Equal standards? on the dialectics between national jurisdictions and the international criminal court

International Criminal Law Review

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 229-272

  Van Der Wilt, Harmen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Domestic jurisdictions; Harmonization of international criminal law; International crimes; International Criminal Court; Open texture of law; Principle of complementarity

Indexed keywords

EID: 41849134409     PISSN: 1567536X     EISSN: 15718123     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/156753608X265295     Document Type: Review

References (173)

1. This well-known 'principle of complementarity" is incorporated in the Preamble and in articles 1 and 17 of the Statute.
2. Compare for instance Christine Van den Wyngaert, 'War Crimes, Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity- Are States Taking National Prosecutions Seriously?', in: M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Criminal Law, Part 3 Enforcement, 1999, pp. 227-238
3. and Gerry J. Simpson, 'War Crimes: A Critical Introduction', in: Timothy L.H. McCormack & Gerry J. Simpson, The Law of War Crimes, The Hague/London/Boston 1997, pp. 1-30.
4. To mention just a number of these publications: M. Boot & R. Van Elst, 'Key provisions of the International Crimes Act 2003', in: Netherlands. Yearbook of International Law XXXV (2004), p. 251;
5. H. Satzger, German Criminal Law and the Rome Statute - A Critical Analysis of the New German Code of Crimes against International Law, in: International Criminal Law Review 2 (2002), pp. 261-282;
6. Mohammed M. El Zeidy, Egypt and Current Efforts to Criminalize International Crimes, in: International Criminal Law Review 5 (2005), pp. 247-265;
7. G. Boas, An Overview of Implementation by Australia of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, in: Journal of International Criminal Justice 2 (2004), pp. 179-190
8. and Damien Vandermeersch, Prosecuting International Crimes in Belgium, in: Journal of International Criminal'Justice 3 (2005), pp. 400-421.
9. Dutch Supreme Court, 18 September 2001 (In re-Bouterse), NJ 2002, 559, § 6.3.
10. In Germany the issue is contested, compare: Florian Jessberger, 'Prosecuting International Crimes in Domestic Courts: A Look Back Ahead', in: Finnish Yearbook of International Law, Volume XII, 2001, p. 301-302.
11. On these problems, compare the perceptive observations of George Fletcher, Against Universal Jurisdiction', in: Journal of International Criminal Justice 1 (2003), pp. 580-584.
12. William A. Schabas, 'National Courts Finally Begin to Prosecute Genocide, the 'Crime of Crimes', in: Journal of International Criminal Justice 1 (2003), pp. 39-63;
13. Jessberger, op. cit. (2001), pp. 281-304.
14. Paola Gaeta points at the example of a State party who fails to incorporate Art. 29 of the Statute (on imprescriptibility) and suggests that 'a crime falling under the statute of limitation under national law, can be prosecuted by the ICC by virtue of the principle of complementarity because the State in question is 'unable' to institute criminal proceedings for that crime or, at least, to punish it effectively' P. Gaeta. 'War Crimes Before Italian Criminal Courts: New Trends', in: H. Fischer/C. Kress/S.R. Lüder (eds), International and National Prosecution of Crimes Under International Law; Current Developments, 2001, p. 766.
15. Compare also Jann K. Kleffner, Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Juridictions, PhD-thesis, Amsterdam 2007, p. 175, who presents the 1997 Penal Code of the Republic of Paraguay as an illustration of the way in which legal deficiencies can lead to an 'unavailability of a State's judicial system. Whereas this code provides for universal jurisdiction in case of 'grave breaches' of the Geneva Conventions, the Paraguayan law has failed to incorporate a number of those breaches.
16. On the same issue: F. Lattanzi, "The International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions', in: M. Politi & G. Nesi (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court - A Challenge to Impunity, Aldershot 2001, p. 181.
17. These are two of the three standards of 'unwillingness', the other being 'an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice', article 17 (b) of the Rome Statute.
18. In the same vein Satzger, op. cit. (2002), p. 274: 'In spite of the existing lack of clarity with regard to the exact criteria which are to be applied in this context, the difference between the German Code of Crimes against International Law and Article 28 of the Rome Statute can hardly be regarded as creating such a situation of abuse of the ne bis in idem principle.'
19. Compare, for instance, Jimmy Gurule, 'United States Opposition to the 1998 Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court: Is the Court's Jurisdiction Truly Complementary to National Criminal Jurisdictions?', in: 35 Cornell International Law Journal (2001), pp. 27-28: "The Court may override the complementarity principle, and trump the State proceedings if it concludes that they were not conducted "independently or impartially" because such proceedings were inconsistent with "principles of due process recognized by international law". Thus, in essence, the Court functions as a super or supreme international appellate court, passing judgements on the decisions and proceedings of national judicial systems.'
20. Compare for this terminology Ward Ferdinandusse, Direct Application of International Criminal Law in National Courts, The Hague 2006, p. 117.
21. The new Oxford University Press and Amsterdam Centre of International Law's project on 'International Law in Domestic Courts' (hereafter: ILDC), in which the present author is involved, as commentator, provides a rich source of national courts' decisions. The author has greatly benefited from this data-base.
22. Prosecutor v. Karl-Leonhard Paulov, Estonian Supreme Court judgement of 21 March 2000, ILDC 198 (EE 2000).
23. Pros. v. Paulov, § 4.
24. Pros. v. Paulov, § 3.
25. Pros. v. Akayesu, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998, § 511.
26. Pros. v. Paulov, § 5.
27. Commentary by Martin Roger, C6.
28. Graciela P de L and Others v. Scilingo, Spanish High Court (Audiencia Nacional), 19 April 2005, ILDC 136 (ES 2005).
29. Scilingo- case, A, § 6.
30. Scilingo- case, B, § 3.2: "The lack of specific regulation on other types of crimes against humanity found in customary international law, and from a given point in time in conventional law as well, could in fact be alleviated by a broad interpretation of the crime of genocide, adjusting the primitive, super-strict, technical concept described in the Convention on Genocide to the change that had subsequently taken place in international society (...)'
31. Ibidem.
32. For similar critical comments on the decision, compare the contributors to the Symposium on the Scilingo Case, in: Journal of International Criminal Justice 3 (2005), p. 1074 ff, especially Chr. Tomuschat, 'Issues of Universal Jurisdiction in the Scilingo Case' and A. Gil Gil, "The Flaws of the Scilingo Judgement'.
33. For a useful survey, see Ferdinandusse, supra note 11, pp. 23-29.
34. Special Prosecutor v. Colonel Mengistu Hailemariam and 173 others, Federal High Court, 9 October 1995, ILDC 555 (ET 1995). The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the preliminary ruling on appeal in its judgment of 11 January 2007.
35. Commentary of Sisay Alemahu Yeshanew, ILDC 555 (ET 1995), C4.
36. Pros. v. Jelisic´, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-10-T,T. Ch. I, 14 December 1999, § 70: "Therefore, it is more appropriate to evaluate the status of a national, ethnical or racial group from the point of view of those persons who wish to single that group out from the rest of the community.' However, the ICTR qualified, and partially rejected this approach by holding that 'a subjective definition alone is not sufficient to determine victim groups'.
37. ICTR, Pros. v. Musema, Judgement and Sentence, Case No. ICTR-96-13-T, T. Ch., 27 January 2000, § 144.
38. K. Ambos and S. Wirth, 'Genocide and War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia Before German Criminal Courts', in: H. Fischer et al. (eds), International and National Prosecution of Crimes under International Law: Current Developments, Berlin 2001, pp. 769-797.
39. OLG Düsseldorf, 26 September 1997. Judgement confirmed by the Federal Court of Justice, 30 April 1999.
40. Prosecutor v. Krstic´, Judgement, Case No. IT-98-33-T, 2 August 2001, § 580;
41. Appeals Chamber: Prosecutor v. Krstić, Judgement, Case No. IT-98-33-A. Ch., 19 April 2004, § 25. The Trial Chamber in the Kupreskić- case (Case No. IT-95-16-T, 14 January 2000, § 751) explicitly held that the aim of expelling people from a village did not constitute genocide.
42. Confirming: ICJ, 26 February 2007, Case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), § 190.
43. ECHR, Judgement of 12 July 2007, Case of Jorgić v. Germany, § 114.
44. Ambos and Wirth, op. cit. (2001), pp. 784-786.
45. S. Crt. Mugesera v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 28 June 2005, ILDC 180 (CA 2005), § 126: "Though the decisions of the ICTY and the ICTR are not binding upon this Court, the expertise of these tribunals and the authority in respect of customary international law with which they are vested suggest that their findings should not be disregarded lightly by Canadian courts applying domestic legislative provisions (...) which expressly incorporate customary international Law'.
46. R. v. Finta [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701, 813.
47. Mugusera v Canada, §§ 143/144. The Court referred to the Akayesu case and the Tadic̀ case, respectively.
48. Scilingo- case, A, § 4.
49. Supreme Court of Israel, Michael Frudenthal v The State of Israel, 3 August 2003, ILDC 364 (IL 2003).
50. Frudenthal- case, § 5.
51. District Court of Rotterdam, Pros. v. Sebastien N, 7 April 2004, ILDC 145 (NL 2004).
52. In the same vein: H. Burgers and H. Danelius, The United Nations Convention against Torture, Dordrecht/Boston/London 1988, p. 119.
53. For a discussion of the jurisdictional aspects of this case, see M.T.Kamminga, 'First Conviction under the Universal Jurisdiction of the UN Convention against Torture', in: Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 51 (2004), p. 439 ff.
54. 41); Geneva Convention (I), Article 49, Geneva Convention (II), Article 50, Geneva Convention (III), Article 129 and Geneva Convention (IV), Article 146.
55. Compare also G. Werle, Principles of International Criminal Law, The Hague 2005, p. 278.
56. Court of Appeal of The Hague, H v. Public Prosecutor, 29 January 2007, ILDC 636 (NL 2007).
57. See on this question G. Mettraux, 'Dutch Courts' Universal Jurisdiction over Violations of Common Article 3 qua War Crimes', in: Journal of International Criminal Justice 4 (2006), pp. 362-371.
58. The applicability of the principle of universal jurisdiction to war crimes in an internal conflict has been confirmed by the Dutch Supreme Court in the case of Pros. v. Darko K., 11 November 1997, NJ 1998, No. 463; 30 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (1999), 315.
59. The latter position has the eldest credentials in the famous Lotus-case of the Permanent Court of International Justice, 7 September 1927, Series A No. 10. p. 19.
60. ICJ, 14 February 2002, Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Republic of Congo v. Belgium), 41 ILM 536 (2002)
61. E. van Sliedregt, Afghaanse Zaken - over 1F-beschikkingen en de vervolging van oorlogsmisdaden in Nederland' (Afghan cases - on 1F-decisions and the prosecution of war crimes in the Netherlands), in: 32 NJCM-Bulletin (2007), no. 3, p. 337.
62. Supreme Court, The Government Prosecution Service (Rigsadvokaten) v. T, 15 August 1995, ILDC 568 (DK 1995).
63. Cf. Article 25 of the ICC-Statute, Articles 7(1) of the ICTY-Statute and Article 6(1) of the ICTR-Statute ('Individual criminal responsibility'); Article 28 of the ICC-Statute, Articles 7(3) of the ICTY-Statute and Article 6(3) ICTR-Statute ('command responsibility').
64. See for an extensive analysis: Elies van Sliedregt, The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, The Hague 2003, pp. 41-114 (on perpetration and participation) and pp. 118-222 (on superior responsibility).
65. Whereas the mens rea for military commanders is 'knew or should have known', the applicable standard for civilian superiors is knowledge or 'consciously disregarding information which clearly indicated, that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes'.
66. Articles 2(3) of the ICTR-Statute, respectively article 4(3) of the ICTY-Statute qualify as punishable offences: genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide and complicity in genocide.
67. Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, T. Ch. II, 10 December 1998, §§ 190-249.
68. Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., Judgement, Case No. IT-96-21-T, T. Ch. II, 16 November 1998, §§ 330-401.
69. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998, §§ 525-548.
70. Pros. v. Akayesu, §§ 549-562
71. and Pros. v. Ruggiu, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-97-32-I, T. Ch. I, 1 June 2000, §§ 14, 17 and 44.
72. Pros. v. Tadić, Judgement, Case No. IT-94-1-A, A. Ch., 15 July 1999, §§ 185-229.
73. Some important decisions on 'joint criminal enterprise' include: Prosecutor v. Kvočka, Judgement, Case No. IT-98-33-T, 2 November 2001 and (Appeals Chamber) 28 February 2005;
74. Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Judgement, Case No. IT-99-36-T, 1 September 2004 and (Appeals Chamber) 7 April 2007;
75. Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Judgement, Case No. IT-00-39/40, 27 September 2006.
76. Mugesera v. Canada, § 82.
77. Pros. v. Akayesu, § 562
78. and Pros. v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze (Media Case), Judgement, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, 3 December 2003, § 1029.
79. In an eloquent dictum the ICTR had argued that the direct element should be viewed in the light of its cultural and linguistic element, adding that it was decisive whether the persons for whom the message was intended immediately grasped the implication thereof, Pros. v. Akayesu, §§ 557/558.
80. Pros. v. Rutaganda, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, T. Ch. I. 6 December 1999, § 38.
81. Mugesera v. Canada, § 136, emphasis added.
82. Court of Appeal, The Hague, Public Prosecutor v. Van Anraat, 9 May 2007, ILDC 753 (NL 2007).
83. District Court of The Hague, 23 December 2005, LJN: AU 8695, § 6.5.1. The Court quoted the judgements of the Appeals Chamber in Krstić (IT-98-33-A, 19 April 2004, § 144)
84. and Ntakirutimana (ICTR-96-10-A, and ICTR-96-17-A, 13 December 2004, §§ 500/501) in support of its finding.
85. 65)District Court, Van Anraat-case, § 7. For a critical discussion of the Judgement, see: Harmen G. van der Wilt, 'Genocide, Complicity in Genocide and. International v. Domestic Jurisdiction; Reflections on the van Anraat Case' in: Journal of International Criminal Justice 4 (2006), pp. 239-257.
86. Public Prosecutor v. Van Anraat, 9 May 2007, § 7, under B.
87. Dutch Supreme Court, 20 January 1998, NJ 1998, 226.
88. Public Prosecutor v. Van Anraat, § 7, under (B). Possibly, the Court of Appeal referred to the Akayesu- case, in which the Trial Chamber indeed embraced the dolus eventualis standard.
89. Pros. v. Akayesu, § 541: 'However, if an accused knowingly aided and abetted in the commission of a such a murder while he knew or had reason to know that the principal was acting with genocidal intent, the accused would be an accomplice to genocide'. (Emphasis added).
90. Ibidem.
91. Explanatory Memorandum to the Code on International Crimes, Parliamentary Papers II, 2001/2002, 28 337. no. 3, p. 29: 'It would be impractical and involve legal uncertainty if the Dutch courts were to apply provisions on participation, justification and excuses (i.e.: derived from the Rome Statute, add. HvdW) which only slightly deviate from the ones with which they are familiar' (author's translation).
92. A. Cassese (International Criminal Law, Oxford 2003, pp. 206-207) correctly qualifies the superior as a co-perpetrator, although he points out that according to the Commentary to the Code he may also be classified as an accomplice (blosse Beihilfe).
93. Compare Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., Judgement, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 16 November 1998, § 333: "That military commanders and other persons occupying positions of superior authority may be held criminally responsible for the unlawful conduct of their subordinates is a well-established norm of customary and conventional international law.'
94. Compare Prosecutor v. Halilović, Judgement, case No. IT-01-48-T, 16 November 2005, §§ 54 and 78;
95. Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanović and Kubura, Judgement, Case No. It-01-47-T, 15 March 2006, § 191
96. and Prosecutor v. Orić, Judgement, case No. IT-03-68-T, 30 June 2006, § 782.
97. On this issue also: Chantal Meloni, 'Command Responsibility; Mode of Liability for the Crimes of Subordinates or Separate Offence of the Superior?', in: Journal of International Criminal Justice 5 (2007), pp. 619-637.
98. In the same vein E. van Sliedregt, op. cit. (2003), p. 226.
99. Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Judgement, Case No. IT-96-22-A, 7 October 1997, § 19.
100. Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, 26 February 2001, § 448.
101. Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez, § 452. Compare also G. Werle, op. cit. (2005), p. 143
102. and M. Scaliotti, 'Defences before the International Criminal Court: Substantive Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility, Part 1, 1 International Criminal Law Review (2001), p. 159.
103. Section 33 of the German Criminal Code. See also A. Eser, Article 31, § 13, in: O. Triffterer (ed.) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court - Observers' Notes , Article by Article, Baden-Baden 1999.
104. Article 41, section 2 of the Dutch Penal Code.
105. Compare article 59 of the Código Penal: 'El exceso en la defensa no es punible cuando resulte del terror, o del arrebato y obcecación del momento, atendidas las circunstancias de hecho, las del lugar en que se efectúe y las personales del agresor y del agredido'. Source: J.M. Rodriguez Devesa y A. Serrano Gomez, Derecho Penal Español; Parte General, 17th ed., Madrid 1994, p. 555.
106. Public Prosecutor v. Mrs. K, Dutch Supreme Court, 7 May 2004, ILDC 142 (NL 2004).
107. Kesbir- case, § 3.3.3.
108. Kesbir case, § 3.3.7.
109. Conclusion Attorney General, Kesbir case, §§ 34-38.
110. Supreme Court, Judgement of 15 September 2006, LJN: AV7387, case nr C05/120 HR.
111. Public Prosecutor v. Van Kouwenhoven, District Court of The Hague, 7 June 2006, LJN AX7098.
112. Decision of the Rome Military Court of Appeal, 7 March 1998, partially published in L'indice penale (1999) 959, at 972. Translation by Paola Gaeta, 'War Crimes Trials Before Italian Criminal Courts: New Trends', in: H. Fischer, C. Kress, S.R. Lüder (eds) International and National Prosecution of Crimes Under International Law; Current Developments, Berlin 2001, pp. 759/760.
113. P. Gaeta, "The Defence of Superior Orders: the Statute of the International Criminal Court versus Customary International Law', European Journal of International Law 10 (1999), p. 172.
114. Priebke- case, Decision of the Rome Military Tribunal, 1 August 1996; quoted and translated by P. Gaeta, op. cit. (2001), p. 34.
115. After having reviewed and discussed numerous court decisions, Judge Stephen observes that 'Neither this concern nor this repugnance can have any application to a case in which nothing that an accused can do can save the life which the law seeks to protect, so that no question of choice concerning an innocent life is left to an accused.' Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Stephen, Pros. v. Erdemović, Case No. IT-96-22-A, 7 October 1997, § 64.
116. Gaeta, op. cit. (2001), p. 763.
117. Compare for instance the Mengistu- case, [supra] footnote 25.
118. On these developments, compare: G. Mettraux, 'Crimes Against Humanity in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda', in: 43 Harvard International Law Journal (2002), pp. 237-316.
119. For a similar opinion, see Chr. Van den Wyngaert, Strafrecht, strafprocesrecht & international strafrecht in hoofdlijnen, Antwerpen 2003, p. 661.
120. H. v. Public Prosecutor, footnote 42;
121. Public Prosecutor v. Kesbir, footnote 81.
122. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 8 Int. Legal Mat. (1969), 679.
123. Geneva Convention (I), Articles 49 and 50; Geneva Convention (II), Articles 50 and 51 ; Geneva Convention (III), Articles 129 and 130; Geneva Convention (IV), Articles 146 and 147.
124. Convention againstTorture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York 10 December 1984, 1456 UNTS 85: 33, Article 1, s. 2: "This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of a wider application'. See also Article 5, s. 3 in respect of jurisdiction: "This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.'
125. D. Vandermeersch, 'Prosecuting International Crimes in Belgium', Journal of International Criminal Justice 3 (2005), 416/417: A measure of harmonization between different legislations on substantive and procedural criminal law is (therefore) necessary, particularly concerning prohibitions themselves, modes of participation, defences and excuses, and procedural safeguards. The Statutes and case law of the International Tribunals should play a fundamental part in this respect. Concerning sentences, it is also essential to establish a certain homogeneity, to respect the principle of equality by eliminating discrepancies and to avoid any forum shopping aimed at finding a more favourable system.' (our italics).
126. Vandermeersch acknowledges this by writing that 'such harmonization still being a long way off, an accused may be treated very differently according to whether he is tried by the territorial state, by an international tribunal or by a third state', ibidem.
127. On the historical precedents of the concept of civitas maxima and its relevance for international criminal law, see M. Cherif Bassiouni & Edward M. Wise, 'Aut Dedere, Aut Judicare: The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law' Dordrecht/Boston/London 1995, in particular Chapter 4: "The Principle Aut Dedere, Aut Judicare and the Hypothesis of a Civitas Maxima', pp. 26-42.
128. Article 22 Nullum crimen sine lege
129. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court
130. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
131. This Article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.
132. Compare the landmark- study of Machteld Boot, Nullum Crimen Sine Lege and the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, Antwerpen-Oxford-New York 2002.
133. Prosecutor v. Delalić et al. Judgement, Case No. IT-96-21-T, T. Ch. II, 16 November 1998, § 431.
134. On this topic also: Fabian O. Raimondo, General Principles of Law in the Decisions of International Criminal Courts and Tribunals, Amsterdam 2007, pp. 111-114.
135. It is another question whether criminal repression of conduct is always permissible from a moral point of view. On this issue: Joel Feinberg, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Volume I: Harm to Others, New York/ Oxford 1984, pp. 3-27.
136. ECHR, Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 26 April 1979, Ser. A-30 (1979), § 49.
137. Compare Ambos and Wirtz, op. cit. (2001), p. 786: 'In other words: if universal jurisdiction is attached to a certain crime as defined by international law, a change in the definition could also change the scope of jurisdiction attached to this crime.' Advocating an interpretation of the German legal provision in line with the Genocide Convention, they add: 'Such an interpretation would considerably narrow the scope of this alternative of genocide and avoid any problem with the principle of nullum crimen sine lege would arise.'
138. Jorgić v. Germany, § 112.
139. Jorgićv. Germany, § 114.
140. George Fletcher, Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, Oxford/ New York 1998, p. 107, commenting on the famous case of the German Schiess-Befehle, in which a justification was abolished retroactively: 'But it is not so clear that courts may not retroactively tamper with claims of defense.'
141. Prosecutor v. Tadić, Judgement in Sentencing Appeals, Case No. IT-94-1-A and IT-94-1-Abis, A. Ch., 26 January 2000, §21.
142. Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Judgment in Sentencing Appeals, Case No. IT-94-2-A, A. Ch., 4 February 2005, §§ 80/81: 'It is an inherent element of this principle [of lex mitior] that the relevant law must be binding upon the court. The principle of lex mitior is thus only applicable if a law that binds the International Tribunal is subsequently changed to more favourable law by which the International Tribunal is obliged to abide.' I am indebted to Mr. Denis Abels, LL.M, for drawing my attention to this point.
143. Alain Pellet, 'Chapter 25: Applicable Law', in : A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, J. Jones (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Oxford 2002, p. 1056.
144. Pellet, op. cit. (2002), p. 1058. Translation by David Boyle.
145. This part draws heavily upon the work of J.M. Brennan, The Open Texture of Moral Concepts, London 1977
146. nd ed., Oxford 1994, pp. 124-136. Although legal and ethical concepts are obviously different epistemological categories, they share this 'open texture' character.
147. Brennan, op. cit. (1977), p. 121: 'empirical descriptions can never exhaustively describe the moral type. Moral terms are open-textured in that their explication is an incompletable process.'
148. Hart, op. cit. (1994), p. 128.
149. Hart. op. cit. (1994), p. 128.
150. Hart, op. cit. (1994), p. 129.
151. Brennan, op. cit. (1977), p. 119.
152. In the words of Hart: 'we should not cherish, even as an ideal, the conception of a rule so detailed that the question whether it applied or not to a particular case was always settled in advance, and never involved, at the point of actual application, a fresh choice between open alternatives.' (Hart, op. cit. (1994), p. 128).
153. Albert R. Jonsen & Stephen Toulmin, The Abuse of Casuistry; A History of Moral Reasoning, Berkeley/ Los Angeles/ London, 1988.
154. I am obliged to my colleague Klaas Rozemond who drew my attention to this book and wrote an interesting article on the relevance of casuistry for Dutch substantive criminal law: K. Rozemond, 'De casuïstische grenzen van het materiële strafrecht', in: 37 Delikt en Delinkwent (May 2007), pp. 465-495.
155. Jonsen &Toulmin, op. cit. (1988), p. 59.
156. The examples are derived from Jonsen and Toulmin, op. cit. (1988), p. 252.
157. Jonsen &Toulmin, op. cit. (1988), p. 254.
158. Rozemond, op. cit. (2007) p. 488: "The meaning of general legal concepts is partially determined by the way these concepts are applied in particular circumstances.'
159. Rozemond, op. cit. (2007), p. 491.
160. Brennan, op. cit. (1977), p. 123.
161. Jonsen &Toulmin, op. cit. (1988), p. 192.
162. Jonsen &Toulmin, op, cit. (1988), p. 193.
163. Jonsen & Toulmin, p. 202. The authors give simple examples of both tactics. A physician who is asked by someone, hoping to discover whether the person is the physician's patient, whether he cares for this person, is employing the tactic of 'equivocation', if he answers in the negative, meaning that he does not care for him in the sense of being fond of him. Mental restriction is involved when the woman who is asked by the unwelcome caller whether her husband is at home, answers 'no', reserving in mind the unexpressed condition 'not for you'.
164. Jonsen & Toulmin, op, cit. (1988), p. 201.
165. Jonsen & Toulmin, op,. cit. (1988), p. 211.
166. Einsatzgruppen case, Judgement, Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunal under Control Council No.10, 1946-1949 (1950), vol. 4, p. 470: ]The obedience of a soldier is not the obedience of an automaton. A soldier is a reasoning agent. He does not respond, and is not expected to respond, like a piece of machinery.'
167. 1351 Y. Dinstein, The Defence of 'Obedience to Superior Orders' in International Law, Leiden 1965, pp. 49-57.
168. Supra, footnote 87.
169. On this changing character of war see: M. van Creveld, The Transformation of War, New York 1991, pp. 197/198.
170. Pros. v. Hadžihasanović/ Kubura, Judgement, Case No. IT-01-47-T, 15 March 2006. In considering mitigating circumstances the Trial Chamber observed (§ 2081): 'Enfin, les conditions d'exercice du commandement de l'Accusé Hadžihasanović ont encore été rendues plus difficiles par l'afflux massif de réfugiés en Bosnie centrale et par le problème des combattants étrangers. Ce contexte particulier, sans en justifier ni les causes ni les conséquences, présente les manquements de l'Accusé Hadžihasanović sous un jour qui amène la Chambre à faire preuve d'ingulcence.'
171. Pros. v. Hadžihasanović, § 2075: L'accusé condamné ne le sera pas pour les crimes commis par ses subordonnés mais pour le manquement à l'obligation qui lui incombait de prévenir la commission desdits crimes ou d'en punir les auteurs.'
172. Supra, footnote 60.
173. ECHR, Judgement of 12 July 2007 (Case of Jorgic v. Germany), § 101.