nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

8. Shifting Trends in International Tribunals

verfasst von : Cassandra Steer

Erschienen in: Translating Guilt

Verlag: T.M.C. Asser Press

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

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.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Objectivity Reflected in the Civil Law Tradition

Nächstes Kapitel Applying a Comparative Theory: Beyond Legal Transplants, Toward Legal Patchworking

Darcy and Powderly 2010, p. xxxvi.

Danner 2006, p. 4.

Cassese 2008b, p. 377; Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 37; Mégret 2010, p. 43.

Stewart 2012; van Sliedregt 2012b; Steer 2011, 2015.

Tallgren 2002, p. 567.

Fletcher 2011, p. 179.

Steer 2015, p. 35.

Cassese 2008b, p. 18.

Schabas 2010, p. 423.

ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, Article 2(3).

ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, para 11.

ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, para 6.

ICC Working Paper 1997.

Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 25.

Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 136; Boas et al. 2007, p. 300; Fletcher 2007, p. 324; Schabas 2010, p. 291.

Closing statement, Nuremberg Judgment 1945.

Zoller and Reshetov 1990, p. 117.

See e.g. Ascensio 2006; Brown 2006a, b; Cesarani 2006.

Ginsburgs 1990, p. 23.

Ryan 2007, p. 59.

Lafontaine 2012, p. 29.

Cesarani 2006, p. 34.

Telford Taylor, ‘An Approach to the Preparation of the Prosecution of Axis Criminality’, (June, 1945), cited in Ryan 2007, p. 70.

Cesarani 2006, p. 37.

Ambos 2007a.

See e.g. Lafontaine 2012, p. 29.

Ryan 2007, p. 61.

Inter-Allied Resolution on German War Crimes 1942.

Moscow Declaration 1943.

See Ginsburgs 1990, p. 11, citing the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs.

Ginsburgs 1990, p. 13.

Colonel Murray C. Bernays, G-1, Subject: Trial of European War Criminals (Sept. 15, 1944), in Smith 1981, p. 33.

Ryan 2007, p. 62.

Heller 2011a, p. 9.

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.

Pomorski 1990, p. 217.

Woetzel 1960, p. 208.

Nuremberg Judgment 1945, para 299. See also Woetzel 1960, p. 209.

Pomorski 1990, p. 219.

Ryan 2007, p. 73.

Memorandum for the Attorney General, December 29 1944, cited in Smith 1981, pp. 86–87.

Justice Jackson concurring, Krulewitch 1949, pp. 446.

Kudriavtsev 1990, p. 4.

Heller 2011a, p. 275.

Charter of the IMT 1945, Article 6, (Emphasis added).

Pomorski 1990, p. 227.

Nuremberg Judgment 1945, para 40; Woetzel 1960, p. 209.

Nuremberg Judgment 1945, para 44.

UN Report on Nürnberg 1949, p. 84.

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.

Simpson 2007, p. 15.

Cryer et al. 2016, p. 305; Cryer 2001, p. 20.

UN Report on Nürnberg 1949, p. 84.

For a full discussion on Pinkerton see Sect. 8.5 above; Pinkerton 1946.

Bassiouni 1999, p. 211; Maogoto 2004, p. 103.

Control Council Law No. 10 1945, Article II(2).

Heller 2011a, p. 252.

Farben 1952, para 1141.

Telford Taylor’s Third Trial Program, page 4. Cited in Heller 2011a, p. 251.

Farben 1952, para 1299; Heller 2011a, p. 186.

Krupp 1948, para 1448.

Medical case 1946, para 10; Farben 1952, para 59; Heller 2011a, p. 276.

Heller 2011a, p. 276.

See for example Justice Case 1947, para 235; High Command Case 1948, para 483; Heller 2011a, p. 280.

ILC 1950, Principle VI.

Genocide Convention 1948, Article 3.

Boas et al. 2007, p. 282; Ohlin 2009, p. 187; Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 228.

Schabas 2010, p. 438.

Statute of the ICTY 1993, Article 4(3)(b); Statute of the ICTY 1994, Article 2(3)(b); Statute of the ECCC 2004, Article 4; Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 228.

Akayesu 1998; Ohlin 2009, p. 186.

Musema 2000; Cassese 2008b, p. 228; Ohlin 2009, p. 192.

ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, Article 3.

ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, p. 99.

Schabas 2010, p. 423.

Schabas 2010, p. 438.

Preparatory Commission Working Group on General Principles 1998; Ohlin 2009, p. 199.

Hamdan v Rumsfeld Amicus Brief 2006-01-06, p. 12.

See e.g. Hamdan 2006; Cassese 2008b, p. 227.

Ambos 2005, p. 296; Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 187.

For a discussion on the debate surrounding command responsibility as a mode of liability or as a crime of omission, see Steer 2013a.

High Command Case 1948, p. 543.

See e.g. Medical case 1946, p. 207, however it should be noted that the only source cited for the status of command responsibility in international law was the Yamashita case, to be discussed below. Heller 2011a, p. 263.

Krnojelac Appeal Judgment 2003, para 171.

Partial Dissenting Opinon of Judge Shahabuddeen, Hadžihasanović Appeal Judgment 2008, para 32.

Declaration of Judge Shuhabadeen, Orić Trial Judgment 2006, para 15.

Halilović Appeal Judgment 2007, para 54; see also Cryer et al. 2016, p. 329.

Orić Trial Judgment 2006, para 293.

Halilović Appeal Judgment 2007, para 54; Hadžihasanović Appeal Judgment 2008, para 75; Olásolo 2009, p. 106; Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 188.

Mettreaux 2008, p. 40; Boas et al. 2007, p. 144.

Bemba Judgment 2016, paras 171, 174.

van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 197.

Rockwood 2007, p. 20; Boas et al. 2007, p. 145.

Rockwood 2007, p. 28.

De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1615), cited in van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 184.

Lieber Code 1863.

Fourth Hague Convention 1907.

Boas et al. 2007, p. 147.

As cited by the ICTY in Čelebići Appeal Judgment 2001, para 335; Boas et al. 2007, p. 147.

100

Pohl 1947; High Command Case 1948; Hostages Case 1948.

101

Mettreaux 2008, p. 5.

102

van der Wilt 2010a, p. 1134; Cassese 2008b, p. 239.

103

Yamashita 1945, p. 522.

104

van der Wilt 2010a, p. 1134.

105

Rockwood 2007, pp. 120–126.

106

Mettreaux 2008, p. 9.

107

Additional Protocol I 1977, Article 6 and 87; Cryer et al. 2016, p. 321.

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

Čelebići Appeal Judgment 2001, para 346. These elements have been repeated in cases such as Blaškić Appeal 2004 and Delić Trial Judgment 2008, para 56.

112

Steer 2013a.

113

Čelebići Appeal Judgment 2001, para 265, citing some jurisprudence from the ICTR. See also van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 207.

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

Bassiouni 1999, p. 211; Maogoto 2004, p. 103.

125

Kambanda 1998; Karemera 2012; Kayishema 1999.

126

Cryer et al. 2016, p. 312; van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 105.

127

Osiel 2005, p. 1798.

128

Stakić Trial Judgment 2003, para 445; Blaškić Trial 2000, para 278; Akayesu 1998, para 468.

129

Charter of the IMT 1945, Article 6(a); Tokyo Charter 1946, Article 5(a).

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

Brđanin Decision on Amended Indictment 2001, para 43; Kordić Trial Judgment 2001, para 367.

137

Schabas 2010, p. 423.

138

Statute of the ICTY 1993, Article 7(1); Statute of the ICTY 1994, Article 6(1); Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 125; Cryer et al. 2016, p. 314; van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 107.

139

Schabas 2001, p. 432; van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 108.

140

See e.g. Genocide Convention 1948, Article 3(c); Statute of the ICC 1998, Article 25(3)(e); Akayesu 1998, para 482; Boas et al. 2007, p. 346. But compare Cryer et al. 2016, p. 315.

141

Blaškić Trial 2000, para 280; Kordić Trial Judgment 2001, para 27.

142

Cryer et al. 2016, p. 314.

143

Orić Trial Judgment 2006, para 271.

144

Kvočka Trial Judgment 2001, para 390.

145

Kordić Trial Judgment 2001, para 27; Gacumbitsi Appeal 2006, para 129; Ndindabahizi 2004, para 463.

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

Cryer et al. 2016, p. 312; van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 105.

149

ILC Draft Code of Crimes 1996, Article 2(8).

150

Blaškić Trial 2000, para 474.

151

Kamuhanda 2004, para 75; Kordić Trial Judgment 2001, para 28; Cryer et al. 2016, p. 313; Olásolo 2009, p. 136.

152

Gacumbitsi Appeal 2006, para 182; Cryer et al. 2016, p. 313; van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 106.

153

Blaškić Trial 2000, para 601. This has been confirmed by the ICTR in Akayesu 1998, para 483.

154

Blaškić Appeal 2004, para 42.

155

Ambos 2008b, p. 480.

156

van Sliedregt 2012a, pp. 108–109.

157

Cryer et al. 2016, p. 315; Olásolo 2009, p. 142.

158

Schabas 2001, p. 431; van Sliedregt 2012a, pp. 102, 109.

159

Ambos 2008b, p. 491.

160

Statute of the ICTY 1993, Article 7(1); Statute of the ICTY 1994, Article 6(1); Statute of the STL 2007, Article 6(1); Cryer et al. 2016, p. 314.

161

Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 518.

162

Olásolo 2009, p. 142, citing Del Ponte 2006.

163

Werle and Jessberger 2014, pp. 181–182.

164

Milutinović 2009, para 87; Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 182.

165

Charter of the IMT 1945, Article 5; Tokyo Charter 1946, Article 4.

166

Furundžija 1998, para 194.

167

Almelo Trial 1945; Rohde 1946; Schonfeld 1946.

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

van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 112. For a fuller discussion on the old common law modes of liability, and the reasons they were eradicated in the legislation of modern jurisdictions which follow the common law tradition, see Chap. 6.

173

Statute of the ICTY 1993, Article 4(3)(b) and (e); Statute of the ICTY 1994, Article 2(3)(b) and (e).

174

Statute of the ICTY 1993, Article 7; Statute of the ICTY 1994, Article 6.

175

Akayesu 1998, paras 538, 548; Krstić Appeal Judgment 2004, para 139.

176

Semanza 2003, para 394; Stakić Trial Judgment 2003, para 531.

177

van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 123; Boas et al. 2007, p. 300, citing Chili Eboe-Osuji.

178

Boas et al. 2007, p. 300; Schabas 2008, p. 291; Akhavan 2005, p. 994.

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

For excellent discussions of JCE, including its development and debates regarding the required subjective and objective elements, see e.g. Fletcher and Ohlin 2005; Haan 2005; Haffajee 2006; Ambos 2007b; Ohlin 2007; van der Wilt 2007; Zahar and Sluiter 2008; Olásolo 2009; van Sliedregt 2012a.

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

Einsatzgruppen Case 1951, cited in Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 200.

209

Schonfeld 1946, cited in Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 198.

210

Ponzano case 1946, cited in Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 199.

211

Jepsen 1946, cited in Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 198.

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

See e.g. Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 94; Danner and Martinez 2005, p. 112.

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

See e.g. Vasiljević Appeal 2004; Stakić Trial Judgment 2003, para 246.

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

Badar 2006; Danner and Martinez 2005; Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 233; Ambos 2007b, p. 169; van der Wilt 2007, p. 99; Ohlin 2007, p. 79; Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 176.

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

Haan 2005, p. 167; Fletcher and Ohlin 2005, p. 550.

241

Rašević, First Instance Verdict 2008.

242

Rašević, First Instance Verdict 2008, para 103.

243

Rašević, First Instance Verdict 2008, para 104.

244

See e.g. Kayishema 1999; Nzirorera Decision 2006, para 15; Karemera 2012, para 1435.

245

See e.g. Rwamakuba Decision on JCE 2004, para 31; Ntakirutimana Appeal 2004, paras 461–462; Simba 2005, para 385.

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

Taylor Indictment 2003, para 34. In the amended indictment changes were made to the structure but not the essence of the charges, maintaining the language of JCE I and III, and charging these as an alternative mode of liability, Boas et al. 2007, p. 130.

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

For example Cassese 2008b, 2004, p. 592.

265

Hamdan v Rumsfeld Amicus Brief 2006-01-06, para 19.

266

Duch, Trial Judgment 2010, para 511; Case 002, Pre-Trial Decision on JCE 2010, paras 69, 77, 88; Case 002, Trail Decision on JCE 2011, para 22.

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

Fletcher 2000, p. 659; van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 96.

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

See generally Olásolo 2009; van Sliedregt 2012a, pp. 97, 101; Ambos 2005, p. 176; Cupido 2015, p. 22.

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

Seromba Appeal 2008, para 161; Gacumbitsi Appeal 2006, citing para 60.

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

Ambos 2008b, p. 479; Schabas 2010, p. 428.

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

See e.g. Fletcher 2002, 2000, p. 553, 2011; Schomburg 2010; Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 176.

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

Al Bashir Decision on Arrest Warrant 2009, para 326, emphasis added.. This was cited with approval in Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 520.

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

Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012, para 516; Katanga Trial Judgment 2014, para 1412: ‘seules les personnes qui contrôlent, effectivement et sans interférence possible, une partie au moins d’un appareil de pouvoir peuvent présider à l’exécution d‘une activité criminelle’.

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

Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 535. See also Ambos 2009, p. 21; Weigend 2008, p. 485.

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

Schabas 2010, p. 428; Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 488; Al Bashir Decision on Arrest Warrant 2009, para 210.

342

For the full text of Article 25 of the Rome Statute, see the appendix A.6.

343

See e.g. MPC 1962, §2.06, where vicarious liability results from the conduct of another person ‘for whom the accused is legally accountable’, such as causing an innocent person to commit a crime; Fletcher 2000, p. 639.

344

Ambos 2008b, pp. 479–480; Werle and Burghardt 2011, p. 86; Steer 2013b, p. 177.

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

Gacumbitsi Appeal, Schomburg Separate Opinion 2006, paras 18–21. The cases cited are discussed in detail in Chap. 7.

349

Gacumbitsi Appeal, Schomburg Separate Opinion 2006, para 21.

350

Lubanga Confirmation of Charges 2007, para 339; Werle and Burghardt 2011, p. 86.

351

Lubanga Decision Regarding Witness Proofing 2007, para 342; Ngudjolo Warrant of Arrest Decision 2007, para 55; Katanga Warrant of Arrest Decision 2007, para 54.

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

Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, paras 498, 501; reiterated in Katanga Trial Judgment 2014, para 1403.

357

Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, paras 515–517; confirmed in Katanga Trial Judgment 2014, para 1403.

358

Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 518.

359

Katanga Trial Judgment 2014, para 1408.

360

Semelin 2007; van der Wilt 2014; Drumbl 2005; Tallgren 2002.

361

van der Wilt 2009, p. 311; Weigend 2011, p. 107; Osiel 2009, p. 99.

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

Weigend 2011, p. 105; Jain 2012, p. 186.

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

Danner and Martinez 2005, p. 150; Ohlin 2007, p. 86; van der Wilt 2007, p. 100.

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

Muthaura Confirmation of Charges 2012; Ruto Confirmation of Charges 2012.

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

Jessberger and Geneuss 2008, 866; van der Wilt 2009, p. 314; Werle and Burghardt 2011, p. 88; Ohlin et al. 2013, p. 8.

384

Werle and Burghardt 2011, p. 88.

385

Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 484.

386

Separate Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012, para 52; Ohlin 2012, p. 785.

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

Gbagbo, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges 2014, para 230; Blé Goudé, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges 2014, para 135.

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

Ruto Prosecution Submission on Co-Perpetration 2012, para 11; citing Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, para 1001.

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

Blé Goudé, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges 2014, para 136, emphasis added. This was repeated in Ongwen Confirmation of Charges 2016, para 39.

402

Ohlin 2012, p. 785.

403

Ohlin 2012, p. 779.

404

Weigend 2011, p. 111; van der Wilt 2009, p. 312; Ohlin 2012, p. 781.

405

van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 169; Separate Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012, para 61.

406

Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 490; Ruto Confirmation of Charges 2012, paras 286–290; Ongwen Confirmation of Charges 2016, para 41.

407

Krnojelac Appeal Judgment 2003, para 84.

408

Ambos 2008a, para I.4, in which Professor Ambos argues that only JCE I can be properly considered to be grounded in customary law, and then because it resembles co-perpetration as recognised in domestic criminal law jurisdictions; Ohlin 2007, p. 77; van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 139.

409

Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, para 220.

410

Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, paras 192, 229.

411

See e.g. Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999; Vasiljević Appeal 2004; Kvočka Trial Judgment 2001; Krnojelac Appeal Judgment 2003.

412

See e.g. Krstić Trial Judgment 2001; Stakić Trial Judgment 2003; Simić Trial Judgment 2002.

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

Ohlin et al. 2013, p. 22; Schabas 2010, p. 423.

431

Ruto Confirmation of Charges 2012, para 292; Muthaura Confirmation of Charges 2012, para 296; Banda Decision on Charges Corrigendum 2011, para 126; Bemba Decision on Charges 2009, para 348.

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

Pellet 2002, p. 1059; de Guzman 2008, p. 705; Heller 2011b, p. 598.

436

ICC Working Paper 1997; Schabas 2010, p. 423.

437

Damaška 2004a, b; van der Wilt 2010b, p. 45.

438

Swart 2008, p. 114.

439

Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 4.

440

Boas et al. 2007, p. 147.

441

Ryan 2007, p. 62; Heller 2011a, p. 15.

442

Heller 2011a, p. 24.

443

Report of the Secretary General on the ICTY 1993, para 54.

444

de Vlaming 2010, p. 108.

445

Del Ponte 2004, p. 516. See also statements made by Del Ponte’s predecessors Richard Goldstone and Louise Arbour, cited in de Vlaming 2010, pp. 120, 137, 154.

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

Statute of the ECCC 2004, Article 1; Duch, Trial Judgment 2010, para 2.

449

Duch, Trial Judgment 2010, para 20. Affirmed in Duch, Appeal Judgment 2012.

450

OTP Prosecutorial Strategy 2010, para 19; OTP Stategic Plan 2013, p. 13.

451

Judge Fulford, Separate Opinion, Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, para 10.

452

Shahabuddeen 2010, p. 186.

453

Shahabuddeen 2010, pp. 197, 203.

454

Many delegations were explicit in their insistence that the new tribunal should not create any new law, and that the Statute itself should do nothing more than reflect existing norms of IHL. See Darcy and Powderly 2010, p. 24; Danner 2006, p. 22.

455

Report of the Secretary General on the ICTY 1993, para 44.

456

UN Report on the ICTR 1994, cited in Darcy and Powderly 2010, p. 24.

457

Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 80.

458

Darcy and Powderly 2010, p. 43.

459

van Sliedregt 2012a, p. 96; Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 137.

460

Separate opinion of Judge Lindholm, Simić Trial Judgment 2002, para 2; Ambos 2007b; van der Wilt 2007; Schomburg 2010.

461

Judge Fulford, Separate Opinion, Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, para 9; Separate Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert (who hails from a civil law background, but whose dissent is in line with the subjective approach), Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012, para 27; Stewart 2012, p. 207.

462

Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 137; Steer 2015.

463

Separate Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Ngudjolo Trial Judgment 2012, para 13; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, Blé Goudé, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges 2014, para 6.

464

See e.g. Vasiljević Appeal 2004; Stakić Trial Judgment 2003, para 246.

465

Lubanga Confirmation of Charges 2007, para 330; Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, paras 997–999; Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, para 484; Werle and Burghardt 2011, p. 86.

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 3:989CrossRef

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 4:1CrossRef

Ambos K (2007b) Joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility. J Int Crim Justice 5:159–183CrossRef

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):715–726CrossRef

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 2:585–597CrossRef

Cassese A (2007) The proper limits of individual responsibility under the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise. J Int Crim Justice 5:109CrossRef

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 12:345–366CrossRef

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):3–31CrossRef

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 2:1018CrossRef

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 9:179–190CrossRef

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 5:167–201CrossRef

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, OxfordCrossRef

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 107:622CrossRef

Jessberger F, Geneuss J (2008) On the application of a theory of indirect perpetration in Al Bashir. J Int Crim Justice 6:853–869CrossRef

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 5:69–90CrossRef

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):771–797CrossRef

Ohlin JD, van Sliedregt E, Weigend T (2013) Assessing the control theory. Leiden J Int Law 26(3):725–746CrossRef

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, CambridgeCrossRef

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, OxfordCrossRef

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):165CrossRef

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 6:87–114CrossRef

Tallgren I (2002) The sensibility and sense of international criminal law. Eur J Int Law 13(3):561–595CrossRef

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 5:91–108CrossRef

van der Wilt H (2009) The continuous quest for proper modes of criminal responsibility. J Int Crim Justice 7(2):307–314CrossRef

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 8:1127CrossRef

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, OxfordCrossRef

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 9:91–111CrossRef

Werle G, Burghardt B (2011) Indirect perpetration: a perfect fit for international prosecution of armchair killers? Foreword. J Int Crim Justice 9:85–89CrossRef

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

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

Titel: Shifting Trends in International Tribunals
verfasst von: Cassandra Steer
Verlag: T.M.C. Asser Press
Buch: Translating Guilt
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-170-8

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

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-171-5_8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner