Book contents
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Biographies
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Cross-Cutting Issues
- Part I Individual Commission
- Part II Joint Commission
- Part III Participation
- Part IV Participating in Group Activities
- Part V Inchoate and Preparatory Acts
- Part VI Other Forms of Responsibility
- Part VII Concluding Observations
- Index
- References
Part I - Individual Commission
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2019
Book contents
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Biographies
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Cross-Cutting Issues
- Part I Individual Commission
- Part II Joint Commission
- Part III Participation
- Part IV Participating in Group Activities
- Part V Inchoate and Preparatory Acts
- Part VI Other Forms of Responsibility
- Part VII Concluding Observations
- Index
- References
Summary
Commission is a well-established form of liability in ICL.In the Tadić Appeal Judgment,the ICTY confirmed that commissionis first and foremost ‘the physical perpetration … by the offender himself’.Additionally, multiple other forms of commission exist, some of which do not necessarily require that a perpetrator commit a physical offence directly.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law , pp. 15 - 82Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Select Bibliography
Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law – Volume 1: Foundations and General Part (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Eser, A., ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Cassese, A., Gaeta, P. and Jones, J.R.W.D., The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), Vol. I, 767.Google Scholar
Giustiniani, F.S., ‘Stretching the Boundaries of Commission Liability: The ICTR Appeals Judgment in Seromba’, 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2009), 783.Google Scholar
Jain, N., Perpetrators and Accessories in International Criminal Law: Individual Modes of Responsibility for Collective Crimes (Oxford: Hart, 2014).Google Scholar
Schabas, W., The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
van Sliedregt, E., Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Werle, G., ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility in Article 25 ICC Statute’, 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2007), 953.Google Scholar
Select Bibliography
Ambos, K., La parte general del derecho penal internacional: bases para una elaboración dogmática (Berlin: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 2006).Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Trasfondos políticos y jurídicos de la de la sentencia contra el ex Presidente Peruano Alberto Fujimori’, in Ambos, K. and Meini, I. (eds.), La Autoría Mediata (Lima: Ara Editores, 2010).Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Sobre la organización en el “dominio de la organización”, 3 InDret (2011) 1.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law – Volume 1: Foundations and General Part (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Article 25: Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Triffterer, O. and Ambos, K. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (3rd edn, Munich: C.H. Beck, 2016).Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Ius Puniendi and Individual Criminal Liability in International Criminal Law’, in Mulgrew, R. and Abels, D., Research Handbook on the International Penal System (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., ‘The Elasticity of Mens Rea’, in Tapper, C. (ed.), Crime, Proof and Punishment: Essays in Memory of Sir Rupert Cross (London: Butterworths, 1981).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. and Horder, J., Principles of Criminal Law (7th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badar, M.E., The Concept of Mens Rea in International Criminal Law: The Case for a Unified Approach (Oxford: Hart, 2013).Google Scholar
Brammsen, J. and Apel, S., ‘Anstiftung oder Täterschaft? “Organisationsherrschaft” in Wirtschaftsunternehmen’, 3 Zeitschrift für das Juristische Studium (2008), 256.Google Scholar
Burchard, C., ‘Business Contributions to Corporate-political Core Crimes’, 8 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2010), 919.Google Scholar
Chalmers, J. and Leverick, F., ‘Fair Labelling in Criminal Law’, 71 Modern Law Review (2008), 217.Google Scholar
Farrel, N., ‘Attributing Criminal Liability to Corporate Actors’, 8 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2010), 873.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
Fife, R.E., ‘Article 77: Penalties’, in Triffterer, O. (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (2nd edn, Munich: C.H. Beck, 2008).Google Scholar
Gil Gil, A., ‘La autoría mediata por aparatos jerarquizados de poder en la jurisprudencia española’, 61 Anuario de Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales (2008).Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, D., ‘Responsibility for Collective Atrocities: Fair Labelling and Approaches to Commission in International Criminal Law’, 64 Current Legal Problems (2011), 255.Google Scholar
Herzberg, R.D., ‘La sentencia-Fujimori sobre la intervención del superior en los crímenes de su aparato de poder’, in Ambos, K. and Meini, I. (eds.), La Autoría Mediata (Lima: Ara Editores, 2010).Google Scholar
Jackson, M., Complicity in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M., ‘The Attribution of Responsibility and Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law’, 29 Leiden Journal of International Law (2016), 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T., Tratado de Derecho Penal: Parte General (5th edn, Granada: Comares, 2003).Google Scholar
Jiménez Martínez, C., ‘Dominio del hecho y autoría mediata en aparatos organizados de poder’ (Doctoral thesis, Madrid: UNED, 2015).Google Scholar
Kindhäuser, U., ‘Infracción de deber y autoría – Una crítica a la teoría del dominio del hecho’, 14 Revista de Estudios de la Justicia (2011).Google Scholar
Kiss, A., ‘La contribución en la comisión de un crimen por un grupo de personas en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Penal Internacional’, 2 InDret (2013).Google Scholar
Kiss, A., ‘Delito de lesión y delito de peligro concreto: ¿qué es lo ‘adelantado’?’, 1 InDret (2015).Google Scholar
Kiss, A., ‘La responsabilidad penal del superior ante la Corte Penal Internacional’, 1 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik (2016), 40.Google Scholar
Meini, I., ‘El dominio de la organización de Fujimori’, in Ambos, K. and Meini, I. (eds.), La Autoría Mediata (Lima: Ara Editores, 2010).Google Scholar
Muñoz Conde, F., ‘Die mittelbare Täterschaft kraft organisatorischer Machtapparate als instrument der juristischen Aufarbeitung der Vergagenheit’, in Zöller, M.A., Hilger, H., Küper, W. and Roxin, C., Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft in internationaler Dimension: Festschrift für Jürgen Wolter zum 70. Geburtstag am 7 September 2013 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2013).Google Scholar
Nersessian, D.L., ‘Comparative Approaches to Punishing Hate: The Intersection of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity’, 43 Stanford Journal of International Law (2007).Google Scholar
Ohlin, J., ‘Joint Intentions to Commit International Crimes’, 11 Chicago Journal of International Law (2011), 693.Google Scholar
Ohlin, J., van Sliedregt, E. and Weigend, T., ‘Assessing the Control-Theory’, 26 Leiden Journal of International Law (2013), 725.Google Scholar
Olásolo Alonso, H., Tratado de autoría y participación en derecho penal internacional (Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, 2013).Google Scholar
Ordizola-Gurrutxaga, M., ‘Responsabilidad penal por crímenes internacionales y coautoría mediata’, 17–13 Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología (2015), 1.Google Scholar
Robinson, D., ‘LJIL Symposium: Darryl Robinson comments on James Stewart’s “End of Modes of Liability”’, Opinio Juris, 21 March 2012.Google Scholar
Rotsch, T.., ‘Einheitstäterschaft’ statt Tatherrschaft: Zur Abkehr von einem differenzierenden Beteiligungsformensystem in einer normativ-funktionalen Straftatlehre (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘El dominio de organización como forma independiente de autoría mediata’, 7 Revista de Estudios de la Justicia (2006).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘Organisationsherrschaft und Tatentschlossenheit’, 7 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik (2006), 293.Google Scholar
Roxin, C., Täterschaft und Tatherrschaft (8th edn, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 242–252, 704–717.Google Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘Apuntes sobre la Sentencia – Fujimori de la Corte Suprema de Perú’, in Ambos, K. and Meini, I. (eds.), La Autoría Mediata (Lima: Ara Editores, 2010).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., ‘Crimes as Part of Organized Power Structures’, 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2011) 193–205, translated by Werle, G. and Burghardt, B. (original German text C. Roxin, ‘Straftaten Im Rahmen Organisatorischer Machtapparate’, Goltdammer’s Archiv Für Strafrecht (1963) 193, at 193–207).Google Scholar
Schabas, W., The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).Google Scholar
Schroeder, F.-C., Der Täter hinter dem Täter: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der mittelbaren Täterschaft (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1965).Google Scholar
Stewart, J., ‘The End of “Modes of Liability” for International Crimes’, 25 Leiden Journal of International Law (2012), 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urban, C., Mittelbare Täterschaft kraft Organisationsherrschaft (Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2004).Google Scholar
van Sliedregt, E., Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 80.Google Scholar
van Sliedregt, E., ‘The Curious Case of International Criminal Liability’, 10 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2012) 1171.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Intent, Mistake of Law, and Co-perpetration in the Lubanga Decision on Confirmation of Charges’, 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2008), 471.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Perpetration through an Organization: The Unexpected Career of a German Legal Concept’, 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2011), 91.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘LJIL Sympusium: Thomas Weigend Comments on James Stewart’s “The End of ‘Modes of Liability’ for International Crimes”’, Opinio Juris, 22 March 2012.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Indirect Perpetation’, in Stahn, C. (ed.), The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Werle, G. and Burghardt, B., ‘Indirect Perpetration: A Perfect Fit for International Prosecution of Armchair Killers?’, 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2011), 85.Google Scholar
Werle, G. and Jeßberger, F., Principles of International Criminal Law (3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Wirth, S., ‘Co-perpetration in the Lubanga Trial Judgment’, 10 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2012), 971.Google Scholar
Select Bibliography
Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law – Volume I: Foundations and General Part (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Article 25’, in Triffterer, O. and Ambos, K., Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (3rd edn, Munich: Beck, 2016), 979–1029.Google Scholar
Berster, L., ‘“Duty to Act” and “Commission by Omission” in International Criminal Law’, 10 International Criminal Law Review (2010), 619–646.Google Scholar
Boas, G., ‘Omission Liability at the International Criminal Tribunals – A Case for Reform’, in Darcy, S. and Powderly, J. (eds.), Judicial Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 204–226.Google Scholar
Cryer, R., ‘General Principles of Liability’ in McGoldrick, D., Rowe, P. and Donnelly, E. (eds.), The Permanent International Criminal Court: Legal and Policy Issues (Oxford: Hart, 2004), 233–262.Google Scholar
Duttwiler, M., ‘Liability for Omission in International Criminal Law’, 6 International Criminal Law Review (2006), 1–61.Google Scholar
Gosnell, C., ‘Damned if You Don’t: Liability for Omissions in International Criminal Law’ in Schabas, W., McDermott, Y. and Hayes, N. (eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to International Criminal Law: Critical Perspectives (Farnham; Ashgate, 2013), 101–131.Google Scholar
Ingle, J., ‘Aiding and Abetting by Omission before the International Criminal Tribunals’, 14 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2016), 747–769.Google Scholar
Jessberger, F., ‘Omission’, in Cassese, A. (ed.), The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 445–447.Google Scholar
Noto, F., Secondary Liability in International Criminal Law (Zürich/St-Gallen: Dike, 2013), 191–198.Google Scholar
van Sliedregt, E., Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Werle, G. and Jessberger, F., Principles of International Criminal Law (3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press), 266–270.Google Scholar
Zappalà, S., ‘Les crimes d’omission’, in Ascensio, H., Decaux, E. and Pellet, A. (eds.), Droit international pénal (2nd edn Paris: Pedone, 2012), 517–528.Google Scholar