The Evolution and Scope of Command Responsibility

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 139-170

  Lippman, Matthew ^a  

^a LLM Northwestern   (United States)

Author keywords

command responsibility; International Criminal Court; war crimes

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547874959     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156500000108     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Rome Statute of the Intemational Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF,183/9 (1998), 37 ILM 999, at 1017, Art. 28 (1998) [hereinafter Rome Statute]
2. See generally L.C. Green, Command Responsibility in International Humanitarian Law, 5 Trans-nat'l L, & Contemp, Probs. 319 (1995)
3. See W. G. Eckhardt, Command Criminal Responsibility: A Plea for a Workable Standard, 97 Milit, L.Rev. 1, at 4-11 (1982).
4. See Comment, Command Responsibility for War Crimes, 82 The Yale L.J. 274, 1278-1287 (1973).
5. Commission on the Responsibility on the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, (29 March 1919), 14 AJIL 95, at 107 (1920).
6. Id. atm.
7. Memorandum of Reservations Presented by the Representatives of the United States to the Report of the Commission on Responsibilities, id, at 143-144.
8. J. F. Willis, Prologue to Nuremberg the Politics and Diplomacy of Punishing War Criminals of the First World War 119-131 (1982).
9. See Judgement in the Case of Karl Heynen (26 May 1921), 16 AJIL 674 (1922)
10. See Judgement in the Case of Karl Heynen notes 5-13 and accompanying texts.
11. See In Re Yamashita, 327 US 1 (1945). See generally, A F. Reel, The Case of General Yamashita (1949).
12. General Headquarters United States Army Forces, Pacific Office of the Theater Judge Advocate, Review of the Record of Trial of a Military Commission of Tomoyuki Yamashita, General Japanese Army, reproduced in C. Whitney, The Case of General Yamashita: A Memorandum 60, at 69 (1950) [hereinafter Military Commission].
13. US 15.
14. Convention (No. IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, with Annex of Regulations (18 October 1907), 36 Stat. 2277, TS No. 539, Art, I quoted in id.
15. Id
16. Id, at 26,28 (ludge Frank Murphy, Dissenting Opinion).
17. See (ludge Frank Murphy, Dissenting Opinion). notes 15-27 and accompanying texts. See A.M. Prevost, Race and War Crimes: The 1945 War Crimes Trial of General Tomoyki Yamashita, 14 Hum. Rts. Q. 303 (1992). An actual knowledge standard was applied in the related prosecution of Admiral Soemu Toyada for events in the Philippines. See id, at 330-334.
18. United States v. Hermann Goring, XXII Trials of the Major War Crim. before the Int'l Milit. Trib. 411, at 446 (1948).
19. Id
20. See Hans Frank was Governor General of the occupied Polish territory. notes 29-32 and accompanying texts.
21. Intemational Military Tribunal for the Far East, The Tokyo War Crimes Trial, in L. Friedman (Ed.) The Law of War; A Documentary History, Vol. I, at 1029,1038-1039 (1948).
22. Id.
23. Id.
24. See Id. notes 35-41 and accompanying texts.
25. Control Council Law No. 10, reproduced in VI Trials of War Crim. before the Nuernberg Milit. Trib. under Control Council L. No. 10, at 17 (1952).
26. United States v. Wilhem List, XI Trials of War Crim. before the Nuernberg Milit. Trib. under Control Council L. No. 10, at 1230,1271 (1950).
27. Id, at 1271.
28. Id.
29. Id, at 1286.
30. United States v. Wilhelm von Leeb, XI Trials of War Crira. before the Nuremberg Milit. Trib. under Control Council L.No. 10, at 462, 543-544 (1950).
31. See United States v. Wilhelm von Leeb notes 44-56 and accompanying texts.
32. Trial of S.S. Brigadefiihrer Kurt Meyer (10-28 December 1945), IV L. Rept. Trials War Crim. 97, at 101-104,106-108(1948)
33. Trial of Kurt Student (10 May 1946), IV L. Rept. Trials War Crim., at 118-120 (1948).
34. Trial of Takashi Sakai (19 August 1946), XIV L, Rept. Trials War Crim. 1, at 7 (1949).
35. Trial of Lieutenant General BabaMasao (28 May 1947), XI L. Rept Trials War Crim., at 56-57, 59 (1949).
36. See Trial of Lieutenant General BabaMasao notes 58-61 and accompanying texts.
37. T. Hoopes, TJie Nuremberg Suggestion, in R. Falk, G. Kolko & R.J. Lifton (Eds.), Crimes of War a Legal, Political-Documentary, and Psychological Inquiry into the Responsibility of Leaders, Citizens, and Soldiers for Criminal Acts in War 233 (1971). See J.J. Paust, My Lai and Vietnam: Myths and Leader Responsibility, 57 Mil. L. Rev. 99 (1972); W.H. Parks, Command Responsibility for War Crimes. 62 Mil. L. Rev. 1 (1972).
38. T. Taylor, Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy 180-181 (1970).
39. W.A. Solf, A Response to Telford Taylor's Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, 5 Akron L. Rev. 43, at 57-60 (1972).
40. K. A. Howard, Command Responsibility for War Crimes, 21 J. Pub.L. 7, at 10 (1972).
41. R.S. Clark, Medina: An Essay on the Principles of Criminal Liability for Homicide, 5 Rt.-Cam. L.J. 59, at 72 (1975).
42. Id, at78.
43. See Id, at78 notes 68-72 and accompanying texts.
44. See United States Department of the Army, Preliminary Investigations into the My Lai Incident the Report of the Investigation, Vol. I (1970).
45. See Koster v. United States, 685 F.2d 407,408-409 (1982).
46. Quoted in id., at 414. See generally, W.V. O'Brien, The Law of War, Command Responsibility and Vietnam, 60 Geo. L. J. 605 (1972).
47. E.J. O'Brien, The Nuremberg Principles, Command Responsibility, and the Defense of Captain Rockwood, 149 Milit. L. Rev. 275-276, n.4 (1995).
48. Id, at 278-279, 290-291
49. Id, at 275-276, n-4, 277.
50. See The Nuremberg Principles notes 68-80 and accompanying texts.
51. United States v. Goldman, 43 CMR 711, 715 (1970).
52. Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beruit (7 February 1983), 22 ILM473, at 478-481, 491 (1983).
53. Id, at 501.
54. Id, at 519.
55. at 505-507.
56. See Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beruit notes 83-86 and accompanying texts. See generally. W.D. Bumett, Command Responsibility and a Case Study of the Criminal Responsibility of Israeli Military Commanders for the Pogrom at Shatila And Sabra, 107 Milt. L. Rev. 71 (1985).
57. See Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beruit notes 83-86 and accompanying texts. note 84 and accompanying text.
58. See Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beruit notes 83-86 and accompanying texts. note 84 and accompanying text. note 86 and accompanying text.
59. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (12 August 1949), Art. 86(2), 1125 UNTS 3 (1979) Piereinafter Protocol I].
60. See G.H. Aldrich, Progressive Development of the Laws of War: A Reply to Criticisms of the 1977 Geneva Protocoil, 26 Va. J. Int'l L. 693, at 719 (1986).
61. Protocol I, Progressive Development of the Laws of War: A Reply to Criticisms of the 1977 Geneva Protocoil note 90, Art. 86(2).
62. Id.
63. See C. Pilloud et al, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, at 1012 (1987).
64. Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, 1991 Rept. ILC Vol. 43, UN Doc. A/46/10 (1991), at242, Art.l2.
65. Final Report Of The United Nations Commission Of Experts Establislied Pursuant To Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), UN Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), at 16-17, paras. 55-60.
66. United Nations Secretary-General's Report on Aspects of Establishing An International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia, UN Doc. S/25704 (1993), at 15, Art.7(3), 32 ILMI159 (1993).
67. SC Res. 955, UN Doc. S/RES/955 (1994), at Art. 6(3), 33 ILM 1598 (1994).
68. Id, at para. 764-767.
69. Id at para. 769-773.
70. See SC Res. 955 noits 100-113 and accompanying texts.
71. Rome Statute, SC Res. 955 noits 100-113 and accompanying texts. note 1.
72. I. Bantekas, The Contemporary Law Of Superior Responsibility, 93 AJIL 573, at 574 (1999).
73. See M-H. Arsanjani, The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 93 AJIL 22, at 37 (1999).
74. See B. Broomhall, The International Criminal Court: Over\iew and Cooperation with States, in M.C. Bassiouni (Ed.), ICC Ratification and National Implementing Legislation 45, at 62-63 (1999).
75. Rome Statute, The International Criminal Court: Over\iew and Cooperation with States note 1, Art. 28(l)(i).
76. Prosecutor v. Delalic, Rome Statute note 100, at para. 390.
77. Pilloud, Prosecutor v. Delalic note 94, at 1013.
78. Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Draft Statute & Draft Final Act, UN Doc. A/Conf 183/2/Add,l (1998), reproduced in M.C. Bassiouni (Ed.), The Statute of the International Criminal Court; A Documentary History 119, at 142, Art. 25(a) (1998).
79. See Pilioud, Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court note 94, at 1014-1016.
80. See Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court note 94 note 105 and accompanying text.
81. See Piiloud, Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court note 94 note 105 and accompanying text. note 94, at 1012-1014.
82. See Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court note 94 note 105 and accompanying text. note 94 note 106 and accompanying text.
83. Prosecutor v. Delalic, Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court note 94 note 105 and accompanying text. note 94 note 106 and accompanying text. note 100, at para. 393.
84. See Piiloud, Prosecutor v. Delalic note 94, at 1014.
85. Rome Statute, Prosecutor v. Delalic note 94 note 1, Art. 28(l)(ii).
86. See Pilloud, Rome Statute note 94, at 1015-1016. See also Rome Statute note 115 and accompanying text.
87. Rome Statute, Rome Statute note 94 note 1, Art. 28(2) (i).
88. Broohmhali, note 118, at 62-63.
89. See note 118 notes 68-77 and accompanying texts.
90. See Command Responsibility for War Crimes, note 118 notes 68-77 and accompanying texts. note 4, at 278-287.
91. Prosecutorv. Jean Kambanda, Judgment and Sentence, Case No. 1CTR-97-23-S, 4 September 1998, at 126-127,129 (unpublished) (http://www.un.org/ictr).
92. Rome Statute, Prosecutorv. note 1, Art. 20(1).
93. Id. Arts. 20(3)(a), 20 (3)(b).
94. See J. Paust, Threats to Accountability After Nuremberg: Crimes Against Humanity, Leader Responsibility and National Fora, 12 NYUL Sch. J. Hum, Rts. 547, at 565-566 (1995). See R. v. Finta, 1 RCS 701, 829 (1994).
95. Touvier, 100 1LR 338, 352-356 (1992).
96. L.S. Wexler, A First Look at the 1998 Rome Statute for a Permanent International Criminal Court: Jurisdiction, Definition of Crimes, Structure and Referrals to the Court, in M.C. Bassiouni (Ed.), International Criminal Law, Vol. Ill, 655, at 675-676 (1999).
97. See generally M. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars a Moral Argument with Historical Iliustrations (1977).
98. Various psychological experiments document the influence of authority In controlling conduct, see generally S. Mllgram, Obedience to Authority an Experimental View (1969); H.C. Kelman & V.L, Hamilton, Crimes ofObedlence (1989).
99. See Various psychological experiments document the influence of authority In controlling conduct notes 5-13 and accompanying texts.
100. See Various psychological experiments document the influence of authority In controlling conduct notes 5-13 and accompanying texts. notes 5-13 and accompanying texts. notes 16-33 and accompanying texts.
101. See Various psychological experiments document the influence of authority In controlling conduct notes 16-33 and accompanying texts. notes 35-41 and accompanying texts.
102. See Various psychological experiments document the influence of authority In controlling conduct notes 16-33 and accompanying texts. notes 5-13 and accompanying texts. notes 35-41 and accompanying texts. notes 44-56 & 58-61 accompanying texts.
103. See Various psychological experiments document the influence of authority In controlling conduct notes 16-33 and accompanying texts. notes 44-56 & 58-61 accompanying texts. notes 68-77 and accompanying texts.
104. See Various psychological experiments document the influence of authority In controlling conduct notes 16-33 and accompanying texts. notes 5-13 and accompanying texts. notes 35-41 and accompanying texts. notes 68-77 and accompanying texts. notes 83-86 and accompanying texts.
105. See Various psychological experiments document the influence of authority In controlling conduct notes 16-33 and accompanying texts. notes 44-56 & 58-61 accompanying texts. notes 83-86 and accompanying texts. notes 91-95 and accompanying texts
106. See Various psychological experiments document the influence of authority In controlling conduct notes 16-33 and accompanying texts. notes 5-13 and accompanying texts. notes 35-41 and accompanying texts. notes 68-77 and accompanying texts. notes 91-95 and accompanying texts 100-113 and accompanying texts.
107. See Various psychological experiments document the influence of authority In controlling conduct notes 16-33 and accompanying texts. notes 44-56 & 58-61 accompanying texts. notes 83-86 and accompanying texts. 100-113 and accompanying texts. notes 115-134 and accompanying texts.
108. See generally J.J. Paust, Superior Orders and Command Responsibility in M.C. Bassiouni (Ed.), International Criminal Law, Vol. 1, at 223, 228-237 (1999).
109. Bantekas, note 116.
110. See generally Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, Ex parte Pinochet (United Kingdom, House of Lords, (25 November 1998), 37 ILM 1302 (1998).
111. See D. Luban, A. Strudler & D. Wasserman, Moral Responsibility in The Age of Bureaucracy, 90 Mich. L. Rev. 2348 (1992); D. Luban, Contrived Ignorance, 87 Geo. L.J. 957 (1999).