The Emerging Concept of Individual Liability

  • Manuel R. García-Mora

Abstract

A radical postwar development clearly marked the trend toward making individuals criminally responsible for international crimes. Included within the latter concept are offenses committed against foreign states. But to postulate this kind of international responsibility is really to pose two separate and yet intimately connected concepts. One is the criminal responsibility of the individuals who act as agents of the state; and the other concerns the criminal responsibility of private persons. It has been seen in the preceding chapter that international law has been almost exclusively concerned with the international responsibility of the state. The present trend of the law, however, poses the preliminary problem of adequately imposing criminal liability upon individuals under international law. Although it may still be too early to assert that as a general proposition of international law individuals are criminally liable for hostile acts directed against foreign states, there is respectable authority that claims precisely that.1 These preliminary assertions may clearly show the difficulties attending any discussion of the international responsibility of individuals involving their own private actions. This point is indeed fundamental inasmuch as the responsibility here involved is based on different considerations.

Keywords

International Criminal Private Individual Criminal Liability Private Person World Community 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cf. P. C. Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations, chap. 5 (1947).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    For text, see Am. J. Int. L. Supp., Vol. 13, p. 151 (1919).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    It is generally known that when the demand for the extradition of the Kaiser was made to the Dutch Government, the latter refused it on the ground that “age-long tradition... has made this country always a ground of refuge for the vanquished in international conflicts.” For comments, see J. W. Garner, “Punishment of Offenders Against the Laws and Customs of War.” Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 14, p. 70 (1920); Q. Wright, “The Legal Liability of the Kaiser,” Am. Pol. Sc. Rev., Vol. 13, p. 121 (1919).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For the inadequacy of this procedure, see S. Glueck, “The Nürnberg Trial and Aggressive War,” Harvard L. R., Vol. 59, p. 396 (1945–1946).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    See Dept. of State, Trial of War Criminals (1945).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    For text, see Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Vol. I, pp. X, XI (1946–1947).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Article 6, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). For text, see note 6, supra. Google Scholar
  8. 8a.
    For these difficulties, see P. M. Carjeu, “Quelques Aspects du Nouveau Project de Statut des Nations Unies pour une Jurisdiction Criminelle Internationale,” Rev. Gén. de Droit Int. Public, Vol. 50, pp. 401 (France, 1956).Google Scholar
  9. 8b.
    For these difficulties, see P. M. Carjeu, “Quelques Aspects du Nouveau Project de Statut des Nations Unies pour une Jurisdiction Criminelle Internationale,” Rev. Gén. de Droit Int. Public, Vol. 50, pp. 405 (France, 1956).Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    See Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Vol. 22, pp. 465–466 (1948).Google Scholar
  11. 10.
  12. 11.
    Resolution 177 (II), November 21, 1947.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    For text, see Report of the International Law Commission Covering the Work of its Third Session, 16 May – 27 July, 1951. U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Sixth Session, Supplement No. 9 (A/1858), pp. 10–14 (1951).Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    This is Article 1 of the Draft Code.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Judge Hersch Lauterpacht argued in favor of this combination of state and individual responsibility in 1950. See H. Lauterpacht, International Law and Human Rights, p. 41 (1950).Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    J. Stone, Legal Controls of International Conflict p. 370 (1954).Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Article 2, paragraph (1) defines an act of aggression as “the employment by the authorities of a state of armed force against another state for any purpose other than national or collective self-defense or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations.”Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    Article 2(4) of the Code. For modification of this provision, see note 37, infra. Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    Report of the International Law Commission, op. cit., p. 12.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Article 6, paragraph (a). For text, see Trials of War Criminals Before the Nürnberg Military Tribunal, Vol. I, pp. X, XI (1946–1947).Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    Article 3. For text, see Am. J. Int. L. Supp., Vol. 45, p. 7 (1951).Google Scholar
  22. 21a.
    It is on this and other grounds that the Draft Code has been criticized. See C. G. Fenwick, “Draft Code of Offenses Against the Peace and Security of Mankind,” Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 46, pp. 98–100 (1952);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 21b.
    also P. B. Potter, “Offenses Against the Peace and Security of Mankind,” Ibid., p. 101 (1952).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 22.
    J. Paoli, “Contribution à l’étude des Crimes de Guerre et des Crimes Contre L’Humanité en Droit Penal International,” Rev. Gén. de Droit Int. Public, Vol. 39, pp. 129 – 165 (France, 1944–1945).Google Scholar
  25. 28a.
    See on this, D. W. Bowett, Self-Defense in International Law, pp. 266 (1958).Google Scholar
  26. 28b.
    See on this, D. W. Bowett, Self-Defense in International Law, pp. 267 (1958).Google Scholar
  27. 24.
    Cf. Q. Wright, “The Prevention of Aggression,” Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 50, pp. 514–522 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 25.
    Report of the International Law Commission, op. cit., p. 13.Google Scholar
  29. 26.
    See Article 4 of the Code which is identical with Article 8 of the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal. See Report of the International Law Commission, op. cit., p. 13.Google Scholar
  30. 27.
    This is brought out in the Comment on Article 4. See Report of the International Law Commission, op. cit., pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
  31. 28.
    U.N. Charter, Chapter VII.Google Scholar
  32. 29.
    Article 5 of the Draft Code.Google Scholar
  33. 30.
    Report of the International Law Commission, op. cit., p. 11.Google Scholar
  34. 31.
    Article 2 of the Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court. For text, see Am. J. Int. L. Supp., Vol. 46, p. 1 (1952).Google Scholar
  35. 32a.
    In fact, it has been said that the International Law Commission significantly erred “when it resolved to deal with the criminal responsibility of the individual only, and not with that of the state.” See D. H. N. Johnson, “The Draft Code of Offenses Against the Peace and Security of Mankind,” Int. & Comp. L.Q., Vol. 4, pp. 445(1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 32a.
    D. H. N. Johnson, “The Draft Code of Offenses Against the Peace and Security of Mankind,” Int. & Comp. L.Q., Vol. 4, pp. 454 (1955).Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    Cf. D. W. Bowett, op. cit., p. 268.Google Scholar
  38. 34.
    Article 2, paragraph (9).Google Scholar
  39. 35.
    Article 2, paragraph (10).Google Scholar
  40. 36.
    Article 2, paragraph (11).Google Scholar
  41. 37.
    For comments upon this provision, see Report of the International Law Commission, op. cit., p. 12. This text was modified in 1954 in an attempt to widen the scope of the provision. For text of the new article see L. B. Sohn, Cases on United Nations Law., p. 999 (1956).Google Scholar
  42. 38.
    See the Comment on Article 2, paragraph (12). Report of the International Law Commission, op. cit., p. 13.Google Scholar
  43. 39.
    The Commission itself said that it decided to deal with offenses which contain a political element and which endanger or disturb the maintenance of international peace and security. See Report of the International Law Commission, op. cit., p. 11.Google Scholar
  44. 40a.
    Cf. C. Parry, “Some Considerations upon the Content of a Draft Code of Offenses Against the Peace and Security of Mankind,” Int. L.Q., Vol. 3, pp. 208 (1950).Google Scholar
  45. 40b.
    Cf. C. Parry, “Some Considerations upon the Content of a Draft Code of Offenses Against the Peace and Security of Mankind,” Int. L.Q., Vol. 3, pp. 224–226 (1950).Google Scholar
  46. 40c.
    Also J. Paoli, op. cit. pp. 129 (1950).Google Scholar
  47. 40d.
    Also J. Paoli, op. cit. pp. 146 (1950).Google Scholar
  48. 41.
    Professor Vespasian V. Pella regarded counterfeiting as an offense against the peace and security of mankind. See V. V. Pella, La Coopération des États dans la ‘Lutte contre le Faux Monnayage, p. 106 (1928).Google Scholar
  49. 42.
    As to the economic sources of friction between the states, see G. Hornsey, “Foreign Investment and International Law,” Int. L.Q., Vol. 3, p. 552 (1950).Google Scholar
  50. 43.
    See U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Sixth Session, Supp. No. 9 (A/1858 1951); Am. J. Int. L., Supp., Vol. 45, pp. 103, 121 (1951).Google Scholar
  51. 44.
    Cf. J. Stone, Legal Controls of International Conflict, p. 370 (1954).Google Scholar
  52. 45.
    Cf. C. G. Fenwick, op. cit., p. 98 (1954).Google Scholar
  53. 46.
    P. M. Carjeu, op. cit. Google Scholar
  54. 47.
    J. Stone, Aggression and World Order: A Critique of United Nations Theories of Aggression, pp. 147–148 (1958).Google Scholar
  55. 48.
    J. Stone, Legal Controls of International Conflict, pp. 370–371 (1954).Google Scholar
  56. 49.
    Cf. P. E. Corbett, Law in Diplomacy, p. 253 (1959).Google Scholar
  57. 50a.
    Q. Wright, “Proposal for an International Criminal Court,” Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 46, pp. 60 (1952).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 50a.
    Q. Wright, “Proposal for an International Criminal Court,” Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 46, pp. 64 (1952).Google Scholar
  59. 51.
    Cf. P. E. Corbett, Law and Society in the Relations of States, p. 47 (1951).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1962

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel R. García-Mora
    • 1
  1. 1.Fordham UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations