The end of 'modes of liability' for international crimes

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 165-219

  Stewart, James G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

command responsibility; complicity; joint criminal enterprise; modes of liability; superior responsibility; unitary theory of perpetration

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857015059     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156511000653     Document Type: Article

References (198)

1. M.Osiel, 'The Banality ofGood: Aligning Incentives againstMassAtrocities', (2005) 105 Columbia Law Review 1751, at 1764
2. quoting from Enrique Gimbernat Ordeig, 'Autor y complice en derecho penal' ['Perpetrator and Accomplice in Criminal Law'] 187 (1966).
3. G. P. Fletcher, The Grammar of Criminal Law: American, Comparative, and International, Vol. 1 (2007), 319, 329;
4. Prosecutor v. Tadi ć , Judgement, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999, para. 227 (referring to joint criminal enterprise as a 'mode of participation');
5. Prosecutor v. Delić , Judgement, Case No. IT-04-83-T, Trial Chamber I, 15 September 2008, para. 56 (referring to superior responsibility as a 'mode of participation');
6. Prosecutor v. Blaškić , Judgement, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Chamber, 3 March 2000, para. 266 (discussing ordering, planning, instigating, or otherwise aiding and abetting as 'modes of participation');
7. see M. Bohlander, Principles of German Criminal Law (2008), 154;
8. see C. Lazerges, 'La participation criminelle', in C. Lazerges, Ré flexions sur le Nouveau Code Pé nal (1995), 11;
9. for historical antecedents, see also B. Getz, De la soi-disant participation au crime (1876);
10. see W. R. LaFave, Criminal Law (2010), 701 (employing the term 'parties to crime');
11. A. Simester and G. R. Sullivan, Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine (2007), 195-246 (discussing modes of participation).
12. M. Osiel, Making Sense of Mass Atrocity (2009), 85.
13. M. Damaška, 'The Shadow Side of Command Responsibility', (2001) 49 American Journal of Comparative Law 455, at 456.
14. For some of the best exemplars, see, in particular, H. Olásolo, 'Reflections on the International Criminal Court's Jurisdictional Reach', (2005) 16 CriminalLawForum 279;
15. A.M.Danner and J. S.Martinez, 'GuiltyAssociations: JointCriminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility, and the Development of International Criminal Law', (2005) 93 CLR 75;
16. D. Robinson, 'The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law', (2008) 21 LJIL 925;
17. J. D. Ohlin, 'Three Conceptual Problems with the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise', (2007) 5 JICJ 69.
18. see, e.g., A. Clapham and S. Jerbi, 'Categories of Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Abuses', (2000) 24 HICLR 339 (explaining three categories of policy implication derived from the application of complicity);
19. L. Lunde, M. Taylor, and A. Huser, Commerce or Crime? Regulating Economies of Conflict (2003) (providing a helpful synthesis of the law of complicity in 16 different jurisdictions);
20. C. I. Keitner, 'Conceptualizing Complicity in Alien Tort Cases', (2008) 60 Hastings Law Journal 61 (discussing ATCA cases that employ complicity);
21. for a notable exception, seeM. D. Dubber, 'Criminalizing Complicity: A Comparative Analysis', (2007) 5 JICJ 977 (discussing the need for international criminal justice to craft a law of complicity specific for its purposes).
22. J.-H. Robert, Droit pé nal gé né ral (2005), 343.
23. J. Gardner, '"Aid, Abet, Counsel, Procure": An English View of Complicity', in A. Eser, B.Huber, and K. Cornils (eds.), Einzelverantwortung undMitverantwortung im Strafrecht (1998), 228.
24. L. Steyn in R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte, 3 WLR 1456 (HL 1998), at 54.
25. A. K. A. Greenawalt, 'The Pluralism of International Criminal Law', (2011) 86 Indiana Law Journal 1111.
26. J. Dressler, 'Reforming Complicity Law: Trivial Assistance as a Lesser Offense?', (2008) 5 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 427, at 427.
27. I. Tallgren, 'The Sensibility and Sense of International Criminal Law', (2002) 13 EJIL 561, at 566-7.
28. M. S. Moore, 'The Superfluity of Accomplice Liability', in M. S. Moore (ed.), Causation and Responsibility: An Essay in Law, Morals, and Metaphysics (2009), 280;
29. B. Sullivan, 'Principals and Accomplices: A Necessary and Useful Division?', in A. Duff and C.Wong (eds.), Foundational Issues in the Philosophy of Criminal Law (2007), 151;
30. S. H. Kadish, 'Reckless Complicity', (1996) 87 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 369 (although Kadish does not advocate for the abolition of complicity, his position is closest to that I advance here);
31. L. Alexander and K. Kessler Ferzan, Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law (2009), 7-10 (arguing that insufficient concern is the baseline for all forms of criminal responsibility);
32. D. Kienapfel, Der Einheitstäter im Strafrecht (1971);
33. T. Rotsch, 'Einheitstäterschaft' statt Tatherrschaft: Zur Abkehr von einem differenzierenden Beteiligungsformensystem in einer normativ-funktionalen Straftatlehre (2009).
34. M. S. Moore, 'Causing, Aiding, and the Superfluity of Accomplice Liability', (2007) 156 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 395.
35. For further information, see J. Pradel, Droit pé nal comparé (2002), 121, at 133;
36. K. Ambos, 'Development of a Common Substantive Criminal Law for Europe Possible? Some Preliminary Reflections', (2005) 12 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 173, at 182-5 (setting out examples from various unitary jurisdictions).
37. For an overview of these cases, see United NationsWar Crimes Commission, Digest of the Laws and Cases, Law Reports of the Trials ofWar Criminals, Vol. 15 (1949), 49-58.
38. See H. Olásolo, The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principals to International Crimes (2010), 21.
39. J.Keiler, 'Towardsa European Concept of Participation in Crime', inA.Klip (ed.), Substantive Criminal Lawof the European Union (2011);
40. B.Weißer, Täterschaft in Europa: EinDiskussionsvorschlag für ein europäisches Tätermodell auf der Basis einer rechtsvergleichenden Untersuchung der Beteiligungssysteme Deutschlands, Englands, Frankreichs, Italiens und Österreichs (2011);
41. W. SchÖberl, Die Einheitstäterschaft als europäisches Modell: Die strafrechtliche Beteiligungsregelung in Österreich und den nordischen Ländern (2006);
42. E. van Sliedregt, The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law (2003), 61-5.
43. J. Gardner, 'Complicity and Causality', (2007) 1 Criminal Law and Philosophy 127, at 128.
44. see Prosecutor v. Kraji šnik, Judgement, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeals Chamber, 17March 2009, paras. 156-157.
45. Note that this language is not always consistent: see Prosecutor v. Vasiljević , Judgement, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Appeals Chamber, 25 February 2004, para. 97 (finding that '[t]he first category is a "basic" form of joint criminal enterprise. It is represented by caseswhere all co-perpetrators, acting pursuant to a common purpose, possess the same criminal intention').
46. see A. Cassese, 'The Proper Limits of Individual Responsibility under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise', (2007) 5 JICJ 109, at 121 (arguing that most courts actually apply an objective standard of foreseeability for JCE III).
47. Fordiscussion, seeV.Haan, 'TheDevelopmentof theConceptof Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia', (2005) 5 International Criminal Law Review 167, at 177.
48. For other arguments regarding the international use of Pinkerton liability, see G. P. Fletcher, 'New Court, Old Dogmatik', (2011) 9 JICJ 179, at 179-90.
49. K. Ambos,'JointCriminal EnterpriseandCommandResponsibility', (2007) 5 JICJ 159, at 174 (concluding that, relative to other aspects of JCE, 'the conflict of JCE III with the principle of culpability ismore fundamental');
50. G. P. Fletcher and J.D. Ohlin, 'Reclaiming Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the Darfur Case', (2005) 3 JICJ 539, at 548 (arguing that 'the doctrine [JCE] itself is substantively overbroad and transgresses basic principles of legality that limit punishment to personal culpability').
51. For more on the positive and negative notions of desert, see J. Feinberg, Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility (1974), 55.
52. See also P. H.Robinson, Distributive Principles ofCriminal Law: Who Should Be Punished,HowMuch? (2008), 135 (discussing vengeful, deontological, and empirical concepts of desert).
53. M. Damaška, 'What Is the Point of International Criminal Justice?', (2008) 83 Chicago-Kent Law Review 329.
54. H. L. A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law (1984), 3, 9 (emphasis in original).
55. G. P. Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law (1978), 415.
56. for a summary of similar thinking in German criminal theory, see V. Krey, Deutsches Strafrecht: Allgemeiner Teil 2 (2002), 118.
57. J. Braithwaite, 'Intention versus Reactive Fault', in N. Naffine, R. J. Owens, and J. M.Williams (eds.), Intention in Lawand Philosophy (2001), 345
58. G. Simpson, Law,War and Crime: WarCrimes Trials and the Reinvention of International Law (2007), 137.
59. J. Braithwaite and P. Pettit, Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice (1993), 168 ('We agree with the negative retributivists, for republican reasons, that indeed only the guilty ought to be punished').
60. Prosecutor v. Brima et al., Judgement, Case No. SCSL 04-16-A, Appeals Chamber, 22 February 2008, para. 15;
61. Trial of theMajorWar Criminals before the InternationalMilitary Tribunal, Vol. 22 (1947), 499.
62. M. S. Moore, Placing Blame: A Theory of the Criminal Law (2010), 403 (acknowledging the dual meanings of culpability, but emphasizing that responsibility entails a voluntary and unjustified act that proximately causes harm, coupled with the obligation that 'onemust have done so culpably').
63. A. Ashworth, 'Criminal Law, Human Rights and Preventive Justice', in B. McSherry, A. Norrie, and S. Bronitt (eds.), RegulatingDeviance: TheRedirection ofCriminalisationandtheFutures of CriminalLaw(2008).
64. see P. H. Robinson, 'Imputed Criminal Liability', (1983) 93 Yale Law Journal 609, at 617-18 (discussing Pinkerton liability, the felony-murder rule, vicarious liability of officials of organizations, RICO, and others).
65. R. Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (2008), 90.
66. Prosecutor v. Branin, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeals Chamber, 19 March 2004, para. 6.
67. For similar conclusions relating to other special-intent crimes, see Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Judgement, Case No. IT-05-87-T, 26 February 2009, para. 471.
68. D. L. Nersessian, 'Whoops, I Committed Genocide: The Anomaly of Constructive Liability for Serious International Crimes', (2006) 30 Fletcher Forum ofWorld Affairs 81, at 82.
69. A. Ashworth, 'The Elasticity of Mens Rea', in C. Tapper (ed.), Crime, Proof and Punishment: Essays inMemory of Sir Rupert Cross (1981), 45, at 53-6
70. For further discussion, see also G. Williams, 'Convictions and Fair Labelling', (1983) 42 Cambridge Law Journal 85;
71. J. Chalmers and F. Leverick, 'Fair Labelling in Criminal Law', (2008) 71 Modern Law Review 217.
72. see A. P. Simester, 'The Mental Element in Complicity', (2006) 122 Law Quarterly Review 578, at 599.
73. see also G. P. Fletcher's helpful outline of the common justification for felony-murder, G. P. Fletcher, Basic Concepts of Criminal Law (1998), 193.
74. E. van Sliedregt, Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide, (2007) 5 JICJ 184-207, at 201.
75. H. Grotius et al., HugonisGrotii De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres: InQuibus JusNaturae etGentium, Item Juris Publici Prć cipua Explicantur (1925), 523.
76. In Re: Yamashita, 327US 1 (1946), at 15;
77. for a detailed history of the case, see R. L. Lael, The Yamashita Precedent: War Crimes and Command Responsibility (1982).
78. Prosecutor v. Halilović , Judgement, Case No. IT-01-48-T, Trial Chamber I, Section A, 16 November 2005, para. 53;
79. A. J. Sepinwall, 'Failures to Punish: Command Responsibility in Domestic and International Law', (2008) 30 Mich. JIL 251, at 267 (completing a survey of previous practice by concluding that 'there is overwhelming support for the mode of liability view').
80. K. J. Heller, The NurembergMilitary Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law (2011), 262-3.
81. V. Tadros, Criminal Responsibility (2007), 49 (emphasis in original).
82. schlichte Tätigkeitsdelikte (non-result-oriented crimes);
83. Verletzungsdelikte/Gefährdungsdelikte (crimes constituted by violation of legal interests/mere endangerment of legal interests).
84. see A. Eser, Individual Criminal Responsibility (2002), 105 (describing a distinction between delito de mera actividad and delito de resultado in the former, and infraction formelle and infraction materielle in the latter).
85. H. L. A. Hart and T. Honoré ,Causation in the Law(1985), 79 (emphasis in original).
86. The criticism of the traditionalist division between conduct and harm-type offences is best made in M. S. Moore, Causation and Responsibility: An Essay in Law,Morals, andMetaphysics (2009), 101
87. see J. Gardner, Moore on Complicity and Causality, (2008) 156 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 432, at 432-53
88. See R. A. Duff, 'Acting, Trying, and Criminal Liability', in S. Shute, J. Gardner, and J. Horder (eds.), Action and Value in Criminal Law (1995), 75, at 83-5.
89. For the classic discussion of this in English-speaking literature, see T. Nagel, 'Moral Luck', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Vol. 50 (1976);
90. Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Appeals Chamber, 28 November 2007, para. 723.
91. Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Trial Chamber I, 3 December 2003, para. 1015;
92. 'Elements of Crimes, Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, First Session, New York, 3-10 September 2002 (hereafter, 'ICC Elements of Crimes'), at 6 and 17, respectively.
93. Prosecutor v. Laurent Semanza, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Chamber III, 15 May 2003, para. 378 .
94. H.-H. Jescheck and T.Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts: Allgemeiner Teil (1996), 618 (also doubting that omissions are causal in so far as they lack 'a real source of energy').
95. Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Judgement, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Appeals Chamber, 17 September 2003, para. 171.
96. Prosecutor v. Hadz? ihasanović andKubura, Judgement, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Trial Chamber,March 2006, 620-8, para. 15.
97. Prosecutor v. Hadz? ihasanović and Kubura, Judgement, Case No. IT-01-47-A, Appeals Chamber, 22 April 2008, para. 38,
98. citing Prosecutor v. Blaškić , Judgement, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeals Chamber, 29 July 2004, para. 77;
99. Prosecutor v. Kordić and C? erkez, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Appeals Chamber, 17 December 2004, para. 832.
100. T. Weigend, Bemerkungen zur Vorgesetztenverantwortlichkeit im VÖlkerstrafrecht (2004), 116, 999, 1021;
101. B. B. Jia, 'The Doctrine of Command Responsibility Revisited', (2004) 3 Chinese Journal of International Law 1 .
102. O. Triffterer, 'Causality, a Separate Element of the Doctrine of Superior Responsibility as Expressed in Article 28 Rome Statute?', (2002) 15 LJIL 203 (arguing that causation is embedded in the structure of superior responsibility);
103. G. Mettraux, The Lawof Command Responsibility (2009), 42-3.
104. see D. N. Husak, Overcriminalization (2008).
105. S. H.Kadish, Complicity, Cause and Blame: AStudy in the Interpretation ofDoctrine, (1085) 73 CLR 323, at 337 .
106. K. J. M. Smith, AModern Treatise on the Law of Criminal Complicity (1991), 4.
107. Strafgesetzbuch, Bundesgesetzblatt I (2009), 3214, paras. 26, 27, 49;
108. for a modern English translation, see M. Bohlander, The German Criminal Code: AModern English Translation (2008), 43, at 50.
109. C. Kutz, Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age (2000), 147 .
110. The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c.98), Section 8 (emphasis added).
111. For commentary, seeA.Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (2009), 458-61;
112. for discussion, see R.Weisberg, 'Reappraising Complicity', (2000) 4 Buffalo Criminal Law Review 217, at 261-70.
113. C. Kutz, 'Causeless Complicity', (2007) 1 Criminal Law and Philosophy 239, at 301
114. For similar arguments, see R. Buxton, 'Complicity and the LawCommission', 1973 Criminal LawReview 223
115. D. Yeager, 'Helping, Doing, and theGrammarofComplicity', (1996)15Criminal JusticeEthics25.
116. The Accused RADOSLAV BR-DANIN is found ⋯ GUILTY pursuant to Article 7(1) of the following counts: Count 3 - Persecutions', Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Judgement, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Chamber I, 1 September 2004, para. 1152;
117. The Chamber finds the Accused Haradin Bala GUILTY, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute, of the following counts: Count 4 - Torture, a violation of the laws or customs of war, under Article 3 of the Statue, for having aided the torture of L12', Prosecutor v. Limaj et al., Judgement, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Trial Chamber II, 30 November 2005, para. 41.
118. See United NationsWar Crimes Commission, 'Trial of Bruno Tesch and Two Others "The Zyklon B Case"', 1 LRTWC 93.
119. F. Bowes Sayre, 'Criminal Responsibility for the Acts of Another', (1929) 43 Harvard Law Review 689, at 695.
120. H.-L. Schreiber, 'Problems of Justification and Excuse in the Setting of Accessorial Conduct', 1986 Brigham Young University Law Review 611, at 620 .
121. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Chamber I, 2 September 1998, para. 528.
122. see also P. Salvage, 'Le lien de causalite enmatiè re de complicité ', (1981) 25 Revue de science criminelle et de droit pé nal comparé 41.
123. Prosecutor v. Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa, Judgement, Case No. SCSL 04-14-T, Trial Chamber I, 2 August 2007, para. 145;
124. Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana, Judgement, Case Nos. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeals Chamber, 13 December 2004, para. 501.
125. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force on 1 July 2002), Art. 25(3)(c).
126. L.Westerfield, 'The Mens Rea Requirement of Accomplice Liability in American Criminal Law: Knowledge or Intent', (1980) 51 Mississippi Law Journal 155, at 178.
127. G. L.Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part (1953), 394-6.
128. D. Cassel, 'Corporate Aiding and Abetting of Human Rights Violations: Confusion in the Courts', (2007) 6 Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights 304, at 308-15.
129. see Philadelphia: American Law Institute, Model Penal Code Commentaries (1985), at 296, para. 2.06 (emphasis added).
130. The significance of this provision is opaque; see G G. E.Mueller, 'The Mens Rea of Accomplice Liability', (1987) 61 Southern California Law Review 2169, at 2178
131. see B. Weiss, 'What Were They Thinking: TheMental States of the Aider and Abettor and the Causer under Federal Law', (2001) 70 Fordham Law Review 1341, at 1486 .
132. Prosecutor v. Furundz? ija, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998, para. 246 (emphasis added);
133. Prosecutor v. Kvoc? ka et al., Judgement, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Chamber, 2 November 2001, para. 255;
134. Prosecutor v. Naletilić and Martinović , Judgement, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Trial Chamber, 31 March 2003, para. 63;
135. Prosecutor v. Strugar, Judgement, Case No. IT- 01-42-T, Trial Chamber II, 31 January 2005, para. 350;
136. see Prosecutorv. Kvoc? kaetal., Judgement,CaseNo. IT-98-30/1-T, TrialChamber,2 November2001, at 262
137. Prosecutor v. Tadić , Judgement, CaseNo. IT-94-1-T, Trial Chamber, 7May 1997, para. 692
138. G.Williams, 'Complicity, Purpose and the Draft Code - 2', (1990) Criminal Law Review 98, at 99.
139. For a small selection of further examples, see Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., Judgement, Case Nos. IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, Trial Chamber, 22 February 2001, para. 759
140. Prosecutor v. Stakić , Judgement, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Chamber II, 31 July 2003, para. 602 (convicting the accused, Stakić , for deliberately placing civilians in harm's way 'with the knowledge that, in all likelihood, the victims would come to grave harm and even death'); Prosecutor v. Brima, CaseNo. SCSL 04-16-T, Trial Chamber II, 20 June 2007, para. 1786 (convicting the accused, Brima, for killings because he 'was aware of the substantial likelihood that his presence would assist the commission of the crime by the perpetrators')
141. Prosecutor v. Stakić , Judgement, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Trial Chamber II, 31 July 2003, para. 602
142. Prosecutor v. Brima, CaseNo. SCSL 04-16-T, Trial Chamber II, 20 June 2007, para. 1786
143. Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Judgement, Case Nos. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeals Chamber, 13 December 2004, para. 497 .
144. Prosecutor v. Krstić , Judgement, Case No. IT-98-33- A, Appeals Chamber, 19 April 2004, para. 134.
145. Prosecutor v. Bagosora, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-98-41-T, Trial Chamber I, 18 December 2008, para. 2009
146. B. Fisse and C. Howard, Howard's Criminal Law (1990), 332.
147. S. Shute, 'Knowledge and Belief in the Criminal Law', in S. Shute and A. P. Simester (eds.), Criminal Law Theory: Doctrines of the General Part (2002), 171, at 186-7.
148. L. Alexander, 'Insufficient Concern: A Unified Conception of Criminal Culpability', (2000) 88 CLR 931, at 944-7 .
149. For example, see Law Commission, LAWCOM No. 305, Participating in Crime (2007) (UK).
150. See the summary of inconsistent approaches and the advent of the double intent in Prosecutor v. Orić , Judgement, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Chamber II, 30 June 2006, paras. 286-288.
151. see J. G. Stewart, CorporateWar Crimes: Prosecuting Pillage of Natural Resources (2010), 19-23.
152. I. H. Dennis, 'The Mental Element for Accessories', in P. Smith (ed.), Criminal Law: Essays in Honour of J. C. Smith (1987), 60.
153. R. A. Duff, '"Can I Help You?": Accessorial Liability and the Intention to Assist', (1990) 10 Legal Studies 165
154. S. Bronitt, 'Defending Giorgianni - Part Two: New Solutions for Old ProblemsinComplicity', (1993)17CriminalLawJournal 305;
155. P. Robinson and J. M. Darley, Justice, Liability and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law (1996), 103.
156. A. Duff, 'CanWe Punish the Perpetrators ofAtrocities?', in T. Brudholm and T.Cushman (eds.), The Religious in Responses toMass Atrocity (2009), 93.
157. see, e.g.,W.W. Burke-White, 'Regionalization of International Criminal Law Enforcement: A Preliminary Exploration', (2003) 38 Texas ILJ 729.
158. For a different rendering of the same idea, see Prosecutor v. Lukić and Lukić , Judgement, Case No. IT-98-32/1-T, Trial Chamber III, 20 July 2009, para. 901
159. Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Trial Chamber I, 7 June 2001, para.
160. Prosecutor v. Blagojević and Jokić , Judgement, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Appeals Chamber, 9 May 2007, para. 187
161. Ndindabahizi v. The Prosecutor, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-01-71-A, Appeals Chamber, 16 January 2007, para. 117 .
162. see The Cartoon Bank (2011), available online at www.cartoonbank.com/ 2011/we-want-toinclude- you-in-this-decision-without-letting-you-affect-it/invt/ 137184.
163. International Law Commission, Summary of the 2437thMeeting, Consideration of the DraftArticles on Second Reading, 6 June 1996, para. 26
164. For a similar position inGerman criminal theory, see G. Freund, inW. Joecks, K. Miebach, and B. von Heintschel-Heinegg (eds.),Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch: Band 1 (2003), paras. 1-51;
165. C. Roxin, Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil Band I: Grundlagen, Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre (2006), 363.
166. United NationsWar Crimes Commission, 'Trial of Carl Krauch and Twenty-Two Others "The I.G. Farben Trial"', (1947) 10 LRTWC 1, at 23-4.
167. For an elegant philosophical discussion of the problem,which draws on examples of complicity, see J.Glover, 'It Makes No Difference Whether or Not I Do It', (1975) 49 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society
168. J.Gardner, Offences and Defences: Selected Essays in the Philosophy of Criminal Law (2008), 57
169. T. Hörnle, 'Commentary to "Complicity and Causality"', (2006) 1 Criminal Law and Philosophy 143, at 144
170. In addition to the English-language authorities cited immediately above, see also F. Dencker, Kausalität und Gesamttat (1996), 86;
171. H. Koriath, Kausalität und objektive Zurechnung (2007), 145-7.
172. RGSt 58, 113, at 114-15 (Entscheidungssammlung des Reichsgerichts in Strafsachen, Vol. 58, 113, at 114-115);
173. See also C. Roxin, Strafrecht: Allgemeiner Teil Band II: Besondere Erscheinungsformen der Straftat (2003), at 194, para. 26, marginal number 186
174. S. A. Osnabrügge, Die Beihilfe und ihr Erfolg: Zur objektiven Beziehung zwischen Hilfeleistung und Haupttat (2002), 159-60, 261, para. 27 StGB;
175. J. Dressler, 'Reassessing the TheoreticalUnderpinnings ofAccomplice Liability: NewSolutions to an Old Problem', (1985) 37Hastings Law Journal 91, at 133.
176. The standard was initially adopted in Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 29 January 2007, para. 341;
177. See also Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Case No. ICC-01/04- 01/07, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 30 September 2008, para. 486
178. T. Weigend, 'Perpetration through an Organization: The Unexpected Career of a German Legal Concept', (2011) 9 JICJ 91, at 105.
179. Prosecutor v. Bemba, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, CaseNo. ICC-01/05-01/08, Pre-Trial Chamber II, 15 June 2009, para. 326 (emphasis added).
180. See also W. Joecks, K. Miebach, and G. M. Sander, Mü nchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch: Gesamtwerk (2003), at 3.
181. Prosecutor v. Nyiramasuhuko et al., Judgement, Case No. ICTR-98-42-T, Trial Chamber II, 24 June 2011, paras. 6087-6088.
182. C. Roxin, in B. Jähnke, H. W. Laufhütte, and W. Odersky (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar: Erster Band (2003), para. 25, marginal number 6;
183. For details, see B. Bouloc, G. Stefani, and G. Levasseur, Droit pénal géné ral (2005), 287-8.
184. For one of the most thoughtful discussions, see H. van derWilt, 'Joint Criminal Enterprise and Functional Perpetration', in A. Nollkaemper and H. van der Wilt (eds.), System Criminality in International Law (2009), available online at http: //dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596650.
185. M. Bothe, 'War Crimes', in A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, and J. R.W. D. Jones (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002), 392.
186. G. I. A. D. Draper, 'The Modern Pattern ofWar Criminality', in Y. Dinstein and M. Tabory (eds.),War Crimes in International Law (1996), 160.
187. This is evident, for instance, from the statement of one negotiator at the time, who observed that '[t]he Conference is notmaking international penal law', Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II (1949), Section B, at 116.
188. M. Koskenniemi, 'The Pull of the Mainstream', (1990) 88 Michigan Law Review 1946, at 1952.
189. B. Simma and P. Alston, 'Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus Cogens, and General Principles', (1988) 12 Australian Year Book of International Law 82, at 88;
190. See D. Kennedy, 'International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem?', (2002) 15 HHRJ 101, at 120.
191. Prosecutor v Ieng et al., Case No: 002-19-2007-ECCC/OCIJ (PTC38), para. 83.
192. For an excellent overview of this history together with modern manifestations of the problem, see B. Van Schaack, 'Crimen Sine Lege: Judicial Lawmaking at the Intersection of Law andMorals', (2008) 97 GLJ 119.
193. R. D. Sloane, 'The Expressive Capacity of International Punishment: The Limits of theNational Law Analogy and the Potential of International Criminal Law', (2007) 43 Stanford JIL 39, at 42-4.
194. For an insightful discussion, see H. van der Wilt, 'Equal Standards? On the Dialectics between National Jurisdictions and the International Criminal Court', (2008) 8 International Criminal Law Review 229, at 244-5.
195. M. Drumbl, 'Collective Violence and Individual Punishment: TheCriminality ofMassAtrocity', (2005) 99Northwestern University Law Review 539 (calculating average cost of trials as $25 million per case).
196. R. Zacklin, 'The Failings of Ad Hoc Tribunals', (2004) 2 JICJ 541, at 543.
197. P. Hazan and J. T. Snyder, Justice in a Time ofWar: TheTrue Story behind the InternationalCriminalTribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (2004), 187 (citing J. Finci).
198. A. Norrie, Crime, Reason, and History: A Critical Introduction to Criminal Law (1993), 8-9.