Modalities of Criminal Liability in the Jurisprudence of International Criminal Courts and Tribunals

  • Iryna Marchuk


The discipline of international criminal law deals with the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, for which the responsible individuals shall bear criminal responsibility. Being firmly entrenched in substantive laws of national legal jurisdictions, the principle is not novel in international criminal law and is traceable to the celebrated Nuremberg Judgment. At the outset of the trial in Nuremberg, it was challenging to argue that the precedent of individual criminal responsibility for core international crimes, which called for the universal condemnation, a priori existed. In his renowned opening statement, Robert Jackson laid down his arguments as to the relevance and necessity of the principle of individual criminal responsibility in international law:


International Criminal Court Appeal Chamber Rome Statute Trial Chamber Joint Criminal Enterprise 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ambos K (2005) La parte general del derecho penal internacional. Montevideo, TemisGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambos K (2006) Remarks on the general part of international criminal law. J Int Crim Justice 4(4):660–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambos K (2007) Joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility. J Int Crim Justice 5(1):159–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambos K (2012) The first judgment of the International Criminal Court (Prosecutor v Lubanga): a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues. Int Crim Law Rev 12(2):115–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashworth A (2009) Principles of criminal law, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Badar ME, Marchuk I (2013) A comparative study of the principles governing criminal responsibility in the major legal systems of the world (England, United States, Germany, France, Denmark, Russia, China, and Islamic Legal Tradition). Crim Law Forum 24(1). doi: 10.1007/s10609-012-9187-z (available online first)
  7. Baumann J, Weber U, Mitsch W (2003) Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Lehrbuch, 11, Neubearbeiteteth edn. Verlag Ernst und Werner Gieseking, BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  8. Boas G, Bischoff JL, Reid NL (2007) International criminal law practitioner library, forms of responsibility in international criminal law, vol I. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Bohlander M (2008) The German Criminal Code: a modern English translation. Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonafe BI (2007) Finding a proper role for command responsibility. J Int Crim Justice 5(3):599–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brilliantov AV (ed) (2010) Commentary of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: article-by-article. Prospect, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  12. Cassese A (2008) International criminal law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD (2002) The Rome statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary, vol I. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Cryer R, Bekou O (eds) (2004) The International Criminal Court: the library of essays in international law. Ashgate Publishing, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  15. Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2007) An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dubber MD (2007) Criminalizing complicity: a comparative analysis. J Int Crim Justice 5(4):977–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elliott C, Quinn F (2008) Criminal law, 7th edn. Pearson Longman, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  18. Giustiniani FZ (2008) Stretching the boundaries of commission liability: the ICTR appeal judgement in Seromba. J Int Crim Justice 6(4):783–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaser S (1948) La Charte du Tribunal de Nuremberg et les Nouveaux Principes du Droit International. Revue Pénale Suisse 63:13–38. Also reprinted in Mettraux G (ed) (2008) Perspectives on the Nuremberg trial. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Gustafson K (2010) ECCC Tackles JCE: an appraisal of recent decisions. J Int Crim Justice 8(5):1323–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamdorf K (2007) The concept of a joint criminal enterprise and domestic modes of liability for parties to a crime: a comparison of German and English law. J Int Crim Justice 5(1):208–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jessberger F, Geneuss J (2008) On the application of a theory of indirect perpetration in Al Bashir: German Doctrine at the Hague? J Int Crim Justice 6(5):853–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones JRWD, Powles S (2003) International criminal practice, 3rd edn. Transnational Publishers, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Kosachenko I (ed) (2009) Criminal law: general part, 4th edn. NORMA, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  25. Lackner K, Kühl K (2004) Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 25th edn. C. H. Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  26. LaFave WR (2003a) Principles of criminal law. Thomson West, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  27. LaFave WR (2003b) Criminal law, 4th edn. Thomson West, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee RS (ed) (1999) The International Criminal Court: the making of the Rome Statute: issues, negotiations, results. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  29. Manacorda S, Meloni C (2011) Indirect perpetration versus joint criminal enterprise: concurring approaches in the practice of international criminal law? J Int Crim Justice 9(1):159–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martinez JS (2007) Understanding mens rea in command responsibility: from Yamashita to Blaškić and beyond. J Int Crim Justice 5(3):638–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meloni C (2007) Command responsibility: mode of liability for the crimes of subordinates or separate offence of the superior? J Int Crim Justice 5(3):619–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mettraux G (2005) International crimes and the ad hoc tribunals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Mettraux G (2009) The law of command responsibility. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nerlich V (2007) Superior responsibility under Article 28 ICC statute: for what exactly is the superior held responsible? J Int Crim Justice 5(3):665–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ohlin JD (2007) Three conceptual problems with the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise. J Int Crim Justice 5(1):69–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ohlin JD (2011) Joint intentions to commit international crimes. Chicago J Int Law 11(2):693–753Google Scholar
  37. Ormerod D, Hooper A (2009) Blackstone’s criminal practice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Perkins RM, Boyce RN (1982) Criminal law, 3rd edn. The Foundation Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Raroga A (ed) (2010) Criminal law of the Russian Federation: general part, 4th edn. EKSMO, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  40. Roxin C (1963) Straftaten im Rahmen organisatorischer Machtapparate. In: Grüntzer H (ed) Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht. R. V. Deckers Verlag, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  41. Roxin C (2006b) Täterschaft und Tatherrschaft, 8th edn. Verlag de Gruyter, HamburgCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schabas WA (2007a) An introduction to International Criminal Court, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schabas WA (2007b) Whither genocide? The International Court of Justice finally pronounces. J Genocide Res 9:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schabas WA (2009) Genocide in international law: the crime of crimes, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schabas W (2010) The International Criminal Court: a commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Simester AP, Sullivan GR (2007) Criminal law theory and doctrine, 3rd edn. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Mettraux G (ed) (2008) Perspectives on the Nuremberg trial. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Tröndle H, Fischer T (2006) Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze, 53rd edn. C. H. Beck, ünchenGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Der Wilt H (2007) Joint criminal enterprise: possibilities and limitations. J Int Crim Justice 5(1):91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Der Wilt H (2009) The continuous quest for proper modes of criminal responsibility. J Int Crim Justice 7(2):307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Sliedregt E (2003a) The criminal responsibility of individuals for violations of international humanitarian law. T M C Asser Press, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Sliedregt E (2007) Joint criminal enterprise as a pathway to convicting individuals for genocide. J Int Crim Justice 5(1):184–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vestergaard J (1992) Criminal participation in Danish law – uniformity unlimited. In: Criminal Law Theory in Transition (1992). Finnish Lawyers Publication Company, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  54. Weigend T (2008) Intent, mistake of law, and co-perpetration in the Lubanga decision on confirmation of charges. J Int Crim Justice 6(3):471–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weigend T (2011) Perpetration through an organization: the unexpected career of a German legal concept. J Int Crim Justice 9(1):91–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Werle G (2007) Individual criminal responsibility in Article 25 ICC Statute. J Int Crim Justice 5(4):953–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iryna Marchuk
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations