Mistake of Law pp 133-166 | Cite as

Applying the Theory of Mistake of Law: An Analysis of Elements of Crimes and a Survey of Dilemmas on the Battlefield

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter first contains an analysis of the structure of international crimes, with an emphasis on the element of criminal intent. Section 6.3 of this chapter contains a survey of situations in which the defendant acts under an understandable and relevant mistake of the law, but which are not covered by Article 32(2) ICC Statute. The aim of this final substantive chapter is to demonstrate that what is at stake is not merely a theoretical argument, for there are situations conceivable which, under the current provision on mistake of law, could lead to unjust convictions.

Keywords

Armed Conflict International Crime Trial Chamber Geneva Convention Mental Element 
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.

References

  1. Ambos K (2002a) Der Allgemeine Teil des Völkerstrafrechts. Ansätze einer Dogmatisierung. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambos K (2002b) 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, pp 1003–1048Google Scholar
  3. Ambos K (2003) Some preliminary reflections on the mens rea requirements of the crimes of the ICC statute and of the elements of crimes. In: Vohrah LCea (ed) Man’s Inhumanity to Man. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 11–40Google Scholar
  4. Ambos K (2004) Der Allgemeine Teil des Völkerstrafrechts. Ansätze einer Dogmatisierung. 2nd edn. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Ambos K (2006) Remarks on the general part of international criminal law. J Int Crim Justice 4:660–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ambos K (2008b) Internationales Strafrecht. 2nd edn. C.H. Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  7. Baarda TA van (2002) Deportatie is verboden, evacuatie niet. Maar, wat is het verschil? Militair Rechtelijk Tijdschrift 94(2 + 3):61–119Google Scholar
  8. Best G (1994) War & law since 1945. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Boister N (2005) Reflections on the relationship between the duty to educate in humanitarian law and the absence of a defence of mistake of law in the Rome Statute of 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 32–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark RS (2001) The mental element in international criminal law: the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the elements of offenses. Crim Law Forum 12(3):291–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cottier M (2008) Article 8, para. 2(b)(vii). In: Triffterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, observers’ notes, article by article, 2nd edn. Verlag C.H. Beck oHG, München, pp 350–362Google Scholar
  12. Dolman MM (2006) Overmacht in het stelsel van strafuitsluitingsgronden. Wolf Legal Publishers, NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  13. Dörmann K (2003) Elements of war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. sources and commentary. ICRC/Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dörmann K (2008) Article 8, para 2(a). In: Triffterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, observers’ notes, article by article. Verlag C.H. Beck oHG, München, pp 300–323Google Scholar
  15. Ducheine PAL, Pouw EH (2010) ISAF Operaties in Afghanistan: oorlogsrecht, doelbestrijding in counterinsurgency, ROE, mensenrechten & ius ad bellum. Wolf Legal Publishers, NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  16. Duyx P, Haveman R, Sliedregt E van (2000) War crimes law and the Statute of Rome: some afterthoughts? report of the seminar hosted by the Netherlands in Rijswijk, The Netherlands on 22 Oct 1999. Revue de Droit Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre 39 (1-2-3-4):68–122Google Scholar
  17. Eser A (2002) Mental elements: mistake of fact and mistake of law. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary, vol I. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 889–948Google Scholar
  18. 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 863–893Google Scholar
  19. Fletcher GP (1985) The right and the reasonable. Harv Law Rev 98:949–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fletcher GP (1998) Basic concepts of criminal law. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Fletcher GP (2007) The grammar of criminal law. American, comparative, and international, volume one: Foundations, vol 1. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Fletcher GP, Ohlin JD (2008) Defending humanity: when force is justified and why. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaeta P (2004) May necessity be available as a defence for torture in the interrogation of suspected terrorists? J Int Crim Justice 2:785–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gill T, Sliedregt E van (2005) Guantánamo Bay: a reflection on the legal status and rights of ‘Unlawful Enemy Combatants’. Utrecht Law Rev 1(1):28–54Google Scholar
  25. Greenwood C (2006a) Belligerent reprisals in the jurisprudence of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In: Greenwood C (ed) Essays on war in international law. Cameron May, London, pp 331–351Google Scholar
  26. Greenwood C (2006b) Twilight of the law of belligerent reprisals. In: Greenwood C (ed) Essays on war in international law. Cameron May, London, pp 295–329Google Scholar
  27. Hampson F (2007) Military necessity. In: Gutman R, Rieff D, Dworkin A (eds) Crimes of war: what the public should know, 2nd edn. W.W. Norton & Company Ltd., London, pp 297–298Google Scholar
  28. Hebel H von (2001) The making of the elements of crimes, introduction. In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court, elements of crimes and rules of procedure and evidence. Transnational Publishers, Inc, Ardsley, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  29. Heller KJ (2008) Mistake of legal element, the common law, and Article 32 of the Rome Statute. J Int Crim Justice 6:419–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henckaerts JM, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary international humanitarian law. International Committee of the Red Cross, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Hullu Jd (2006) Materieel Strafrecht. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  32. Jescheck HH (2004) The general principles of international criminal law set out in Nuremberg, as mirrored in the ICC statute. J Int Crim Justice 2(1):38–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jessberger F (2005) Bad torture: good torture? What international criminal lawyers may learn from the recent trial of police officers in Germany. J Int Crim Justice 3:1059–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kalshoven F (2003) Reprisals and the protection of civilians: two recent decisions of the Yugoslavia tribunal. In: Vohrah LCea (ed) Man’s inhumanity to man. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 481–510Google Scholar
  35. Kalshoven F (2005) Belligerent reprisals, vol 11. International humanitarian law series, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  36. Kalshoven F, Zegveld L (2001) Constraints on the waging of war: an introduction to international humanitarian law, 3rd edn. International Committee of the Red Cross, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  37. Kelt M, H von Hebel (2001a) The making of the elements of crimes, general principles of criminal law and elements of crimes. In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court, elements of crimes and rules of procedure and evidence. Transnational Publishers, Inc, Ardsley, pp 19–40Google Scholar
  38. Kelt M, H von Hebel (2001b) The making of the elements of crimes, what are elements of crimes? In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court, elements of crimes and rules of procedure and evidence. Transnational Publishers, Inc., Ardsley, pp 13–18Google Scholar
  39. Kleffner JK (2008) The notions of civilians and fighters in non-international armed conflicts. In: Beruto GL, Ravasi G (eds) The conduct of hostilities revisiting the law of armed conflict: 100 years after the 1907 Hague conventions and 20 years after the 1977 additional protocols/International Institute of Humanitarian Law. Nagard, Milano, pp 69–77Google Scholar
  40. Lippman MR (1996) Conundrums of armed conflict: criminal defenses to violations of the humanitarian law of war. Dickinson J Int Law 15:1–112Google Scholar
  41. Melzer N (2009) Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. International Committee of the Red Cross, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  42. Nill-Theobald C (1998) “Defences” bei Kriegsverbrechen am Beispiel Deutschlands und der USA: zugleich ein Beitrag zu einem Allgemeinen Teil des Völkerstrafrechts, vol Band S 72. Beiträge und Materialien aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Freiburg i.Br., iuscrim edn. Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Freiburg im BreisgauGoogle Scholar
  43. Olásolo H (2008) Unlawful attacks in combat situations: from the ICTY’s case law to the Rome Statute. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Osiel M (2009) The end of reciprocity: terror, Torture and the Law of war. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Piragoff DK (1999) Article 30: Mental Element. In: Triffterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers’Notes, Article by article. Nomos Verslagsgesellschaft, Baden–Baden, pp 527–535Google Scholar
  46. Pouw EH (2009) To kill or not to kill: ISAF and the search within international humanitarian law and human rights law for a legal basis to target narcotics-individuals. Paper for the International conference—human rights and the military: a duty to protect?, 28–30 August 2009, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  47. Robinson D (2001) The elements of crimes against humanity. In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court, elements of crimes and rules of procedure and evidence. Transnational Publishers, Inc, Ardsley, pp 57–108Google Scholar
  48. Rogers APV (2005) What is a legitimate military target? In: Burchill R, White ND, Morris J (eds) International conflict and security law. Essays in memory of Hilaire McCoubrey. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 160–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roxin C (2006) Strafrecht Allgemeiner teil, Band I, Grundlagen, der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre. 4th edn. C.H. Beck, MunchenGoogle Scholar
  50. Saland P (1999) International criminal law principles. In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court, the making of the Rome Statute, issues, negotiations, results. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 189–216Google Scholar
  51. Sands P (2008) Torture team. deception, cruelty and compromise of law. Allen Lane, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Sliedregt E van (2003) The criminal responsibility of individuals for violations of international humanitarian law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  53. Weigend T (2004) The harmonization of general principles of criminal law; the statutes and jurisprudence of the ICTY, ICTR, and the ICC: An overview. Nouvelles Etudes Penales 19:319–335Google Scholar
  54. Weigend T (2008) Intent, mistake of law, and co-perpetration in the Lubanga decision on confirmation of charges. J Int Crim Justice 6:471–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Werle G, Jessberger F (2005) ‘Unless otherwise provided’: Article 30 of the ICC statute and the mental element of crimes under international criminal law. J Int Crim Justice 3:35–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilt HGvd (2000) The duty to know: enkele beschouwingen over het leerstuk van command responsibility. In: Corstens GJM, Groenhuijsen MS (eds) Rede en recht liber amicorum voor Nico Keijzer. Gouda Quint, Deventer, pp 123–135Google Scholar
  57. Wilt HG van der (2009a) Can romantics and liberals be reconciled?: Some further reflections on defending humanity. Journal of International Criminal Justice 7:529-539Google Scholar
  58. Wise EM (1998) Commentary on Parts 2 and 3 of the Zutphen intersessional draft: General principles of criminal law. Nouvelles Etudes Penales 13bis:43–53Google Scholar
  59. Zahar A, Sluiter GK (2008) International criminal law, a critical introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Miscellaneous

  1. HRW (2000) The crisis in Kosovo. Civilian deaths in the NATO air campaign, February 2007. Human Rights WatchGoogle Scholar
  2. The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (2004) UK Ministry of Defence. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. NATO (2010) NATO’s role in Afghanistan. available at: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_8189.htm, last visited: 7 July 2010
  4. OTPICTY (2000) Final report to the prosecutor by the committee established to review the NATO bombing campaign against the federal republic of Yugoslavia. vol 2000Google Scholar

Table of Cases

International Case Law

US Military Tribunals at Nuremberg

  1. List (The Hostages Case) (1948), US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, UNWCC, vol. VIII; TWC vol. XIGoogle Scholar

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

  1. Prosecutor v. Martić (1996), ICTY Trial Chamber, Case No. IT-95-11-R61, Decision 8 March 1996Google Scholar
  2. Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al. (2000), ICTY Trial Chamber, Case No. IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 Jan 2000Google Scholar
  3. Prosecutor v. Krstić (2001), ICTY Trial Chamber, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgement 2 Aug 2001Google Scholar
  4. Prosecutor v. Blagojević and Jokić (2005), ICTY Trial Chamber, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Judgement 17 Jan 2005Google Scholar

Special Court for Sierra Leone

  1. Prosecutor v. Norman (2004b), SCSL Appeals Chamber, Case No SCSL-2004-14-AR72(E), Decision on Preliminary Motion Based on Lack of Jurisdiction (Child Recruitment), 31 May 2004, Dissenting Opinion of Justice RobertsonGoogle Scholar

National Case Law

Other Countries

  1. H.C. 5100/94 (1999), The Supreme Court of IsraelGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Criminal Law DepartmentUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations