Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T22:56:25.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Purpose-based or knowledge-based intention for collective wrongdoing in international criminal law?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2014

Kirsten J. Fisher
Kirsten J. Fisher*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa, Human Rights Research and Education Centre, Faculty of Law, Ottawa ON, Canada. Email: [email protected]
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Due to the distinct nature of international crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity originating out of and contributing to the pervasive collective character of mass atrocity, the appropriate mens rea for individual commission of these crimes is difficult to pin down. The mens rea for these international crimes has been deliberated, disputed and inconsistently applied, leaving what it means for individuals to intend to commit crimes of mass atrocity mired in confusion. This paper explores the meaning of intentional commission of collective crime, and demonstrates that from both philosophical and legal perspectives, acting intentionally in the context of mass atrocity can be interpreted in different ways, resulting in a condition of international criminal law which is at risk of unpredictability and expressive uncertainty. The paper endorses purpose-based, rather than knowledge-based, intent as the appropriate standard in the context of international crimes by arguing that mere knowledge of outcomes is insufficient.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 163 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blum, Carolyn Patty, Magarrell, Lisa and Wierda, Marieke (2009) Criminal Justice for Criminal Policy: Prosecuting Abuses of Detainees in U.S. Counter-terrorism Operations. ICTJ Policy Paper, New York: International Center for Transitional Justice, online: <http://ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-USA-Criminal-Justice-2009-English.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Chinapen, Rhiana and Vernon, Richard (2006) ‘Justice in Transition’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 39: 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cryer, Robert, Friman, Hakan, Robinson, Darryl and Wilmshurst, Elizabeth (eds) (2007) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drumbl, Mark (2007) Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, Kirsten J. (2010) ‘Identifying Liability: Ambiguous Charges in International Criminal Law’, Finnish Yearbook of International Law XIX: 343–371.Google Scholar
Fisher, Kirsten J. (2012) Moral Accountability and International Criminal Law: Holding Agents of Atrocity Accountable to the World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harbour, Frances V. (2003) ‘Collective Moral Agency and the Political Process’, in Erskine, Toni (ed.), Can Institutions Have Responsibilities? New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, Kevin Jon (2012) ‘Lubanga Decision Roundtable: More on Co-Perpetration’, Opinio Juris (16 March 16), online: <http://opiniojuris.org/2012/03/16/lubanga-decision-roundtable-more-on-co-perpetration/>..>Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell (1881) The Common Law. Boston: Little Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Isaacs, Tracy (2006) ‘Individual Responsibility for Collective Wrongs’, in Harrington, Joanna, Milde, Michael and Vernon, Richard (eds), Bringing Power to Justice? Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 167–190.Google Scholar
Jung, David J. and Levine, David I. (1986) ‘Whence Knowledge Intent? Whither Knowledge Intent?’, UCDavis Law Review 20: 551–589.Google Scholar
Lewis, H. D. (1948) ‘Collective Responsibility’, Philosophy 23: 3–18.Google Scholar
May, Larry (2005) Crimes Against Humanity: A Normative Account. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
May, Larry (2007) War Crimes and Just War. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
May, Larry and Hoskins, Zachary (eds) (2010) International Criminal Law and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ohlin, Jens David (2009) ‘Attempt to Commit Genocide’, in Gaeta, Paola (ed.), The UN Genocide Convention: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 173–185.Google Scholar
Ohlin, Jens David (2012) ‘Lubanga and the Control Theory’, LieberCode (15 March), online : <http://www.liebercode.org/2012/03/lubanga-and-control-theory.html>..>Google Scholar
Sautenet, Vincent (2004) ‘Le Tribunal Pénal International Pour L'ex Yougoslavie (T.P.I.Y.)’, Revue Québécoise de Doit International 17(1): 255–280.Google Scholar
Sloane, Robert D. (2007) ‘The Expressive Capacity of International Punishment: The Limits of the National Law Analogy and the Potential of International Criminal Law’, Stanford Journal of International Law 43: 39–94.Google Scholar
Stanton, Gregory H. (2004) ‘Could the Rwandan Genocide have been Prevented?’, Journal of Genocide Research 6: 211–228.Google Scholar
Wald, Patricia M. (2003) ‘General Radislav Krstic: A War Crimes Case Study’, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics (Spring), online: <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200304/ai_n9221307/?tag=content;col1>..>Google Scholar
Weigend, Thomas (2008) ‘Intent, Mistake of Law, and Co-perpetration in the Lubanga Decision on Confirmation of Charges’, Journal of International Criminal Justice 6: 471–487.Google Scholar
Zaid, Mark S. (1997) ‘Trial of the Century? Assessing the Case of Dusko Tadic Before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 3: 589–596.Google Scholar