable. Harv Law Rev 98:949–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher GP (1998) Basic concepts of criminal law. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher GP (2007) The grammar of criminal law. American, comparative, and international, Volume one: Foundations, vol 1. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher GP, Ohlin JD (2008) Defending humanity; when force is justified and why. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller KJ (2008) Mistake of legal element, the common law, and article 32 of the Rome Statute. J Int Crim Justice 6:419–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hullu J de (2006) Materieel strafrecht. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Husak D, Hirsch Av (1993) Culpability and mistake of law. In: Shute S, Gardner J, Horder J (eds) Action and value in criminal law. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 157–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelk C (2005) Studieboek materieel strafrecht, 3rd edn. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans FAJ (2007) Het beslissingsmodel van 348/350 Sv. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • May R (1999) Criminal evidence, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson PH (1984) Criminal law defenses, vol 2. West Publishing Co, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxin C (2006) Strafrecht allgemeiner teil, band I, Grundlagen, der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, 4th edn. C.H. Beck, Munchen

    Google Scholar 

  • Sliedregt E van (2003) The criminal responsibility of individuals for violations of international humanitarian law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Triffterer O (2008) Article 32: mistake of law. In: Triffterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: observers’ notes, article by article, 2nd edn. C.H. Beck oHG, München, pp 895–914

    Google Scholar 

  • Veen TWV (1972) Facet-Wederrechtelijkheid. Nederlands Juristenblad, pp 466–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilt HG van der (1999) Commentary to the prosecutor v. Erdemovic appeals judgement. In: Klip A, Sluiter GK (eds) Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals, vol I. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 654–656

    Google Scholar 

Table of Cases

International Case Law

European Court of Human Rights

  • Case of K.-H. W. v. Germany (Application no. 37201/97) (2001), ECtHR, 22 Mar 2001

    Google Scholar 

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

  • Prosecutor v. Erdemović (1997a) ICTY Appeals Chamber, case no. IT-96-22-A, 7 Oct 1997, Separate and dissenting opinion of Judge Cassese, ICTY Appeals Chamber, case no. IT-96-22-A, 7 Oct 1997, separate and dissenting opinion of Judge Cassese

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Erdemović (1997b) ICTY Appeals Chamber, case no. IT-96-22-A, judgement, 7 Oct 1997, ICTY Appeals Chamber, case no. IT-96-22-A, judgement, 7 Oct 1997

    Google Scholar 

National Case Law

Germany

  • Bundesgerichtshof, 18-03-1952 (1952), GSSt 2/51 (Lexetius.com/1952, 1)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Criminal Law Department, University of Amsterdam, Oudemanhuispoort 4-6, 1012 DL, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Annemieke van Verseveld

Authors
  1. Annemieke van Verseveld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annemieke van Verseveld .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Verseveld, A. (2012). Comparing the National Approaches: Theorising About the Issue. In: Mistake of Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-867-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation