Top

Published in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

5. Applying the Tools

Author : Cassandra Steer

Published in: Translating Guilt

Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The process of legal patchworking (drawing on multiple domestic criminal law notions as a direct source of ICL) is a dynamic process involving judges, practitioner lawyers and scholars. However this patchworking process has rarely taken place with attention to methodology, rather it has been arbitrary, depending upon which participants are most influential in a given forum, and what their preference is for specific domestic systems of liability. What has emerged is a lack of clarity and a clash of legal cultures, undermining both the predictability required for defendants as well as the consistency required for a stable and functioning body of criminal law. In this chapter comparative law tools are offered as a method for understanding the process, and for undertaking an analysis of the different domestic modes of liability from which international tribunals draw. A consistent comparative method can help temper the arbitrariness and clash of legal cultures. In this chapter the terminology applied throughout the comparative study in Part II is also laid out, including formalism, complicity, unitary and differentiated systems, objectivity and subjectivity, guilt and responsibility.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter A Comparative Theory of International Criminal Law

next chapter Subjectivity Reflected in the Common Law Tradition

To be clear, what is meant by methodology here is the analysis of the principles or processes of the enquiry as a whole, and what is meant by method is the procedures or techniques employed to answer the specific question posed. So here the methodology is the framework for understanding ICL as comparative law in action, and the methods are the specific comparative tools engaged, to be described further in this chapter. For further discussion of this distinction, see Maxwell 2008, pp. 222, 233.

Örücü 2006, p. 451; Oderkerk 2001, p. 310.

Zweigert and Kötz 1998, p. 34; Örücü 2006, p. 443.

Örücü 2006, p. 34.

Zweigert and Kötz 1998, p. 34.

Michaels 2006, p. 346.

Lempert 2008, p. 398.

Michaels 2006, p. 348.

Michaels 2006, p. 351.

Michaels 2006, p. 357; Örücü 2006, p. 443.

Zweigert and Kötz 1998, p. 38.

van der Wilt 2008, p. 254.

Michaels 2006, p. 342; Oderkerk 2001, p. 310.

See the discussions in Chap. 8.

Oderkerk 2001, p. 313.

Oderkerk 2001, p. 317.

Oderkerk 2001, p. 317, citing U. Drobnig, in E. von Caemmerer et. al. (Jus Privatum Gentium, 1969), p. 222.

The scope of this book is restricted to a comparison between common law and civil law traditions, because these two traditions inform the development of international criminal law. A comparison with notions of liability in Islamic law, or traditions such as Chinese law, or indigenous traditions in countries where such mass atrocities have taken place would offer an enriching understanding of leadership responsibility, criminal liability, and guilt. However this goes beyond the scope of this study.

See Sect. 7.4.

See Sect. 6.5.3.

Lafontaine 2012, pp. 23, 31, 32.

With respect to language as a limitation, I used my background in Dutch and undertook a course in reading German in order to access the necessary materials, since English translations of the core materials were limited or unavailable. Many German doctrinal materials have been translated into Spanish for the benefit of Argentine and other Latin American jurisdictions heavily influenced by the German tradition. For this reason, studies were also undertaken to improve my level of Spanish in order to access these materials as well as original Argentine case law and materials. Wherever translations of original materials are my own this has been noted in the footnotes. Native speakers have been consulted on the final text, however any errors remain my responsibility.

Örücü 2006, p. 41.

Watson 1974; Zweigert and Kötz 1998, p. 64.

Zweigert and Kötz 1998, p. 65.

Ziller 2006, p. 607.

Zweigert and Kötz 1998, p. 65.

See the full discussion in Sect. 4.1. See further Glenn 2006, p. 439; Glenn 2010.

Örücü 2006, p. 447.

Pradel 2002, p. 41.

Pradel 2002, p. 42.

Fletcher 2007, p. 291.

Dubber 2007; Stewart 2014.

Fletcher 2000, p. 637; Smith 1991, p. 2; Stewart 2014, p. 1.

Principle I refers to ‘any person who commits (an international crime) is responsible and therefore liable to punishment’, and Principle VII refers to complicity; ILC 1950, p. 1144.

Convention Against Torture 1984, Article 4.

Vogel 2002b, p. 410; Vogel 2002a, p. 152, where he uses the term ‘monistic’; Stewart 2014, p. 8.

Vogel 2002a, p. 152; Pradel 2002, p. 274; Olásolo 2009, p. 18, where he discusses the roots of this theory in the work of D. Kienapfel, ‘Der Einheitstäter im Strafrecht’, 1971.

Stewart 2014, p. 8.

Some jurisdictions maintain this unitary model with respect to specific crimes, such as Austria, Brazil, Denmark and Germany. See e.g. van Sliedregt 2012, p. 66.

Vogel 2002a, p. 159.

Vogel 2002a, p. 153.

Vogel 2002a, p. 152.

van Sliedregt 2012, p. 66; Vogel 2002a, p. 152.

van Sliedregt 2012, p. 71; Vogel 2002a, p. 155.

van Sliedregt 2012, p. 72.

van Sliedregt 2012, p. 70; Stewart describes this as a third, weak or soft type of unitary system, Stewart 2014, p. 9.

Stewart 2014, p. 5.

For a full discussion of the rationale of this type of liability, and the impact of being ‘charged with the crime proper’, see the comparisons made in Chap. 6. See further Smith 1991, p. 5; van Sliedregt 2012, p. 71, citing John Gardner, ’Aid, Abet, Counsel, Procure: An English View of Complicity’, in: A. Eser et. al. ‘Einzelverantwortung und Mitverantwortung im Strafrecht: Individual, Participatory and Collective Responsibility in Criminal Law’, Freiburg, 1998 at p. 227.

This will be described in full in Chap. 6.

18 U.S.C., § 2.

See for example the English Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 (24 and 25 Vict. c. 98) (UK) s. 8; Stewart 2012, p. 9.

van Sliedregt 2012, p. 72; Vogel 2002a, p. 154.

Vogel 2002a, p. 155.

Vogel 2002a, p. 159.

van Sliedregt 2012, p. 72.

§ 25(1), 25(2) and 26 Strafgesetzbuch apply to principals, § 49(2) determines that the sentence for an accessory shall be three quarters of the maximum sentence applicable for a principal. The actual sentence handed down must be in reference to the actual sentence given to a principal. See Sect. 7.3 for a full discussion of the German approach to liability.

Smith 1991, p. 5.

van Sliedregt 2012, p. 72; Vogel 2002a, p. 155.

Fletcher 2000, p. 637; Stewart 2014, p. 5.

Smith 1991, p. 1; Fletcher 2000, p. 637.

Dubber 2007, p. 979; Stewart 2014, p. 1.

Blackstone Commentaries, cited in Kadish et al. 2007, p. 590; van Sliedregt 2012, p. 113.

Garner 2009, p. 18, under ‘accomplice’.

See Chap. 6.

Smith 1991, p. 94.

Sancinetti 1997, p 59.

Welzel 1970, p. 164; Bohlander 2009, p. 168; Sancinetti 1997, p. 60, citing Jakobs.

Sancinetti 1997, p. 59.

See for instance conspiratorial liability in the US, discussed in Sect. 6.3.

In this the present author does not agree with the definition given by Marcus Dubber that the physical perpetrator’s act is by definition imputed to an accomplice as his own: this is one systemic approach that is not universal. See Dubber 2007, p. 978.

van Sliedregt 2012, p. 35.

See for example Trial Chamber II at the ICTY, which argued that the distinction between principal and accessory—meaning secondary—liability was unnecessary to make, since no such distinction is made when it comes to sentencing. It also criticised judges in fellow Trial Chamber I in Kvočka for distinguishing between principal and accomplice—meaning secondary—in a normative sense. It further adopted the language of co-perpetrator but defined this is a non-principal participant, Krnojelac Appeal Judgment 2003, paras 75, 77.

This echoes the definition given by Fletcher that an accessory is someone who is held ‘derivatively liable for another’s committing the offence.’, Fletcher 2000, p. 637. Although it should be noted that he goes on to specify that this includes instigators as well as aiders and abettors. That specificity is avoided here, due to the fact that there are some systems in which accessorial liability does not apply in the theoretical sense, but rather vicarious liability in its place.

See for example Olásolo 2009, p. 17.

See Sect. 7.3.

See Sect. 4.2.

Smith 1991, p. 6; Criminal Code 1985, s. 21(1).

Ronaldo Tamayo Salmorán, Responsabilidad (in: Diccionario Jurídico Mexicano, vol. 8, Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM, 1983), p. 44. Cited in Salazar and Urquiaga 2010, p. 73.

Duff 2007, pp. 20–21.

Duff 2007, p. 23.

Duff 2007, p. 47.

Duff 2007, p. 230.

Ambos 2005, p. 74; Salazar and Urquiaga 2010, p. 74.

Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 954.

Damaška 1984, p. 95.

Fletcher 2007, p. 302.

Damaška 1984, p. 95.

Fletcher 2007, p. 302.

Milsom 2003, p. 9.

Welzel 1970, p. 95; Ambos 2006, p. 2652. For a more detailed discussion of this, see Sect. 7.4.

Fletcher 2007, p. 307.

Duff 2007, p. 265.

Duff 2007, p. 79.

Duff 2007, p. 57.

Duff 2007, p. 81; Fletcher 2007, p. 29.

Fletcher 2007, p. 37.

Fletcher 2007, p. 307.

100

Fletcher 2007, p. 28.

101

Fletcher 2007, p. 319.

102

Fletcher 2007, p. 132.

103

Hart 1970, p. 35.

104

Hart 1970, pp. 36, 39.

105

Hart 1970, p. 169, citing Justice James Fitzjames Stephens.

106

Kadish 1980, p. 10. See further Sect. 6.3.

107

Jescheck 2004, p. 44.

108

Fletcher 2000, p. 398; Bohlander 2009, p. 13; Krey 2002, p. 97; Vormbaum and Bohlander 2014, p. 132; Nino 1980, p. 418 and further; Bacigalupo 1994, p. 184. See further Sect. 7.2.

109

Jescheck 2004, p. 44.

110

See the discussion in Sect. 6.4 on Canada’s move towards this understanding, based on the constitutional concern for protection of the morally innocent.

111

See for example the statement by the IMT that ‘criminal guilt is personal’, Nuremberg Judgment 1945, p. 251; Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 186; Jescheck 2004, p. 44.

112

Manacorda 2009, p. 288.

113

Fletcher 2000, p. 117.

114

Fletcher 2000, p. 119.

115

Fletcher 2000, p. 166; State v Wilson 1981, p. 119.

116

For a full discussion see Chap. 6.

117

See further Sect. 7.5.

118

Damaška 1984, p. 168; Fletcher 2000, p. 171.

119

As decided and discussed in Staschynski 1962, para 134.

120

Weigend 2011, p. 95.

121

Stratenwerth 2005, p. 369.

122

Fletcher 2000, p. 504.

123

Fletcher 2000, p. 506.

124

Fletcher 2000, pp. 459, 491.

125

Fletcher 2000, p. 506.

126

See for instance the judicial debates in Canada on this point in Sect. 6.4. See also the debates between the international tribunals in Sect. 8.11.4.

127

Fletcher 2000, p. 505.

128

Fletcher 2000, p. 510; Fletcher 2007, p. 319.

Ambos K (2005) La Parte Peneral del Derecho Penal Internacional: Bases para una elaboración dogmática. Fundación Konrad Adenauer, Montevideo

Ambos K (2006) Toward a universal system of crime: comments on George Fletcher’s grammar of criminal law. Cardozo Law Rev 28:2647–2673

Bacigalupo E (1994) Manual de Derecho Penal: parte general, segundo edn. Editorial Temis SA, Santa Fé

Bohlander M (2009) Principles of German criminal law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

Convention against Torture (1984) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Damaška M (1984) The faces of justice and state authority: a comparative approach to the legal process. Yale University Press, New Haven

Dubber MD (2007) Criminalizing complicity: a comparative analysis. J Int Crim justice 5:977–1001CrossRef

Duff RA (2007) Answering for crime: responsibility and liability in the criminal law. Hart Publishing

Fletcher GP (2000) Rethinking criminal law. Oxford University Press, USA

Fletcher GP (2007) The grammar of criminal law: American, comparative and international, Vol. One: Foundations. Oxford University Press, New York

Garner BA (ed) (2009) Black’s law dictionary, 9th edn. Thomas and Reuters, Minnesota

Glenn HP (2006) Comparative legal families and comparative legal traditions. In: Zimmermann R, Reimann M (eds) Oxford handbook of comparative law, Oxford University Press, pp 421–440

Glenn HP (2010) Legal traditions of the world: sustainable diversity in law, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, USACrossRef

Hart HLA (1970) Punishment and responsibility: essays in the philosophy of law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press

ILC (1950) Principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the tribunal

Jescheck HH (2004) The general principles of international criminal law set out in Nuremberg, as mirrored in the ICC Statute. J Int Crim Justice 2:38–55

Kadish SH (1980) Why substantive criminal law? A dialogue. Clevel St Law Rev 29:1

Kadish SH, Schulhofer SJ, Paulsen MG (2007) Criminal law and its processes: cases and materials, 8th edn. Aspen Publishers, New York

Krey V (2002) Deutsches Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil: Lehrbuch in Deutsch und Englisch. W Kohlhammer, Stuttgart

Lafontaine F (2012) Prosecuting genocide. Crimes against humanity and war crimes in Canadian courts. Carswell, Thomson Reuters, Toronto

Lempert R (2008) Anglo-American and continental systems: marsupials and mammals of the law. In: Jackson J, Langer M, Tillers P (eds) Crime, procedure and evidence in a comparative and international context. Hart Pubishers, Portland, Oregon

Manacorda S (2009) Culpability. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford companion to international criminal justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Maxwell JA (2008) Designing a qualitative study. The Sage handbook of applied social research methods, pp 214–253

Michaels R (2006) The functional method of comparative law. In: Reimann M, Zimmerman R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Milsom SFC (2003) A natural history of the common law. Columbia University Press, New YorkCrossRef

Nino C (1980) Los Limites de la Responsibilidad Penal. Editorial Astrea

Nuremberg Judgment (1945) Judgment of the International Military Tribunal

Oderkerk M (2001) The importance of context: selecting legal systems in comparative legal research. Netherlands Int Law Rev XLVIII:293–219

Olásolo H (2009) The criminal responsibility of senior political and military leaders as principals to international crimes. Hart, Portland

Örücü E (2006) Methodology of comparative law. In: Smit J (ed) Elgar encyclopedia of comparative law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA, pp 422–454

Pradel J (2002) Droit penal comparé. Dalloz, Paris

Salazar K, Urquiaga XM (2010) Digest of Latin American jurisprudence on international crimes. Due Process of Law Foundation, Washington

Sancinetti MA (1997) Ilícito personal y participación. Ad Hoc, Buenos Aires

Smith (1991) Complicity. Oxford University Press

Stewart J (2012) The end of ‘modes of liability’ for international crimes. Leiden J Int Law 25(1):165CrossRef

Stewart J (2014) Complicty. In: Dubber M, Hörnle T (eds) Oxford criminal law handbook. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Stratenwerth G (2005) Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil I: Der Straftat (Translated as: Derecho Penal, Parte General I: El hecho punible). Hammurabi, Buenos Aires

van der Wilt H (2008) Equal standards? On the dialectics between national jurisdictions and the International Criminal Court. Int Crim Law Rev 1(2):229–272

van Sliedregt E (2012) Individual criminal responsibility in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Vogel J (2002a) How to determine individual criminal responsibility systemic contexts: twelve models. Cahiers de Défense Social, pp 151–169

Vogel J (2002b) Individuelle verantwortlichkeit im völkerstrafrecht. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 114(2):403–436

Vormbaum T, Bohlander M (eds) (2014) A modern history of German criminal law. Springer, Heidelberg

Watson A (1974) Legal transplants: an approach to comparative law. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh/London

Weigend T (2011) Perpetration through an organization: the unexpected career of a German legal doctrine. J Int Crim Justice 9:91–111

Welzel H (1970) Das Deutsche Strafrecht (Translated as Derecho Penal Aleman: Parte General). Editorial Juridica de Chile, Santiago

Werle G, Jessberger F (2014) Principles of international criminal law, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press

Ziller J (2006) Public law. In: Smits J (ed) Elgar encyclopedia of comparative law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA

Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Krnojelac Appeal Judgment (2003) The Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Appeal Judgment, IT-97-25-A

Staschynski (1962) Staschynski, 9 Bundesgerichtshof Strafkamer, StE 4/62

State v. Wilson (1981) 95 Wash 2d 828 (Supreme Court of Washington)

Tadić Appeals Judgment (1999) The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, Appeals Judgment, IT-94-1-A

Title: Applying the Tools
Author: Cassandra Steer
Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press
Book: Translating Guilt
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-170-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-6265-171-5

Copyright Year: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-171-5_5