The continuous quest for proper modes of criminal responsibility

Journal of International Criminal Justice

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 307-314

  van der Wilt, Harmen G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67651087046     PISSN: 14781387     EISSN: 14781395     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jicj/mqp033     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (48)

1. The doctrine was introduced by the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY in the Tadicć case: Judgment, Tadicć (IT-94-1-A), Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999, §189 passim.
2. For a confirmation of the point of view that JCE can be applied in case of large-scale organizations as well, see Judgment, Brdanin (IT-99-36-A), Appeals Chamber, 3 April 2007, §§ 410-425.
3. See, for instance, A. Danner and J.S. Martinez, 'Guilty Associations: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility and the Development of International Criminal Law', 93 California Law Review (2005) 75, 150-151
4. J.D. Ohlin, 'Three Conceptual Problems with the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise', 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice (JICJ) (2007) 69-90
5. and M. Osiel, 'The Banality of Good: Aligning Incentives against Mass Atrocity', 105 Columbia Law Review (2005) 1751, 1791-1797.
6. Compare H. van der Wilt, 'Joint Criminal Enterprise and Functional Perpetration', in P.A. Nollkaemper and H. van der Wilt (eds), System Criminality in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, forthcoming).
7. Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/ 06), Pre-Trial Chamber I, 29 January 2007 [henceforth: 'Lubanga'], §§ 327-367
8. Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Katanga and Chui (ICC-01/ 04-01/07), Pre-Trial Chamber I, 30 September 2008 [henceforth: ' Katanga and Chui'], §§ 477-518
9. and Warrant of Arrest for Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo Replacing the Warrant of Arrest of 23 May 2008, Bemba Gombo (ICC-01/05-01/08), Pre-Trial Chamber III, 10 June 2008, §§ 21-24.
10. Judgment, Stakić (IT-97-24-A), Appeals Chamber, 22 March 2006, §62.
11. Katanga and Chui, supra note 4, §§ 498/499. The Pre-Trial Chamber had explored the concept in Lubanga, supra note 4, §§ 94-96, but had ultimately opted for 'co-perpetration', see Section 2.
12. The auctor intellectualis of the concept is C. Roxin, 'Straftaten im Rahmen organisatorisher Machtapparate', Goltdammer's Archiv für Strafrecht (1963) 193
13. and idem, Täterschaft und Tatherrschaft (8th edn., Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 242-252.
14. Katanga and Chui, supra note 4, §§ 492-493.
15. Compare, for instance, C. Kress, 'Claus Roxins Lehre von der Organisationsherrschaft und das Völkerstrafrecht', 153 Goltdammer's Archiv für das Strafrecht (2006) 304
16. and K. Ambos, 'Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility', 5 JICJ (2007) 159, 179-183.
17. Public Redacted Version of Prosecution's Application under Article 58 filed on 14 July 2008, Situation in Darfur, Sudan (ICC-02/05-157), 12 September 2008, §39.
18. Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Pre-Trial Chamber I, 4 March 2009 [henceforth: 'Al Bashir'], § 223.
19. For a careful legal analysis of the Prosecutor's application, see F. Jessberger and J. Geneuss, 'On the Application of a Theory of Indirect Perpetration in Al Bashir: German Doctrine in The Hague?', 6 JICJ (2008) 853-869.
20. Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Ušacka, Al Bashir, supra note 10, §104.
21. Lubanga, supra note 4, §§ 326-339.
22. Ibid., §332.
23. Ibid., §342.
24. Ibid., §330.
25. The possible remoteness of a co-perpetrator from the crime scene has long been recognized in Dutch case law. See Dutch Supreme Court, 17 November 1981, NJ 1983, 84.
26. Lubanga, supra note 4, §345.
27. Thomas Weigend correctly observes that one should not turn the argument upside down: The subjective meeting of the minds, rather than overt concerted action, is the core element of an agreement. Different from the Trial Chamber, Weigend qualifies the requirement of an agreement as a subjective element; T. Weigend, 'Intent, Mistake of Law, and Co-perpetration in the Lubanga Decision on Confirmation of Charges', 6 JICJ (2008) 471, 480-481 (fn 37).
28. Art. 30 ICCSt.
29. In the words of the Pre-Trial Chamber in Katanga and Chui (supra note 4, §533): 'The suspects must be mutually aware that implementing their common plan will result in the realization of the objective elements of the crime.'
30. Lubanga, supra note 4, §§ 344-355.
31. For a critical evaluation of the Pre-Trial Chamber's approach, see Weigend, supra note 17, 481-484.
32. For a general discussion of dolus eventualis in international criminal law, see A. Cassese, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 168-171.
33. Lubanga, supra note 4, §§ 94-96
34. Katanga and Chui, supra note 4, §§ 511-518.
35. Katanga and Chui, supra note 4, §513.
36. Ibid., §§ 515-517.
37. Ibid., §534.
38. H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (London: Penguin, 1962)
39. Z. Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
40. Arendt's influence on Roxin is suggested by M. Osiel, Mass Atrocity Through Hierarchical Organization: The ICC's Recent Jurisprudence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, forthcoming).
41. For criticism in this vein, especially in the context of the former Yugoslavia, see A.J. Vetlesen, Evil and Human Agency: Understanding Collective Evildoing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 159-161.
42. Katanga and Chui, supra note 4, §518.
43. For a similar point of view, see Osiel, supra note 26.
44. Katanga and Chui, supra note 4, §492.
45. Ibid., §493.
46. Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion, Al Bashir, supra note 10, §104.
47. Al Bashir, supra note 10, §216.
48. Katanga and Chui, supra note 4, §493.