Abstract
In this chapter a historical perspective is taken on the process by which the modes of responsibility have been created and recognised in international and internationalised courts and tribunals in the last seventy years, with an eye to whether a more objective or subjective approach appears to prevail in the design and application of each one. Attention will be paid to the discussions which led to the inclusion of each mode of responsibility, and it will be considered whether there are distinguishable factors which may have determined their inclusion in a given statute, or their selection in judgments. The background legal training of participants at the various tribunals is highlighted, since this influences their perspective in the controversies and debates surrounding each mode of liability. It is demonstrated that these participants have done more than interpret and re-interpret the law, they have also been active in creating and developing the law, illustrating the nature of ICL as a patchworking process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Darcy and Powderly 2010, p. xxxvi.
- 2.
Danner 2006, p. 4.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
Tallgren 2002, p. 567.
- 6.
Fletcher 2011, p. 179.
- 7.
Steer 2015, p. 35.
- 8.
Cassese 2008b, p. 18.
- 9.
Schabas 2010, p. 423.
- 10.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, Article 2(3).
- 11.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, para 11.
- 12.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, para 6.
- 13.
ICC Working Paper 1997.
- 14.
Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 25.
- 15.
- 16.
Closing statement, Nuremberg Judgment 1945.
- 17.
Zoller and Reshetov 1990, p. 117.
- 18.
- 19.
Ginsburgs 1990, p. 23.
- 20.
Ryan 2007, p. 59.
- 21.
Lafontaine 2012, p. 29.
- 22.
Cesarani 2006, p. 34.
- 23.
Telford Taylor, ‘An Approach to the Preparation of the Prosecution of Axis Criminality’, (June, 1945), cited in Ryan 2007, p. 70.
- 24.
Cesarani 2006, p. 37.
- 25.
Ambos 2007a.
- 26.
See e.g. Lafontaine 2012, p. 29.
- 27.
Ryan 2007, p. 61.
- 28.
Inter-Allied Resolution on German War Crimes 1942.
- 29.
Moscow Declaration 1943.
- 30.
See Ginsburgs 1990, p. 11, citing the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs.
- 31.
Ginsburgs 1990, p. 13.
- 32.
Colonel Murray C. Bernays, G-1, Subject: Trial of European War Criminals (Sept. 15, 1944), in Smith 1981, p. 33.
- 33.
Ryan 2007, p. 62.
- 34.
Heller 2011a, p. 9.
- 35.
Draft Memorandum for the President from the Secretaries of State, War and Navy, Subject: Trial and Punishment of European War Criminals (Nov. 11, 1944), cited in Smith 1981, pp. 41–44.
- 36.
Pomorski 1990, p. 217.
- 37.
Woetzel 1960, p. 208.
- 38.
- 39.
Pomorski 1990, p. 219.
- 40.
Ryan 2007, p. 73.
- 41.
Memorandum for the Attorney General, December 29 1944, cited in Smith 1981, pp. 86–87.
- 42.
Justice Jackson concurring, Krulewitch 1949, pp. 446.
- 43.
Kudriavtsev 1990, p. 4.
- 44.
Heller 2011a, p. 275.
- 45.
Charter of the IMT 1945, Article 6, (Emphasis added).
- 46.
Pomorski 1990, p. 227.
- 47.
- 48.
Nuremberg Judgment 1945, para 44.
- 49.
UN Report on Nürnberg 1949, p. 84.
- 50.
Just as in the common law tradition, this vicarious liability does not amount to the kind of civil liability where a defendant is liable in the place of an actor, but rather it is vicarious in the sense that all those involved in this collective crime are responsible for all the acts of others involved, without further distinction.
- 51.
Simpson 2007, p. 15.
- 52.
- 53.
UN Report on Nürnberg 1949, p. 84.
- 54.
- 55.
- 56.
Control Council Law No. 10 1945, Article II(2).
- 57.
Heller 2011a, p. 252.
- 58.
Farben 1952, para 1141.
- 59.
Telford Taylor’s Third Trial Program, page 4. Cited in Heller 2011a, p. 251.
- 60.
- 61.
Krupp 1948, para 1448.
- 62.
- 63.
Heller 2011a, p. 276.
- 64.
- 65.
ILC 1950, Principle VI.
- 66.
Genocide Convention 1948, Article 3.
- 67.
- 68.
Schabas 2010, p. 438.
- 69.
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, Article 3.
- 73.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, p. 99.
- 74.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, p. 99.
- 75.
Schabas 2010, p. 423.
- 76.
Schabas 2010, p. 438.
- 77.
- 78.
Hamdan v Rumsfeld Amicus Brief 2006-01-06, p. 12.
- 79.
- 80.
- 81.
For a discussion on the debate surrounding command responsibility as a mode of liability or as a crime of omission, see Steer 2013a.
- 82.
High Command Case 1948, p. 543.
- 83.
- 84.
Krnojelac Appeal Judgment 2003, para 171.
- 85.
Partial Dissenting Opinon of Judge Shahabuddeen, Hadžihasanović Appeal Judgment 2008, para 32.
- 86.
Declaration of Judge Shuhabadeen, Orić Trial Judgment 2006, para 15.
- 87.
- 88.
Orić Trial Judgment 2006, para 293.
- 89.
- 90.
- 91.
Bemba Judgment 2016, paras 171, 174.
- 92.
van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 197.
- 93.
- 94.
Rockwood 2007, p. 28.
- 95.
De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1615), cited in van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 184.
- 96.
Lieber Code 1863.
- 97.
Fourth Hague Convention 1907.
- 98.
Boas et al. 2007, p. 147.
- 99.
- 100.
- 101.
Mettreaux 2008, p. 5.
- 102.
- 103.
Yamashita 1945, p. 522.
- 104.
van der Wilt 2010a, p. 1134.
- 105.
Rockwood 2007, pp. 120–126.
- 106.
Mettreaux 2008, p. 9.
- 107.
- 108.
Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, p. 558.
- 109.
Statute of the ICTY. The exact wording is mirrored in the Statute of the ICTR in Article 6(3).
- 110.
Čelebići Appeal Judgment 2001.
- 111.
- 112.
Steer 2013a.
- 113.
- 114.
Bemba Judgment 2016, para 180.
- 115.
Bemba, Decision Adjourning the Hearing 2009, para 19.
- 116.
Bemba Decision on Charges 2009, para 434.
- 117.
Boas et al. 2007, p. 154.
- 118.
Medical case 1946, p. 193.
- 119.
Boas et al. 2007, p. 155.
- 120.
Boas et al. 2007, p. 156.
- 121.
Boas et al. 2007, p. 156; Röling and Rüter 1977, p. 448; van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 129. The test of actual control had been applied more precisely in some of the NMT cases where superior responsibility had been indicted, which limited the risk of strict liability. In the Ministries case, for example, Berger was acquitted because although he was formally superior to the perpetrators who had conducted so-called racial examinations, he did not exercise control over them: Ministries case 1949, pp. 518, 546; Heller 2011a, p. 266.
- 122.
Maogoto 2004, p. 100.
- 123.
Maogoto 2004, p. 100.
- 124.
- 125.
- 126.
- 127.
Osiel 2005, p. 1798.
- 128.
- 129.
- 130.
UN Report on Nürnberg 1949, p. 53.
- 131.
UN Report on Nürnberg 1949, pp. 55–56.
- 132.
UN Report on Nürnberg 1949, p. 56.
- 133.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, Article 2(3)(e).
- 134.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, p. 21.
- 135.
Nahimana 2003, para 697.
- 136.
- 137.
Schabas 2010, p. 423.
- 138.
- 139.
- 140.
- 141.
- 142.
Cryer et al. 2016, p. 314.
- 143.
Orić Trial Judgment 2006, para 271.
- 144.
Kvočka Trial Judgment 2001, para 390.
- 145.
- 146.
Consider the arguments made by Osiel 2009, p. 45. Even though he makes these points in respect of superior responsibility, they are equally applicable to the notion of instigation.
- 147.
van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 102.
- 148.
- 149.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, Article 2(8).
- 150.
Blaškić Trial 2000, para 474.
- 151.
- 152.
- 153.
- 154.
Blaškić Appeal 2004, para 42.
- 155.
Ambos 2008b, p. 480.
- 156.
van Sliedregt 2012a, pp. 108–109.
- 157.
- 158.
- 159.
Ambos 2008b, p. 491.
- 160.
- 161.
Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 518.
- 162.
- 163.
Werle and Jessberger 2014, pp. 181–182.
- 164.
- 165.
- 166.
Furundžija 1998, para 194.
- 167.
- 168.
The German Synagogue and Pig Cart Parade cases were cited by the ICTY Trial Chamber in Furundžija 1998, para 207–209.
- 169.
Dachau Case 1945.
- 170.
van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 121.
- 171.
Akayesu 1998, para 533.
- 172.
- 173.
- 174.
- 175.
- 176.
- 177.
- 178.
- 179.
Vasiljević Appeal 2004, para 182.
- 180.
Krstić Appeal Judgment 2004, para 268.
- 181.
Taylor Judgment 2012.
- 182.
Article 19 and Rule 101(B) instruct the court to take into account the gravity of the offence, the individual circumstances of the convicted person, any aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and where appropriate the general practice of the ICTR and of Sierra Leonean national courts. Statute of the SCSL 2000; Taylor Sentencing Judgment 2012, para 18.
- 183.
Taylor Sentencing Judgment 2012, para 9.
- 184.
Taylor Appeals Judgment 2013, para 707.
- 185.
Taylor Sentencing Judgment 2012, para 21, 29.
- 186.
Taylor Sentencing Judgment 2012, para 30.
- 187.
Akayesu 1998, para 692.
- 188.
Perišić Trial Judgment 2011, para 1627.
- 189.
Perišić Appeal Judgment 2013.
- 190.
Perišić Appeal Judgment 2013, para 26–34.
- 191.
Perišić Appeal Judgment 2013, para 30.
- 192.
James Stewart undertook an extensive empirical analysis of judgments rendered by the ICTY, ICTR and other ad-hoc tribunals, and found that of the 362 judgments in which aiding and abetting was indicted, less than one third of them refer to either ‘specifically’ or ‘directed’, that all of them cite Tadić only in passing, and that in only 2% of the cases is it included in the conviction: Stewart 2013. See also Coco and Gal 2013; Jenks 2013.
- 193.
Taylor Appeals Judgment 2013, para 480.
- 194.
Anderson 2013.
- 195.
Decision on Disqualification of Judge Frederik Harhoff 2013.
- 196.
Sainović Appeal Judgment 2014, para 1650.
- 197.
- 198.
Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 175.
- 199.
Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, paras 181–183.
- 200.
Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 185.
- 201.
Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 237.
- 202.
Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 188.
- 203.
Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 192.
- 204.
Ojdanić Decision on JCE 2003, para 36.
- 205.
Almelo Trial 1945.
- 206.
Hoelzer 1946.
- 207.
Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 197.
- 208.
- 209.
- 210.
- 211.
- 212.
Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, footnote 246 and 247.
- 213.
Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 201.
- 214.
Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 80.
- 215.
Steer 2012, p. 152.
- 216.
Furundžija 1998, para 175.
- 217.
Furundžija 1998, para 175.
- 218.
Brownlie 1998, p. 21.
- 219.
Steer 2012, p. 150.
- 220.
Šešelj Judgment, Concurring Opinion of Judge Antonetti 2016, p. 162.
- 221.
- 222.
Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 94.
- 223.
Cesarani 2006, pp. 34–37.
- 224.
Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 99.
- 225.
See e.g. Šešelj Judgment, Concurring Opinion of Judge Antonetti 2016, p. 151.
- 226.
Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 227.
- 227.
See e.g. Vasiljević Appeal 2004.
- 228.
The Tadić bench cited the Belsen case, decided by a British military tribunal, and the Dachau Concentration Camp, decided by a US military tribunal. See Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 202.
- 229.
- 230.
See e.g. Brđanin Appeal Judgment 2007, para 365.
- 231.
See e.g. Brđanin Decision on Amended Indictment 2001, para 29.
- 232.
Cassese 2007, p. 113.
- 233.
- 234.
R. v Jogee and Ruddock 2016, para 90.
- 235.
Laffan 2016.
- 236.
Šešelj Judgment, Concurring Opinion of Judge Antonetti 2016, p. 154.
- 237.
Ojdanić Decision on JCE 2003, para 14.
- 238.
Ojdanić Decision on JCE 2003, para 18.
- 239.
According to Danner and Martinez, from June 2001 when the first indictment charging JCE explicitly was confirmed, to January 2004, 64 % of all indictments relied explicitly on JCE and 84 % of all indictments incorporated charges including phrases such as ‘acting in concert’, which could also be construed as a JCE . See Danner and Martinez 2005, p. 108.
- 240.
- 241.
Rašević, First Instance Verdict 2008.
- 242.
Rašević, First Instance Verdict 2008, para 103.
- 243.
Rašević, First Instance Verdict 2008, para 104.
- 244.
- 245.
- 246.
Karemera 2012, para 1455.
- 247.
Karemera 2012, para 1451.
- 248.
Haffajee 2006, pp. 211–212.
- 249.
Statute of the SCSL 2000, Article 6.
- 250.
Taylor Indictment 2003, para 33.
- 251.
- 252.
RUF Case, Appeal 2009, para 27. Although the notion of ‘ideological trainer’ was rejected in Appeal, his conviction as a member of the JCE still stood, based on the assertion that there is no requirement of a necessary relationship between the objective of a common purpose and its criminal means: RUF Case, Appeal 2009, para 296–297.
- 253.
Partially Dissenting and Concurring Opinion of Justice Shireen Fisher, RUF Case, Appeal 2009, para 2, 14.
- 254.
RUF Case, Appeal 2009, para 1320.
- 255.
On 5 September 2008, the Office of the Co-Prosecutors filed an Appeal brief requesting the Pre-Trial Chamber to amend the Closing Order of the Co-Investigative Judges to include Joint Criminal Enterprise as a mode of liability in the indictment against Kaing Guek Eav, aka ‘Duch’. Following the Appeal Brief, the Pre-Trial Chamber invited amici curiae on the subject.
- 256.
Cassese 2008a, para 20.
- 257.
Cassese referred to the Martens Clause and argued that it allows for social and moral needs as a basis for observance of the expression of legal views by a number of states or international entities. He argued that such expressions are sufficient for the establishment of a customary rule and its binding value, even if there is no widespread or consistent State practice: Cassese 2008a, para 35.
- 258.
Ambos 2008a, para I.1.
- 259.
Ambos 2008a, para II.2.
- 260.
Ambos 2008a, para II.3.3.
- 261.
Ambos 2008a, para II.2.
- 262.
Iang Sary, Motion to Disqualify Cassese 2007.
- 263.
Iang Sary, Motion to Disqualify Cassese 2007.
- 264.
- 265.
Hamdan v Rumsfeld Amicus Brief 2006-01-06, para 19.
- 266.
- 267.
For example Case 002/01, Judgment 2014, at the time of writing under appeal, based largely on objections to the application of JCE.
- 268.
Duch, Trial Judgment 2010, para 511.
- 269.
Statute of the ECCC 2004, Article 1.
- 270.
Duch, Trial Judgment 2010, para 510.
- 271.
Statute of the STL 2007, Article 3(1)(b).
- 272.
Interlocutory Decision on Applicable Law 2011, para 206.
- 273.
Interlocutory Decision on Applicable Law 2011, paras 248–249.
- 274.
Interlocutory Decision on Applicable Law 2011, para 249.
- 275.
Interlocutory Decision on Applicable Law 2011, para 249.
- 276.
For the full text of Article 25 of the Rome Statute, see the appendix A.6.
- 277.
International Commission of Inquiry on Dafur 2005.
- 278.
Katanga Trial Judgment 2014.
- 279.
Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, paras 573–582.
- 280.
Katanga Severance of Charges Decision 2012, para 7.
- 281.
Katanga Sentencing Judgment 2014.
- 282.
Brđanin Appeal Judgment 2007, para 428.
- 283.
Šešelj Judgment, Concurring Opinion of Judge Antonetti 2016, pp. 155, 164.
- 284.
Šešelj Judgment 2016, paras 227, 280.
- 285.
Olásolo 2009, p. 265.
- 286.
- 287.
See the full discussion in Sect. 5.3.6.
- 288.
Fletcher 2000, p. 117.
- 289.
Fletcher 2000, p. 119.
- 290.
Furundžija 1998, para 210.
- 291.
Separate opinion of Judge Lindholm, Simić Trial Judgment 2002, §2.
- 292.
Milosević Indictment 2004, para 5.
- 293.
- 294.
Ojdanić Decision on JCE 2003, paras 18–20.
- 295.
Stakić Trial Judgment 2003, para 438.
- 296.
Stakić Trial Judgment 2003, paras 436–438.
- 297.
Judge Schomburg, presiding, from Germany, Judge Vassylenko from Ukraine and Judge Argibay from Argentina.
- 298.
Stakić Appeals Judgment 2006, para 62.
- 299.
Stakić Appeals Judgment 2006, para 59.
- 300.
Judges Mohamed Shahabuddeen (Guyana) and Theodor Meron (USA) are from common law backgrounds; Judges Fausto Pocar (presiding) (Italy), Andrésia Vaz (Senegal) and Mehmet Güney (Turkey) are from civil law backgrounds.
- 301.
van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 98.
- 302.
Gacumbitsi Appeal 2006, para 60. It should be noted that co-perpetration was not applied as a replacement for JCE, since JCE was asserted in the indictment for other crimes.
- 303.
Gacumbitsi Appeal 2006, para 61.
- 304.
- 305.
Schomburg 2010.
- 306.
van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 98.
- 307.
Partially Dissenting Judgment of Judge Günay, Gacumbitsi Appeal 2006, p. 116.
- 308.
Seromba Appeal 2008, para 161.
- 309.
- 310.
Lubanga Confirmation of Charges 2007, para 325.
- 311.
Lubanga Confirmation of Charges 2007, para 328.
- 312.
Lubanga Confirmation of Charges 2007, para 329.
- 313.
Lubanga Confirmation of Charges 2007, para 335.
- 314.
Lubanga Confirmation of Charges 2007, para 330.
- 315.
- 316.
Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, paras 997–999.
- 317.
Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 484.
- 318.
Weigend 2008, p. 479.
- 319.
Judge Jorda, presiding, from France, and Judge Steiner from Brazil, both of which are civil law jurisdictions. It should be noted that in France while there is a notion of co-perpetration similar to the one applied by the Pre-trial Chamber, there is no such clear distinction between principals and secondary participants; see van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 96. The third judge was Judge Kuanyehia from Ghana, a common law jurisdiction.
- 320.
- 321.
For a full explanation of this theory as developed by Welzel and Roxin, see Sect. 7.3.4.
- 322.
Katanga Trial Judgment 2014, para 1412.
- 323.
- 324.
The Pre-Trial bench that issued the arrest warrant for Al Bashir was made up of Judge Akua Kuenyehia, presiding, from Ghana, which is a common law system, and two judges from civil law systems, Judges Anita Usacka (Latvia) and Syliva Steiner (Brazil). It is unclear whether the characterisation of co-perpetration as vicarious liability stemmed from any of these domestic systems.
- 325.
Lubanga Confirmation of Charges 2007, para 343.
- 326.
van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 99.
- 327.
Ambos 2009, p. 722.
- 328.
Lubanga Confirmation of Charges 2007, paras 342, 347.
- 329.
Lubanga Confirmation of Charges 2007, para 349.
- 330.
Lubanga Confirmation of Charges 2007, para 361.
- 331.
Lubanga Confirmation of Charges 2007, paras 366–377.
- 332.
- 333.
Bemba Decision on Charges 2009, paras 400–401.
- 334.
Bemba Decision on Charges 2009, para 478.
- 335.
Bemba Judgment 2016.
- 336.
Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, para 1004.
- 337.
Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, para 994.
- 338.
Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, para 984.
- 339.
Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, para 988.
- 340.
Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, para 1003.
- 341.
- 342.
For the full text of Article 25 of the Rome Statute, see the appendix A.6.
- 343.
- 344.
- 345.
Ambos 2008b, p. 479.
- 346.
See e.g. Ojdanić Decision on Indirect Co-perpetration 2006, para 39.
- 347.
Judge Robinson, presiding, from Jamaica, and Judge Bonomy from the UK, both common law systems. The third judge was Judge Kwon from Korea, a system that resembles the civil law tradition strongly, but has imported many aspects of the US legal system as well.
- 348.
- 349.
Gacumbitsi Appeal, Schomburg Separate Opinion 2006, para 21.
- 350.
- 351.
- 352.
Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 488.
- 353.
Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 498.
- 354.
See this same justification in Katanga Trial Judgment 2014, paras 1403–1404.
- 355.
Katanga Trial Judgment 2014, para 1410.
- 356.
- 357.
- 358.
Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 518.
- 359.
Katanga Trial Judgment 2014, para 1408.
- 360.
- 361.
- 362.
Eldar 2012, pp. 211, 214. Eldar also asserts that perpetration by means imputes the actual crime to the leader of the collective, rather than imputing responsibility.
- 363.
Roxin 2005, p. 244.
- 364.
The jurisdictions cited were Argentina, Chile, Germany, Peru and Spain; Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 502.
- 365.
- 366.
Al Bashir Decision on Arrest Warrant 2009.
- 367.
Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012. The Prosecutor filed an appeal against this acquittal, on the basis of procedural error, in part due to untrustworthy witness statements. In the appeal the Prosecutor attempted to include ‘common purpose’ under Article 25(3)(d) as an alternate mode of liability. This appeal was rejected, maintaining the original acquittal, Ngudjolo Judgment on Appeal 2015.
- 368.
Separate Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012, para 52.
- 369.
Separate Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012, paras 54–55.
- 370.
Separate Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012, para 53.
- 371.
- 372.
See the discussion of overlapping agency in Sect. 2.4.
- 373.
Katanga Trial Judgment 2014, para 1410.
- 374.
Author’s own translation. The original text reads: ‘pour pouvoir être reconnue pénalement responsable en tant qu’auteur indirect, une personne doit exercer un contrôle sur le crime dont les éléments matériels ont été réalisés par une ou plusieurs autres personnes; réunir les éléments psychologiques visés à l’article 30 du Statut ainsi que les éléments psychologiques propres au crime dont il est question; et avoir connaissance des circonstances de fait lui permettant d’exercer un contrôle sur ce crime.’ Katanga Trial Judgment 2014, para 1399.
- 375.
Al Bashir Application for Warrant of Arrest 2008, para 39.
- 376.
Jessberger and Geneuss 2008, p. 864.
- 377.
- 378.
Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 501.
- 379.
Weigend 2011, p. 106.
- 380.
Judge Fulford, Separate Opinion, Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, para 10.
- 381.
Separate Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012, para 17.
- 382.
Judge Fulford, Separate Opinion, Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, para 10.
- 383.
- 384.
Werle and Burghardt 2011, p. 88.
- 385.
Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 484.
- 386.
- 387.
Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 492.
- 388.
Separate Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012, paras 62–63; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Blé Goudé, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges 2014, para 7; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Gbagbo, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges 2014, paras 3–4; Ohlin et al. 2013, p. 14.
- 389.
Blé Goudé, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges 2014; Gbagbo, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges 2014. Due to the intertwined nature of the facts and the charges of crimes against humanity, it was decided to join the two cases together, although the defendants did not have identical charges: Blé Goudé and Gbagbo Joinder Decision 2015, para 48.
- 390.
- 391.
Blé Goudé, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges 2014, para 135.
- 392.
Dissenting Opinion of Judge van den Wyngaert, Blé Goudé, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges 2014, para 8.
- 393.
Dissenting Opinion of Judge van den Wyngaert, Blé Goudé, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges 2014, para 7.
- 394.
Simone Gbagbo Arrest Warrant 2012, paras 12–13.
- 395.
- 396.
Ruto Prosecution Submission on Co-Perpetration 2012, para 12.
- 397.
Ruto Confirmation of Charges 2012, para 285.
- 398.
Simone Gbagbo Arrest Warrant 2012, para 14.
- 399.
Ruto Prosecution Submission on Co-Perpetration 2012, para 15.
- 400.
Ruto Prosecution Submission on Co-Perpetration 2012, paras 14–15.
- 401.
- 402.
Ohlin 2012, p. 785.
- 403.
Ohlin 2012, p. 779.
- 404.
- 405.
- 406.
- 407.
Krnojelac Appeal Judgment 2003, para 84.
- 408.
- 409.
Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 220.
- 410.
Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, paras 192, 229.
- 411.
- 412.
- 413.
Milosević Indictment 2004.
- 414.
Brđanin Appeal Judgment 2007.
- 415.
Krstić Trial Judgment 2001, para 643.
- 416.
Krstić Trial Judgment 2001, para 601.
- 417.
Krnojelac Appeal Judgment 2003, para 75.
- 418.
Krnojelac Appeal Judgment 2003, para 77.
- 419.
Presiding Judge Rodrigues from Portugal, which follows the civil law tradition, Judge Riad from Egypt, which also follows civil law tradition, and Judge Wald from the USA.
- 420.
Presiding Judge Hunt from Australia, which is a common law jurisdiction, Judge Ndepele Mwachande Mumba from Zambia, which is based primarily on the English common law tradition, and Judge Liu Daqun from China.
- 421.
Ojdanić Decision on JCE 2003, para 31.
- 422.
Cassese 2008b, p. 211.
- 423.
The other judges were Judge Benito from Costa Rica and Judge Blatman from Germany.
- 424.
Judge Fulford, Separate Opinion, Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, paras 2–3.
- 425.
Judge Fulford, Separate Opinion, Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, para 7.
- 426.
Separate Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012, para 22.
- 427.
Separate Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012, para 24.
- 428.
Separate Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012, paras 26, 27, 29.
- 429.
Articles 66, 67 and 69 of the Belgian Strafwetboek differentiate between daders, or perpetrators, and medeplichtigen, or secondary parties, and determine that the latter will receive a lower sentence than the perpetrator.
- 430.
- 431.
- 432.
Gacumbitsi Appeal, Schomburg Separate Opinion 2006, paras 7–8.
- 433.
See Sect. 6.4.
- 434.
Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 471. This was one of the controversies over the application of Regulation 55 in the Katanga case, since the judges departed from the indicted charges as a principal under Article 25(3)(a) and notified the defendant that other modes of liability ‘may’ apply. Indeed, in the end he was convicted under Article 25(3)(d) for common purpose. Katanga Severance of Charges Decision 2012, para 7.
- 435.
- 436.
- 437.
- 438.
Swart 2008, p. 114.
- 439.
Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 4.
- 440.
Boas et al. 2007, p. 147.
- 441.
- 442.
Heller 2011a, p. 24.
- 443.
Report of the Secretary General on the ICTY 1993, para 54.
- 444.
de Vlaming 2010, p. 108.
- 445.
- 446.
Cited in de Vlaming 2010, p. 138. De Vlaming received this confidential document from a former employee of the ICTY, and has the document on file, however it is not publicly available.
- 447.
See e.g. ICC Office of the Prosecutor Policy Report 2003, p. 7: ‘The Office of the Prosecutor should focus its investigative and prosecutorial efforts and resources on those who bear the greatest responsibility, such as the leaders of the State or organisation allegedly responsible for those crimes.’; Kamara 2004, p. 13: ‘The SCSL was established for the sole purpose of prosecuting persons who bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international Humanitarian law’. See also Duch, Trial Judgment 2010 p. 56; van der Wilt 2010b.
- 448.
- 449.
- 450.
- 451.
Judge Fulford, Separate Opinion, Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, para 10.
- 452.
Shahabuddeen 2010, p. 186.
- 453.
Shahabuddeen 2010, pp. 197, 203.
- 454.
- 455.
Report of the Secretary General on the ICTY 1993, para 44.
- 456.
- 457.
Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 80.
- 458.
Darcy and Powderly 2010, p. 43.
- 459.
- 460.
- 461.
- 462.
- 463.
- 464.
- 465.
References
Additional Protocol I (1977) Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I)
Akhavan P (2005) The crime of genocide in ICTR jurisprudence. J Int Crim Justice 3:989
Ambos K (2005) La Parte Peneral del Derecho Penal Internacional: Bases para una elaboración dogmática. Fundación Konrad Adenauer, Montevideo
Ambos K (2007a) Enjuiciamento de crimenes internacionales en el nivel nacional e internacional: entre justicia y realpolitik. Politica Criminal 4:1
Ambos K (2007b) Joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility. J Int Crim Justice 5:159–183
Ambos K (2008a) Amicus Curiae concerning Criminal Case File No. 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/OCIJ (PTC 02)
Ambos K (2008b) Article 25. In: Trifterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, observers’ notes article by article. Beck Verlag, München
Ambos K (2009) Critical Issues in the Bemba Confirmation Decision. Leiden J Int Law 22(4):715–726
Anderson S (2013) English version: Murderers are being allowed to go free. http://www.bt.dk/udland/english-version-murderers-are-being-allowed-to-go-free
Ascensio H (2006) The French perspective. In: Reginbogin HR, Safferling CJM (eds) The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law since 1945. K.B. Saur, München
Badar ME (2006) Just convict everyone!-Joint perpetration: from Tadić to Stakić and back again. Int Crim Law Rev 6:292–302
Bassiouni MC (1999) Crimes against Humanity in International Criminal Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
Boas G, Bischoff JL, Reid NL (2007) Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law. International Criminal Law Practitioner Series, vol I. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Brown RM (2006a) The American perspective on Nuremberg: a case of cascading ironies. In: Reginbogin HR, Safferling CJM (eds) The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law since 1945. K.B. Saur, Munchen
Brown RM (2006b) The role of the Soviet Union in the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In: Reginbogin HR, Safferling CJM (eds) The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law since 1945. K.B. Saur, München
Brownlie I (1998) The rule of law in international affairs: International Law at the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague
Cassese A (2004) The ICTY: a living and vital reality. J Int Crim Justice 2:585–597
Cassese A (2007) The proper limits of individual responsibility under the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise. J Int Crim Justice 5:109
Cassese A (2008a) Amicus Curiae Brief of Professor Antonio Cassese and members of the Journal of International Criminal Justice on joint criminal enterprise, for Case File No. 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/OCIJ (ptc 02)
Cassese A (2008b) International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cesarani D (2006) The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg: British perspectives. In: Reginbogin HR, Safferling CJ (eds) The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law since 1945. K.G, Saur, Munchen, pp 31–37
Charter of the IMT (1945) Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
Coco A, Gal T (2013) Losing direction: the ICTY Appeals Chamber’s controversial approach to aiding and abetting in Perišić. J Int Crim Justice 12:345–366
Control Council Law No. 10 (1945) Allied Control Council Law No. 10
Cryer R (2001) The boundaries of liability in international criminal law, or ‘selectivity by stealth’. J Conflict Secur Law 6(1):3–31
Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2016) An introduction to international criminal law and procedure, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Cupido M (2015) Pluralism in theories of liability: joint criminal enterprise versus joint perpetration (forthcoming). In: van Sliedregt E (ed) Harmonization and pluralism in international criminal law. Oxford University Press
Damaška M (2004a) Negotiated justice in international criminal courts. J Int Crim Justice 2:1018
Damaška M (2004b) The uncertain self-identity of international criminal courts. http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/morris/6/
Danner AM (2006) When courts make law: how the international criminal tribunals recast the laws of war. Vanderbilt Law Rev 59:1–64
Danner AM, Martinez JS (2005) Guilty associations: joint criminal enterprise, command responsibility, and the development of international criminal law. Calif Law Rev 75–169
Darcy S, Powderly J (eds) (2010) Judicial creativity at the international criminal tribunals. Oxford University Press
de Guzman MM (2008) Article 21. In: Trifterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: observers’ notes, article by article, 2nd edn. Beck-Hart-Nomos, Munchen
de Vlaming F (2010) De Aanklager: Het Joegoslavië Tribunaal en de Selectie van Verdachten. Boom Juridische Uitgevers, The Hague
Del Ponte C (2004) Prosecuting the individuals bearing the highest level of responsibility. J Int Crim Justice 2:516
Del Ponte C (2006) Investigation and prosecution of large-scale crimes at the international level: the experience of the ICTY. J Int Crim Justice 4:549
Drumbl MA (2005) Collective violence and individual punishment: the criminality of mass atrocity. Northwest Univ, Law Rev, p 539
Eldar S (2012) Holding organized crime leaders accountable for the crimes of their subordinates. Crim Law Philos 1–19
Fletcher GP (2000) Rethinking criminal law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Fletcher GP (2002) The Storrs lectures: liberals and romantics at war; the problem of collective guilt. Yale Law J 111:1499–1573
Fletcher GP (2007) The grammar of criminal law: American, comparative and international, Vol One: Foundations. Oxford University Press, New York
Fletcher GP (2011) New court, old dogmatik. J Int Crim Justice 9:179–190
Fletcher GP, Ohlin JD (2005) Reclaiming fundamental principles of criminal law in the Darfur case. JICJ 3:539–561
Fourth Hague Convention (1907) Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land
Genocide Convention (1948) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Ginsburgs G (1990) The Nuremberg Trial: background. In: Ginsburgs G, Kudriavtsev V (eds) The Nuremberg Trial and international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, p 1
Haan V (2005) The development of the concept of joint criminal enterprise at the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Int Crim Law Rev 5:167–201
Haffajee RL (2006) Prosecuting crimes of rape and sexual violence at the ICTR: the application of joint criminal enterprise theory. Harvard J Law Gender 201–221:167–201
Heller KJ (2011a) The Nuremberg Tribunals and the origins of International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Heller KJ (2011b) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In: Heller KJ, Dubber MD (eds) The handbook of comparative criminal law. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 593–634
Henckaerts JM, Doswald-Beck L (2005) International Committee of the Red Cross’s study of Customary International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
ICC Office of the Prosecutor Policy Report (2003) Paper on some policy issues before the Office of the Prosecutor. http://icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/structure/office_of_the_prosecutor/policies_and_strategies/Pages/paper_on_some_policy_issues_before_the_office_of_the_prosecutor.aspx
ICC Working Paper (1997) Working Paper submitted by Canada, Germany, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom
ILC (1950) Principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal
ILC Draft Code of Crimes (1996) Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind. http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Ybkvolumes(e)/ILC_1996_v2_p2_e.pdf
Inter-Allied Resolution on German War Crimes (1942) Resolution on German War Crimes signed by representatives of nine occupied countries. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/420112a.html
Interlocutory Decision on Applicable Law (2011) Interlocutory decision on the applicable law: terrorism, conspiracy, homicide, perpetration, cumulative charging. http://www.stl-tsl.org/x/file/TheRegistry/Library/CaseFiles/chambers/20110216_STL-11-01_R176bis_F0010_AC_Interlocutory_Decision_Filed_EN.pdf
International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2005) Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary General, pursuant to Resolution 1564. http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/WPS%20%202005%2060.pdf
Jain N (2012) The control theory of perpetration in international criminal law. Chicago J Int Law 12:159
Jenks C (2013) Prosecutor versus Perišić. Am J Int Law 107:622
Jessberger F, Geneuss J (2008) On the application of a theory of indirect perpetration in Al Bashir. J Int Crim Justice 6:853–869
Kudriavtsev V (1990) The Nuremberg Trial and problems of strengthening the international legal order. In: Ginsburgs G, Kudriavtsev V (eds) The Nuremberg Trial and international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht
Laffan D (2016) Supreme Court abolishes ‘wrong turn’ joint enterprise law. https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2016/02/18/supreme-court-abolishes-wrong-turn-joint-enterprise-law-diarmaid-laffan/
Lafontaine F (2012) Prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Canadian Courts. Carswell, Thomson Reuters, Toronto
Lieber Code (1863) Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field
Maogoto JN (2004) War crimes and realpolitik. Lynne Reiner Publishers, London
Mégret F (2010) Beyond fairness: understanding the determinants of international criminal procedure. UCLA J Int Foreign Aff 14:37
Mettreaux G (2008) The law of command responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Moscow Declaration (1943) Declaration Concerning Atrocities. http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/moscwdecl.htm
MPC (1962) Model Penal Code
Ohlin JD (2007) Three conceptual problems with the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise. J Int Crim Justice 5:69–90
Ohlin JD (2009) Attempt, conspiracy, and incitement to commit genocide. Cornell Law Faculty Publications, pp 173–339
Ohlin JD (2012) Second order linking principles: combining vertical and horizontal modes of liability. Leiden J Int Law 25(3):771–797
Ohlin JD, van Sliedregt E, Weigend T (2013) Assessing the control theory. Leiden J Int Law 26(3):725–746
Olásolo H (2009) The criminal responsibility of senior political and military leaders as principals to international crimes. Hart, Portland, Oregon
Osiel M (2005) The banality of good: aligning incentives against mass atrocity. Columbia Law Rev 105:1751–1862
Osiel M (2009) Making sense of mass atrocity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
OTP Prosecutorial Strategy (2010) OTP Prosecutorial Strategy 2009–2012. http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/66A8DCDC-3650-4514-AA62-D229D1128F65/281506/OTPProsecutorialStrategy20092013.pdf
OTP Stategic Plan (2013) OTP Stategic Plan June 2012–2015. http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/structureofthecourt/officeoftheprosecutor/reportsandstatements/statement/Documents/OTPStrategicPlan.pdf
Pellet A (2002) Applicable law. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones MJR (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary, vol II. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Pomorski S (1990) Conspiracy and criminal organization. In: Ginsburgs G, Kudriavtsev V (eds) The Nuremberg Trial and international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht
Preparatory Commission Working Group on General Principles (1998) Committee of the Whole, ‘Working Group on General Principles of Criminal Law.’
Report of the Secretary General on the ICTY (1993) Report of the Secretary General pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993) on the ICTY
Rockwood LP (2007) Walking away from Nuremberg: Just war and the doctrine of command responsibility. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst
Röling BVA, Rüter CF (1977) The Tokyo Judgment: The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), 29 (April), 1946–12 (November 1948), vol 2. APA-University Press Amsterdam, Amsterdam
Roxin C (2005) Täterschaft und Tatherrschaft, 8th edn. De Gruyter Recht, Berlin
Ryan AA (2007) Nuremberg’s contribution to international law. Boston College Int Comp Law Rev 30 (Winter 2007):55
Schabas W (2001) Commentary on Prosecutor v Akayesu. In: Klip A, Sluiter G (eds) Annotated leading cases of international criminal tribunals, vol 2. Hart, Oxford/Munich
Schabas W (2008) Article 6 Genocide. In: Trifterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn. Hart, Oxford/Munich
Schabas W (2010) The International Criminal Court: A commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Schomburg W (2010) Jurisprudence on JCE–revisiting a never-ending story. http://www.cambodiatribunal.org/sites/default/files/resources/ctm_blog_6_1_2010.pdf
Semelin J (ed) (2007) Purify and destroy: the political uses of massacre and genocide. Hurst and Company, London
Shahabuddeen M (2010) Judicial creativity and joint criminal enterprise. In: Powderly J, Darcy S (eds) Judicial creativity at the international criminal tribunals. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Simpson G (2007) Law, War and Crime. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Smith BF (ed) (1981) The American road to Nuremberg: the documentary record 1944–1945. Hoover Press
Statute of the ECCC (2004) Law on the establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the prosecution of crimes committed during the period of Democratic Kampuchea
Statute of the ICC (1998) Statute of the International Criminal Court
Statute of the ICTY (1993) Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the Former Yugoslavia
Statute of the ICTY (1994) Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
Statute of the SCSL (2000) Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
Statute of the STL (2007) Statute of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon
Steer C (2011) Non-state actors in international criminal law. In: d’Aspremont J (ed) Participants in the international legal order: multiple perspectives on non-state actors in International Law. Routledge, London, p 96
Steer C (2012) What makes valid law? Shifting modes of responsibility in international criminal law. In: van Voorhout JC et al (eds) Shifting responsibilities in criminal justice: critical portrayals of the changing role and content of a fragmented globalizing law domain. Eleven International Publishing
Steer C (2013a) The Prosecutor v Delic: what are the limits of command responsibility? In: Klip A, Sluiter G (eds) Annotated leading cases of international criminal tribunals, vol XXXVII. Intersentia
Steer C (2013b) Ranking responsibility: why we should distinguish between participants in mass atrocity crimes. In: Dolmann M, Abels D (eds) Dialektiek in het Nationale en Internationale Strafrecht. Boom Juridische Uitgevers
Steer C (2015) Legal transplants or legal patchworking? The creation of international criminal law as a pluralistic body of law. In: van Sliedregt E (ed) Harmonization and Pluralism in International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press
Stewart J (2012) The end of ‘modes of liability’ for international crimes. Leiden J Int Law 25(1):165
Stewart J (2013) “Specific direction” is unprecedented: results from two empirical studies. http://www.ejiltalk.org/specific-direction-is-unprecedented-results-from-two-empirical-studies/
Swart B (2008) Damaška and the faces of international criminal justice. J Int Crim Justice 6:87–114
Tallgren I (2002) The sensibility and sense of international criminal law. Eur J Int Law 13(3):561–595
Tokyo Charter (1946) Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East
UN Report on Nürnberg (1949) The Charter and Judgment of the Nürnberg Tribunal -history and analysis: Memorandum submitted by the Secretary-General. Topic: Formulation of the Nürnberg Principles
UN Report on the ICTR (1994) Report of the Secretary General pursuant to Paragraph 5 of Security Council Resolution 955 (1994) on the ICTR
van der Wilt H (2007) Joint criminal enterprise, possibilities and limitations. J Int Crim Justice 5:91–108
van der Wilt H (2009) The continuous quest for proper modes of criminal responsibility. J Int Crim Justice 7(2):307–314
van der Wilt H (2010a) A valiant champion of equity and humaneness: the legacy of Bert Röling for international criminal law. J Int Crim Justice 8:1127
van der Wilt H (2010b) Why international criminal lawyers should read Mirjan Damaška. In: Stahn C, van den Herik L (eds) Future Perspectives in international criminal justice. TMC Asser Press, The Hague
van der Wilt H (2014) The spider and the system: Milošević and joint criminal enterprise. In: Waters T (ed) The Milošević trial: an autopsy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
van Sliedregt E (2012a) Individual criminal responsibility in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
van Sliedregt E (2012b) Pluralism in international criminal law. Leiden J Int Law 25
Weigend T (2008) Intent, mistake of law, and co-perpetration in the Lubanga Decision on Confirmation of Charges. J Int Crim Justice, 471–487
Weigend T (2011) Perpetration through an organization: the unexpected career of a German legal doctrine. J Int Crim Justice 9:91–111
Werle G, Burghardt B (2011) Indirect perpetration: a perfect fit for international prosecution of armchair killers? Foreword. J Int Crim Justice 9:85–89
Werle G, Jessberger F (2014) Principles of International Criminal Law, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press
Woetzel RK (1960) The Nuremberg Trials in international law. Stevens and Sons Ltd., London
Yamashita (1945) Trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita
Zahar A, Sluiter G (2008) International Criminal Law: a critical introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Zoller E, Reshetov I (1990) International criminal responsibility of individuals for international crimes. In: Ginsburgs G, Kudriavtsev VN (eds) The Nuremberg Trial and international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 99–120
Cases
Akayesu (1998) The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Trial Judgment, ICTR-96-4-T
Al Bashir Application for Warrant of Arrest (2008) Public redacted version of Prosecutor’s application for warrant of arrest under art. 58, ICC-02/05-157
Al Bashir Decision on Arrest Warrant (2009) The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, second decision on the Prosecution’s application for a warrant of arrest 02/05- 01/09
Almelo Trial (1945) Trial of Otto Sandrock and three others, British Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals 1 UNWCC 35
Banda Decision on Charges Corrigendum (2011) The Prosecutor v. Banda and Jerbo, corrigendum of the decision on the confirmation of charges ICC02/05-03/09-121-Conf-Corr
Bemba, Decision Adjourning the Hearing (2009) The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, decision adjourning the hearing pursuant to article 61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute ICC-01/05-01/08-388
Bemba Decision on Charges (2009) The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, decision on the confirmation of charges ICC-01/05-01/08
Bemba Judgment (2016) The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, judgment ICC-01/05-01/08
Blaškić Appeal (2004) The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Appeal Judgment IT-95-14-A
Blaškić Trial (2000) The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Trial Judgment IT-95-14/1-T
Blé Goudé and Gbagbo Joinder Decision (2015) Decision on prosecution requests to join the cases of the Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and the Prosecutor v. Charles Blé Goudé and related matters ICC-02/11-01/11 and ICC-02/11-02/11
Blé Goudé, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges (2014) The Prosecutor v. Charles Blé Goudé, decision on the confirmation of charges ICC-02/11-02/11
Brđanin Appeal Judgment (2007) The Prosecutor v. Brđanin and Talić, Appeal Judgment IT-99-36
Brđanin Decision on Amended Indictment (2001) Decision on form of further amended indictment and prosecution application to amend, Brđanin and Talić IT-99-36
Case 002, Pre-Trial Decision on JCE (2010) Ieng Thirith, Ieng Sary and Kheiu Samphan, decision on the appeals against the co-investigating judges’ order on joint criminal enterprise 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/TC
Case 002, Trial Decision on JCE (2011) Nuon Chea, Ieng Thirith, Ieng Sary and Kheiu Samphan, decision on the application of joint criminal enterprise 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/TC
Case 002/01, Judgment (2014) Nuon Chea, Ieng Thirith, Ieng Sary and Kheiu Samphan, judgment IT-96-21-A
Čelebići Appeal Judgment (2001) The Prosecutor v. Mucić et al, Appeal Judgment
Dachau Case (1945) The Dachau Concentration Camp Trial, Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss and thirty-nine others, XVI Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No 10 5. General Military Government Court of the United States Zone, Germany
Decision on Disqualification of Judge Frederik Harhoff (2013) The Prosecutor v. Vojislav Šešelj, decision on defence motion for disqualification of Judge Frederik Harhoff and report to the vice-president, IT-03-67-T
Delić Trial Judgment (2008) The Prosecutor v. Rasim Delić, Trial Judgment IT-04-83-T
Duch, Appeal Judgment (2012) Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch, Appeal Judgment 001/18-07-2007/ECCC/SC
Duch, Trial Judgment (2010) Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch, Trial Judgment 001/18-07-2007/ECCC/TC
Einsatzgruppen Case (1951) The United States of America v. Otto Ohlendorf et al, 4 Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No 10 3 (Military Tribunal of the United States at Nuremberg, Military Tribunal IV)
Farben (1952) United States v. Krauch et al, 8 Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No 10 (Military Tribunal of the United States at Nuremberg, Military Tribunal IV)
Furundžija (1998) The Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Trial Judgment IT-95-17/1-T
Gacumbitsi Appeal (2006) The Prosecutor v. Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, Appeal Judgment ICTR-2001-64-A
Gacumbitsi Appeal, Schomburg Separate Opinion (2006) The Prosecutor v. Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, Appeal Judgment, separate opinion of Judge Schomburg ICTR-2001-64-A
Gbagbo, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges (2014) The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, decision on the confirmation of charges ICC-02/11-01/11
Hadžihasanović Appeal Judgment (2008) The Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanović, Appeal Judgment IT-01-47-A
Halilović Appeal Judgment (2007) The Prosecutor v. Halilović, Appeal Judgment IT-01-48
Hamdan (2006) Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006) (Supreme Court of the United States)
Hamdan v Rumsfeld Amicus Brief (2006-01-06) Amicus Curiae brief of specialists in conspiracy and international law in support of petitioner (conspiracy not a triable offence), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006) 548 U.S. 557
High Command Case (1948) USA v. Wilhelm von Leeb et al, Military Tribunal of the United States at Nuremberg
Hoelzer (1946) Hoelzer et al, D2474 RCAF Binder 181.009 (Canadian Military Court)
Hostages Case (1948) USA v. Wilhelm List et al, Military Tribunal of the United States at Nuremberg
Iang Sary, Motion to Disqualify Cassese (2007) Iang Sary’s motion to disqualify Professor Antonio Cassese and selected members of the board of editors and editorial committee of the Journal of International Criminal Justice from submitting a written amicus curiae brief on the issue of joint criminal enterprise, D99/3118-ECCC/PTC
Jepsen (1946) Trial of Jepsen and others, Proceedings of a War Crimes Tribunal at Luneberg, Germany
Justice Case (1947) United States v. Josef Altstoetter et al Military Tribunal of the United States at Nuremberg
Kambanda (1998) The Prosecutor v. Jean Kambanda ICTR-97-23
Kamuhanda (2004) The Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Trial Judgment ICTR-95-54A-T
Karemera (2012) The Prosecutor v. Édouard Karemera and Matthieu Ngirumpatse, Trial Judgment ICTR-98-44-I
Katanga Confirmation of Charges (2008) The Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, decision on the confirmation of charges ICC-01/04-01/07
Katanga Sentencing Judgment (2014) The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, décision relatief a la peine ICC-01/04-01/07
Katanga Severance of Charges Decision (2012) The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the regulations of the court and severing the charges against the accused persons ICC-01/04-01/07
Katanga Trial Judgment (2014) The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Trial Judgment ICC-01/04-01/07
Katanga Warrant of Arrest Decision (2007) The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, decision on the evidence and information provided by the prosecution for the issuance of a warrant of arrest ICC-01/04-02/07
Kayishema (1999) The Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Trial Judgment ICTR-95-1
Kordić Trial Judgment (2001) The Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Trial Judgment IT-95-14/T-2
Krnojelac Appeal Judgment (2003) The Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Appeal Judgment IT-97-25-A
Krstić Appeal Judgment (2004) The Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Appeal Judgment IT-98-33-A
Krstić Trial Judgment (2001) The Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić Trial Judgment IT-98-33
Krulewitch (1949) Krulewitch v. United States 366 US 440
Krupp (1948) United States v. Alfried Krupp et al, Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No 10 (Military Tribunal of the United States at Nuremberg)
Kvočka Trial Judgment (2001) The Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvočka et al, Trial Judgment IT-98-30-1/T
Lubanga Confirmation of Charges (2007) Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, decision on the confirmation of charges ICC-01/01-01/06-803
Lubanga Decision Regarding Witness Proofing (2007) Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, decision regarding the practices used to prepare and familiarise witnesses for giving testimony at trial ICC-01/01-01/06
Lubanga Trial Judgment (2012) Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo ICC-01/01-01/06
Medical case (1946) United States v. Karl Brandt et al, II Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No 10 (Military Tribunal of the United States at Nuremberg)
Milosević Indictment (2004) The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosević, second amended indictment, ‘Croatia’ IT-02- 54
Milutinović (2009) The Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović, Judgment IT-05-87
Ministries case (1949) United States v. Ernst von Weizaecker et al, II Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No 10 (Military Tribunal of the United States at Nuremberg)
Musema (2000) The Prosecutor v. Alfred Musema, Trial Judgment ICTR-96-13
Muthaura Confirmation of Charges (2012) Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura and Uhru Muigai Kenyatta, decision on the confirmation of charges ICC-01/09-02/11
Nahimana (2003) The Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze, Trial Judgment ICTR-99-52-T
Ndindabahizi (2004) The Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi, Trial Judgment ICTR-2001-74
Ngudjolo Judgment on Appeal (2015) Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, judgment on the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Trial Chamber II entitled ‘Judgment Pursuant to article 74 of the Statute’ ICC-01/04-02/12A
Ngudjolo Trial Judgment (2012) Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui ICC-01/04-02/12
Ngudjolo Warrant of Arrest Decision (2007) Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, decision on the evidence and information provided by the prosecution for the issuance of a warrant of arrest ICC-01/04-02/07
Ntakirutimana Appeal (2004) The Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Appeals Judgment ICTR-96-10-A
Nuremberg Judgment (1945) Judgment of the International Military Tribunal. Am J f Int L 51:172–333
Nzirorera Decision (2006) Joseph Nzirorera et al v. the Prosecutor, decision on jurisdictional appeals: joint criminal enterprise
Ojdanić Decision on Indirect Co-perpetration (2006) The Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović and Dragoljub Ojdanić, decision on Dragoljub Ojdanić’s motion challenging jurisdiction—indirect co-perpetration IT-05-87-PT
Ojdanić Decision on JCE (2003) The Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović and Dragoljub Ojdanić, decision on Dragoljub Ojdanić’s motion challenging jurisdiction—joint criminal enterprise IT-99-37-AR72
Ongwen Confirmation of Charges (2016) Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, decision on confirmation of charges, ICC-02/04-01/15
Orić Trial Judgment (2006) The Prosecutor v. Naser Orić, Trial Judgment IT-03-68-T
Perišić Appeal Judgment (2013) The Prosecutor v. Momčilo Perišić, Appeal Judgment IT-04-81-A
Perišić Trial Judgment (2011) The Prosecutor v. Momčilo Perišić, Trial Judgment IT-04-81-T
Pinkerton (1946) Pinkerton v. United States 328 US 640 (Supreme Court of the United States)
Pohl (1947) USA v. Pohl et al, Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No 10 (Military Tribunal of the United States at Nuremberg)
Ponzano case (1946) The Trial of Feurstein and others, Proceedings of a War Crimes Tribunal at Hamburg
R. v Jogee and Ruddock (2016) R. v Jogee and Ruddock 2016 UKSC 8
Rašević, First Instance Verdict (2008) Prosecutor v. Mitar Rašević and Savo Todović IT-98-32-A
Rohde (1946) Trial of Werne Rohde and eight others, V Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No 10 56 (British Military Court at Wuppertal)
RUF Case, Appeal (2009) The Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Appeal Judgment SCSL-04-15-A
Ruto Confirmation of Charges (2012) Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, decision on the confirmation of charges pursuant to article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute ICC-01/09-01/11
Ruto Prosecution Submission on Co-Perpetration (2012) Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, Prosecution’s submissions on the law of indirect co-perpetration under article 25(3)(a) of the Statute ICC-01/09-01/11
Rwamakuba Decision on JCE (2004) The Prosecutor v. Rwamakuba, decision on interlocutory appeal regarding application of joint criminal enterprise to the crime of genocide ICTR-98-44-AR72.4
Sainović Appeal Judgment (2014) Prosecutor v. Nikola Sainović, Nebojsa Pavkovic, Vladimir Lazarevic and Sreten Lukic, Appeals Judgment IT-05-87-A
Schonfeld (1946) Trial of Franz Schonfeld and others, XI UN War Crimes Commission 68 (British Military Court at Essen)
Semanza (2003) The Prosecutor v. Semanza, Trial Judgment ICTR-97-20-T
Seromba Appeal (2008) The Prosecutor v. Athanase Seromba, Appeal Judgment ICTR-2001-66-A
Šešelj Judgment (2016) The Prosecutor v. Vojislav Šešelj, Judgment IT-03-67-T
Šešelj Judgment, Concurring Opinion of Judge Antonetti (2016) The Prosecutor v. Vojislav Šešelj, concurring opinion of presiding judge Jean-Claude Antonetti attached to the Judgment IT-03-67-T
Simba (2005) The Prosecutor v. Aloys Simba, Trial Judgment ICTR-01-76-T
Simić Trial Judgment (2002) The Prosecutor v. Milan Simić, Trial Judgment IT-95-9/2
Simone Gbagbo Arrest Warrant (2012) Prosecutor v. Simone Gbagbo, warrant of arrest ICC-02/11-01/12
Stakić Appeals Judgment (2006) The Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Appeals Judgment IT-97-24-A
Stakić Trial Judgment (2003) The Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Trial Judgment IT-97-24-T
Tadić Appeals Judgment (1999) The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, Appeals Judgment IT-94-1-A
Taylor Appeals Judgment (2013) The Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, Appeal Judgment SCSL-03-01-A
Taylor Indictment (2003) The Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, indictment SCSL-03-01-PT
Taylor Judgment (2012) The Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor SCSL-03-01-T
Taylor Sentencing Judgment (2012) The Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, sentencing judgment SCSL-03-01-T
Vasiljević Appeal (2004) The Prosecutor v. Mitar Vasiljević, Appeals Judgment IT-98-32-A
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Steer, C. (2017). Shifting Trends in International Tribunals. In: Translating Guilt. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 9. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-171-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-171-5_8
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-170-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-171-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)
