Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:12:10.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Tribunals and the Renaissance of International Criminal Law: Three Themes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Darryl Robinson  and
Gillian MacNeil
Darryl Robinson
Affiliation:
Queen’s University, Faculty of Law (Canada)
Gillian MacNeil
Affiliation:
Queen’s University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We are delighted to participate in this symposium on the legacy of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda (Tribunals; respectively, ICTY and ICTR). We have been asked to offer reflections on the Tribunals’ impact on substantive international criminal law (ICL)—in particular, the definitions of crimes and the modes of liability. Given the enormity of the topic, we can offer only a cursory and impressionist sketch of the terrain, and draw attention to a few intriguing features along the way. We will not attempt to survey the Tribunals’ jurisprudence or the related academic literature. Instead, our aim is simply to highlight three themes underlying the Tribunals’ elaboration of substantive legal standards. For the nonspecialist, this sketch may provide a helpful overview of the evolution of ICL. For the specialist, this sketch may bring into slightly sharper relief some underlying patterns in the Tribunals’ work. We will also offer some broader thoughts about the Tribunals in the overall arc of ICL, and how their structure and priorities have left a lasting, distinctive imprimatur on ICL.

Type
Symposium on the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 110 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 191 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

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

1 Prosecutor v. Perišić, Case No. IT-04-81-A, Appeals Judgment (Int’l Crim. Trib. Former Yugo. Feb. 28, 2013); Prosecutor v. šainović, Case No. IT-05-87-A, Appeals Judgment (Jan. 23, 2014); Sadat, Leila Nadya, Can the ICTY Šainović and Perišić Cases Be Reconciled? , 108 AJIL 475 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trahan, Jennifer & Lovall, Erin K., The ICTY Appellate Chamber’s Acquittal of Momcčilo Perišić: The Specific Direction Element of Aiding and Abetting Should Be Rejected or Modified to Explicitly Include a “Reasonable Person” Due Diligence Standard, 40 Brook. J. Int’l L. 171 (2014)Google Scholar.

2 David Foster Wallace, This Is Water:Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, About Living a Compassionate Life (2009). The analogy is referenced in an ICL context in Stahn, Carsten, How Is the Water? Light and Shadow in the First Years of the ICC, 22 Crim. L.F. 175 (2011)Google Scholar.

3 See, e.g., Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), paras. 42, 52, UN Doc. S/1994/674, Annex (May 27, 1994); Rowe, Peter, War Crimes and the Former Yugoslavia: The Legal Difficulties, 32 Mil. L. & L. War Rev. 317, 331–33 (1993)Google Scholar.

4 See, e.g., Rowe, supra note 3, at 335.

5 See, e.g., Copelon, Rhonda, Surfacing Gender: Re-engraving Crimes Against Women in Humanitarian Law, 5 Hastings Women’s L. J. 243 (1994)Google Scholar; Meron, Theodor, Rape as a Crime Under International Humanitarian Law, 87 AJIL 424 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chinkin, Christine, Rape and Sexual Abuse of Women in International Law, 5 Eur. J. Int’l L. 326 (1994)Google Scholar.

6 See, for example, discussions of such tendencies in Critical Approaches to International Criminal Law (Christine Schwöbel ed., 2014).

7 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec. 9, 1948, 78 UNTS 277; see Schabas, William A., Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes 48–52, 417–25 (2d ed. 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 The relevant statutory provisions for the Tribunals are Article 4 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, SC Res. 827, annex (May 25, 1993) [hereinafter ICTY Statute], and Article 2 of Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, SC Res. 955, annex (Nov. 6, 1994) [hereinafter ICTR Statute]. The statute, decisions, and other materials of the Yugoslav Tribunal are available at http://www.icty.org. The statute, decisions, and other materials of the Rwanda Tribunal are available at its legacy website, http://unictr.unmict.org. See also http://www.unmict.org/en/about.

9 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No.ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgment, paras. 512–16 (Int’l Crim. Trib. Rwanda Sept. 2, 1998).

10 Id., paras. 82– 83, 170 –72.

11 Id., paras. 512–15.

12 Schabas, supra note 7, at 129 –31; Prosecutor v. Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Trial Judgment, paras. 554–56 (Aug. 2, 2001); Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Judgment and Sentence, para. 56 (Dec. 6, 1999).

13 See, e.g., Schabas, supra note 7, at 124 –29, 139–43.

14 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Trial Judgment, para. 317 (May 15, 2003).

15 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09, Second Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest (July 12, 2010).

16 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Serb. & Mont.), 2007 ICJ REP. 43 (Feb. 26).

17 Which presumably must be committed with the corresponding mens rea.

18 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, supra note 7, Art. II.

19 The Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunal decisions did not significantly address the collective contexts of international crimes. They provided little analysis of crimes against humanity, let alone genocide, for which there was no agreed definition until the 1948 Convention.

20 The final element for each form of genocide is that “the conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.” The first alternative requires collective activity, whereas the latter preserves the theoretical possibility of a “lone génocidaire,” provided that the person has the means of actually harming the group. International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes, ICC Doc. ICC-PIDS-LT-03-002/11_Eng (2011).

21 Prosecutor v. Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Appeals Judgment, para. 224 (Apr. 19, 2004).

22 The proposed element was loosely based on Akayesu, Trial Judgment, supra note 9, paras. 520, 523.

23 Krstić, Trial Judgment, supra note 12, para. 550 (emphasis added).

24 Krstić, Appeals Judgment, supra note 21, para. 134 (“Genocide is one of the worst crimes known to human kind, and its gravity is reflected in the stringent requirement of specific intent.”); see also Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-A, Appeals Judgment, para. 524 (May 26, 2003); Rutaganda, Judgment and Sentence, supra note 12, para. 56.

25 As noted by Schabas, supra note 7, at 242, and Krβ, Claus, The Crime of Genocide Under International Law, 6 Int’l Crim. L. Rev. 461, 492–97 (2006)Google Scholar.

26 Greenawalt, Alexander, Rethinking Genocidal Intent: The Case for a Knowledge-Based Interpretation, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 2265 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krβ, supra note 25; Hans Vest, A Structure-Based Concept of Genocidal Intent, 5 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 781, 784–86 (2007); Schabas, supra note 7, ch. 5; Jones, John R. W. D., Whose Intent Is It Anyway?, in Man’s Inhumanity to Man: Essays in Honour of Antonio Cassese 467 (Cassese, Antonio & Vohrah, Lal Chand eds., 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van der Wilt, Harmen G., Genocide, Complicity in Genocide and International v. Domestic Jurisdiction; Reflections on the van Anraat Case , 4 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 239 (2006)Google Scholar.

27 Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Aug. 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 1544, 82 UNTS 279.

28 Id., Art. 6(c).

29 Judicial Decisions, International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment and Sentences, 41 AJIL 172> (1947).

30 See Clark, Roger S., Crimes Against Humanity at Nuremberg, in The Nuremberg Trial and International Law 177, 194–98 (Ginsburg, George & Kudriavtsev, Vladimir N. eds., 1990)Google Scholar.

31 Sadat, Leila Nadya, Crimes Against Humanity in the Modern Age, 107 AJIL 334, 338 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 See, e.g., Control Council Law No. 10, reprinted in 1 Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, October 1946–April 1949, at xvi (1949– 53) (“The Medical Case”); Draft Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, UN Doc. A/CN.4/85 (1954), reprinted in [1954] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’N 112, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1954/Add.1; Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Eighth Session 15, UN Doc. A/51/10 (1996); Convention on the Non-applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, Nov. 26, 1968, 754 UNTS 73. See also the discussion in M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity: Historical Evolution and Contemporary Application (2011).

33 ICTY Statute, supra note 8, Art. 5.

34 ICTR Statute, supra note 8, Art. 3.

35 R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701, 869 (Can.) (“[C]rimes against humanity are so repulsive, so reprehensible, and so well understood that it simply cannot be argued that the definition . . . [is] vague or uncertain.”).

36 Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeals Judgment, paras. 98 –101 ( July 29, 2004); Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeals Judgment, para. 248 ( July 15, 1999); Akayesu, Trial Judgment, supra note 9.

37 On the value of international “focal points,” see Ginsburg, Tom & McAdams, Richard H., Adjudicating in Anarchy: An Expressive Theory of International Dispute Resolution, 45 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1229 (2004)Google Scholar.

38 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 UNTS 90; Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone ( Jan. 16, 2002).

39 See, e.g., Rowe, supra note 3, at 335. Most jurists took the position that crimes against humanity were not restricted to armed conflicts. See, e.g., Attorney-General v. Eichmann, Criminal Case No. 40/61, para. 29 (District Ct. Jerusalem Dec. 12, 1961); Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), supra note 3, paras. 75–76.

40 Bassiouni, supra note 32, at xxxii.

41 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-I, Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, paras. 140–42 (Oct 2, 1995); Tadić, Appeals Judgment, supra note 36, paras. 249–51.

42 Starr, Sonja, Extraordinary Crimes at Ordinary Times: International Justice Beyond Crisis Situations, 101 Nw. U. L. REV. 1257 (2007)Google Scholar; Ioannis Kalpouzos & Mann, Itamar, Banal Crimes Against Humanity: The Case of Asylum Seekers in Greece, 16 MELB. J Int’l L. 1 (2016)Google Scholar.

43 Tadić, Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, supra note 41. The relevant statutory provisions for the Tribunals are Articles 2 and 3 of the ICTY Statute, supra note 8, and Article 4 of the ICTR Statute, supra note 8.

44 Prosecutor v. Delalić, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeals Judgment, paras. 56–84 (Feb. 20, 2001).

45 Tadić, Appeals Judgment, supra note 36, paras. 137–45.

46 Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Case Nos. IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1-A, Appeals Judgment, para. 58 (June 12, 2002).

47 See the sources cited on this point supra note 3. See also Meron, Theodor, Is International Law Moving Towards Criminalization, 9 Eur. J. Int’l L. 18, 25 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Kress, Claus, War Crimes Committed in Non-international Armed Conflict and the Emerging System of International Criminal Justice, 30 Isr. Y.B. Hum. Rts. 103, 104–05 (2000)Google Scholar.

48 Tadić, Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, supra note 41, para. 97.

49 Id., para. 126.

50 Id.

51 Id., paras. 126, 128 –33.

52 Id., paras. 100 –25.

53 Id.

54 See, e.g., Aldrich, George H., Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 90 AJIL 64 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Watson, Geoffrey R., The Humanitarian Law of the Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunals: Jurisdiction in Prosecutor v. Tadic, 3 VA. J. Int’l L. 687 (1996)Google Scholar; Warbrick, Colin & Rowe, Peter, The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia: The Decision of the Appeals Chamber on the Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction in the Tadic Case , 45 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 691 (1996)Google Scholar.

55 See, e.g., Kress, supra note 47; Greenwood, Christopher, International Humanitarian Law and the Tadic Case , 7 Eur. J. Int’l L. 265, 279–80 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (“a major contribution”); Werle, Gerhard & Jessberger, Florian, Principles of International Criminal Law 16 (3d ed. 2014)Google Scholar (“[m]ost important”); Alvarez, Jose E., Nurem berg Revisited: The Tadic Case , 7 Eur. J. Int’l L. 245, 261 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (“grandest legacy”).

56 Kress, supra note 47, at 108–09.

57 One way to understand the relatively open-ended definitions in the Tribunals’ statutes is that the Security Council essentially delegated to the Tribunals the task of elaborating in more detail the applicable customary rules. See, e.g., Ginsburg, Tom, Bounded Discretion in International Judicial Lawmaking, 45 Vaj. Int’l L. 631 (2004–05)Google Scholar; Danner, Allison Marston, When Courts Make Law: How the International Criminal Tribunals Recast the Laws of War, 59 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (2006)Google Scholar.

58 On the need for such an account, and some of the difficulties formulating it, see Robinson, Darryl, A Cosmopolitan Liberal Account of International Criminal Law, 26 Leiden J. Int’l L. 127 (2013)Google Scholar.

59 Eve La Haye, War Crimes in Internal Armed Conflicts 136 (2008).

60 See Jean-Marie Henckaerts & Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law (2005); Alamuddin, Amal & Webb, Philippa, Expanding Jurisdiction over War Crimes Under Article 8 of the ICC Statute, 8 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 1219 (2010)Google Scholar.

61 See, e.g., Askin, Kelly D., Prosecuting Wartime Rape and Other Gender-Related Crimes Under International Law: Extraordinary Advances, Enduring Obstacles, 21 Berkeley J. Int’l L. 288 (2003)Google Scholar.

62 Kelly Dawn Askin, War Crimes Against Women; Prosecution in International War Crimes Tribunals (1997); Chinkin, supra note 5; Odio-Benito, Elizabeth, Sexual Violence as a War Crime, in The New Challenges of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict (Fernandez-Sánchez, Pablo Antonio ed., 2005)Google Scholar; MacDonald, Gabrielle Kirk, Crimes of Sexual Violence: The Experience of the International Criminal Tribunal, 39 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 1, 9–10 (2000)Google Scholar; Goldstone, Richard J., Prosecuting Rape as a War Crime, 34 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 277 (2002)Google Scholar.

63 See, in particular, the critique in ASKIN, supra note 62.

64 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Art. 27, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (rape); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts [Protocol I], Art. 75(2)(b), June 8, 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (enforced prostitution and indecent assault); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-international Armed Conflicts [Protocol II], Art. 4(2)(e), June 8, 1977, 1125 UNTS 609 (rape, enforced prostitution, and indecent assault).

65 See Askin, supra note 62; Sellers, Patricia Viseur & Okuizumi, Kaoru, International Prosecution of Sexual Assaults, 7 Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 45 (1997)Google Scholar; Meron, supra note 5.

66 Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgment, paras. 165–69 (Dec. 10, 1998); Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Appeals Judgment, para. 208 ( July 21, 2000).

67 See, e.g., Akayesu, Trial Judgment, supra note 9, para. 597; Kunarac, Appeals Judgment, supra note 46, para. 150.

68 See, e.g., Akayesu, Trial Judgment, supra note 9, paras. 706–07, 731.

69 Id., paras. 507–08.

70 Id., paras. 732–33; see also Prosecutor v. Karemera, Case No. ICTR-98-44-A, Appeals Judgment, para. 608 (Sept. 29, 2014).

71 See, e.g., Akayesu, Trial Judgment, supra note 9, paras. 597–98; Kunarac, Appeals Judgment, supra note 46, paras. 127–33; see also Wiener, Phillip, The Evolving Jurisprudence of the Crime of Rape in International Criminal Law, 54 B.C. L. Rev. 1207 (2013)Google Scholar. Recently, an ICTY appeals chamber has also affirmed a broader definition of sexual assault. Prosecutor v. Ðorđević, Case No. IT-05-87/1-A, Appeals Judgment, paras. 850 –52 (Jan 27, 2014).

72 See, e.g., McKinnon, Catharine, Defining Rape Internationally: A Comment on Akayesu, 44 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 940 (2005)Google Scholar.

73 For example, in Ðorđević, Appeals Judgment, supra note 71, paras. 850–52, the Appeals Chamber identified lack of consent as an element of sexual assault but held that “any form of coercion . . . may constitute proof of lack of consent and usually is an indication thereof.”

74 See, e.g., Akayesu, Trial Judgment, supra note 9, para. 731.

75 Chinkin, Christine, Women: The Forgotten Victims of Armed Conflict, in The Changing Face Of Conflict and the Efficacy Of International Humanitarian Law (Durham, Helen & McCormack, Timothy L.H. eds., 1999)Google Scholar.

76 Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), paras. 53–54, UN Doc. S/25704 (May 3, 1993).

77 Id., para. 56.

78 Cassandra Steer, Translating Guilt: Identifying Leadership Liability for Mass Atrocity Crimes (forthcoming 2016).

79 Tadić, Appeals Judgment, supra note 36.

80 See, e.g., Ohlin, Jens David, Three Conceptual Problems with the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise, 5 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 69, 72 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 See generally Badar, Mohamed Elewa, “Just ConvictEveryone!”–Joint Perpetration: From Tadić to Stakić and Back Again , 6 Int’l Crim. L. Rev. 293, 301 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ohlin, supra note 80; Ohlin, Jens David, Joint Intentions to Commit International Crimes, 11 CHI. J. Int’l L. 693 (2011)Google Scholar; Farhang, Cliff, Point of No Return: Joint Criminal Enterprise in Brđanin, 23 Leiden J. Int’l L. 137 (2010)Google Scholar; Stewart, James G., The End of ‘Modes of Liability’ for International Crimes, 25 Leiden J. Int’l L. 165, 171 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The ICTY Appeals Chamber noted concerns about convicting everybody involved in a large-scale JCE as a perpetrator, regardless of contribution, but found that differences could be addressed in sentencing. Prosecutor v. Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Appeals Judgment, paras. 420–32 (Apr. 3, 1997).

82 Tadić, Appeals Judgment, supra note 36, para. 228; Krstić, Appeals Judgment, supra note 21, para. 150; Ðorđević, Appeals Judgment, supra note 71, para. 77.

83 Badar, supra note 81, at 301.

84 In Ðorđviđ, Appeals Judgment, supra note 71, the Appeals Chamber rejected a challenge to the doctrine. The doctrine was again affirmed in Prosecutor v. Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-A, Appeals Judgment (Apr. 8, 2015).

85 See System Criminality in International Law (André Nollkaemper & Harmen van der Wilt eds., 2009).

86 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges (Int’l Crim. Ct. Jan. 29, 2007); Prosecutor v. Brima, Case No. SCSL-2004-16-A, Appeals Judgment (Spec. Ct. Sierra Leone Feb. 22, 2008); Prosecutor v. Sary, Case No. 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/OCIJ (PTC38), Decision on the Appeals Against the Co-investigative Judges Order on Joint Criminal Enterprise ( JCE) (Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia May 20, 2010). For an example of the influence on national jurisprudence, see R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2010] UKSC 15 (UK) and Ezokoh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 SCC 40, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 678 (Can.).

88 Command responsibility is also helpful where those at higher levels are in reality issuing orders or are otherwise directly complicit, but where evidence of such complicity is not available. In such cases, superiors can still be held liable for their failure to control subordinates.

89 Luban, David, Contrived Ignorance, 87 GEO. L.J. 957 (1999)Google Scholar; Luban, David, Moral Responsibility in the Age of Bureaucracy, 90 Mich. L. Rev. 2348 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (1948); In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946); see Cryer, Robert, Friman, Håkan, Robinson, Darryl & Wilmshurst, Elizabeth, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure 384–85 (3d ed. 2014)Google Scholar.

91 Delalić, Appeals Judgment, supra note 44; Prosecutor v. Halilović, Case No. IT-01-48-A, Appeals Judgment, para. 59 (Oct. 16, 2007).

92 Delalić, Appeals Judgment, supra note 44, paras. 223, 241.

93 Blaškić, Appeals Judgment, supra note 36, para. 72; Prosecutor v. Orić, Case No. IT-03-68-T, Trial Judgment, paras. 329 –31( June 30, 2006).

94 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gomba, paras. 414 –38 ( June 15, 2009).

95 See, e.g., Ford v. Garcia, 289 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2002); Prosecutor v. Fofana, Case No. SCSL-04-14-T, Trial Judgment (Aug. 2, 2007).

96 See, e.g., Damaška, Mirjan, The Shadow Side of Command Responsibility, 49 AM. J. Comp. L. 455 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O’Reilly, Arthur T., Command Responsibility: A Call to Realign the Doctrine with Principles of Individual Accountability and Retributive Justice, 40 Gonz. L. Rev. 127 (2005)Google Scholar; Nersessian, David L., Whoops, I Committed Genocide! The Anomaly of Constructive Liability for Serious International Crimes, 30 Fletcher Forum World Aff. 81 (2006)Google Scholar; Ching, Ann, Evolution of the Command Responsibility Doctrine in Light of the Celebici Decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia , 25 N. C. J. Int’l & Com. Reg. 167, 204 (1999)Google Scholar; Darcy, Shane, Imputed Criminal Liability and the Goals of International Justice, 20 Leiden J. Int’l L. 377 (2007)Google Scholar; Guénaël Mettraux, International Crimes and the Ad Hoc Tribunals 261–64 (2005).

97 The argument is developed with greater care in Robinson, Darryl, How Command Responsibility Got So Complicated: A Culpability Contradiction, Its Obfuscation, and a Simple Solution, 13 Melb. J. Int’l L. 1 (2012)Google Scholar.

98 Prosecutor v. Delalić, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Judgment, para. 398 (Nov. 16, 1998); Blaškić, Appeals Judgment, supra note 36, paras. 73–77.

99 Delalić, Trial Judgment, supra note 98, para. 398; Blaškić, Appeals Judgment, supra note 36, paras. 73–77.

100 Robinson, supra note 97, at 25–27.

101 Tadić, Appeals Judgment, supra note 36, para. 186 (“the foundation of criminal responsibility is the principle of personal culpability: nobody may be held criminally responsible for acts or transactions in which he has not personally engaged or in some other way participated”); Prosecutor v. Kayishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Trial Judgment, para. 199 (May 21, 1999) (“firmly established that for the accused to be criminally culpable his conduct must. . . have contributed to, or have had an effect on, the commission of the crime”); Orii, Trial Judgment, supra note 93, paras. 280 – 84.

102 See, e.g., Gardner, John, Complicity and Causality, 1 Crim. L. & Phil. 127 (2007)Google Scholar; Kadish, Sanford H., Complicity, Cause and Blame: A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine, 73 Cal. L. Rev. 323, 346 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. All references to causal contribution in this section are references to this modest threshold.

103 Gardner, supra note 102; Kadish, supra note 102. An alternative approach, touched on below, would be to develop a noncausal conception of culpability. See, e.g., Sepinwall, Amy J., Failures to Punish: Command Responsibility in Domestic and International law, 30 Mich. J. Int’l L. 251 (2009)Google Scholar; Christopher Kutz, Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age (2000).

104 See, e.g., Blaškić, Appeals Judgment, supra note 36, para. 83;Delalić, Trial Judgment, supra note 98, para. 400. The best of these arguments was that the commander has an express duty to punish past crimes, that a failure to punish obviously cannot contribute to the completed crimes, and therefore that the duty to punish is logically incompatible with a requirement of causal contribution. However, even that provision can be reconciled with fundamental principles. The failure to punish past crimes can facilitate or encourage subsequent crimes, giving rise to criminal liability in relation to the subsequent crimes. Thus the failure-to-punish provision remains pertinent as a route to ground liability in later crimes. Retroactive assignment of liability for past completed crimes—to which the commander neither actively nor passively contributed—would not accord with the culpability principle as articulated in ICL or as generally understood.

105 Fox, Carol, Closing a Loophole in Accountability for War Crimes: Successor Commanders’ Duty to Punish Known Past Offences, 55 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 443 (2004)Google Scholar; Greenwood, Christopher, Command Responsibility and the Hadžihasanović Decision , 2 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 598 (2004)Google Scholar; Jia, Bing Bing, The Doctrine of Command Responsibility Revisited, 3 Chinese J. Int’l L. 1 (2004)Google Scholar; Guénaél Mettraux, The Law Of Command Responsibility 190–92 (2009); Nerlich, Volker, Superior Responsibility Under Article 28 ICC Statute: For What Exactly Is the Superior Held Responsible?, 5 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 665 (2007)Google Scholar; Meloni, Chantal, Command Responsibility: Mode of Liability for the Crimes of Subordinates or Separate Offence of the Superior?, 5 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 619 (2007)Google Scholar; Arnold, Roberta & Triffterer, Otto, Article 28, in Commentary on the Rome Statute Of the International Criminal Court 795 (Triffterer, Otto ed., 2d ed. 2008)Google Scholar; Akerson, David & Knowlton, Natalie, President Obama and the International Criminal Law of Successor Liability, 37 Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 615, 627 (2009)Google Scholar; Sepinwall, supra note 103; van Sliedregt, Elies, Article 28 of the ICC Statute: Mode of Liability and/or Separate Offence?, 12 New Crim. L. Rev. 420 (2009)Google Scholar; Moloto, Bakone Justice, Command Responsibility in International Criminal Tribunals, 3 Berkeley J. Int’l L. Publicist 12 (2009)Google Scholar; Trechsel, Stefan, Command Responsibility as a Separate Offence, 3 Publicist 26 (2009)Google Scholar; Sander, Barrie, Unravelling the Confusion Concerning Successor Superior Responsibility in the ICTY Jurisprudence, 23 Leiden J. Int’l L. 105 (2010)Google Scholar; Cryer, Robert, The Ad Hoc Tribunals and the Law of Command Responsibility: A Quiet Earthquake, in Judicial Creativity At the International Criminal Tribunals 159 (Darcy, Shane & Powderly, Joseph eds., 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Hadzˇihasanović, Case No. IT-01-47-A, Appeals Judgment (Apr. 22, 2008) (split decision); Prosecutor v. Orić, Case No. IT-03-68-A, Appeals Judgment ( July 3, 2008) (split decision on whether to reverse Hadzˇihasanović); Fox, supra note 105; Mettraux, supra note 105, at 190 –92. Decisions of the Special Court for Sierra Leone have also split, with some following the majority, and some the dissent, in Hadžihasanović.

107 Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanović, Case No. IT-01-47-AR72, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Challenging Jurisdictionin Relation to Command Responsibility, Partial Diss. Op. Shahabuddeen, J., para. 33 (July 16, 2003).

108 Even the Halilović decision, striving valiantly to portray command responsibility as separate offense, acknowledged that all but one (ambiguous) ICL authority treat it as a mode of liability. Prosecutor v. Halilović, Case No. IT-01-48-T, Trial Judgment, paras. 54, 95 (Nov. 16, 2005). Although the Halilović decision characterized post-Second World War jurisprudence as “divergent” on the issue, every authority cited adopted the “mode” approach, with the exception of only one passage (from the Toyoda case) that arguably supported a separate dereliction offense. Id., paras. 42–53. The Halilović decision also acknowledged that national legislation treated command responsibility as a mode, id., para. 43, and that the jurisprudence of the ICTY itself had consistently done so, id., para. 53.

109 Id., paras. 54, 95; Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Judgment, paras. 67, 72 (June 25, 1999). Both judgments also subtly contradict themselves on whether the commander is or is not held responsible for the underlying crimes.

110 Halilović, Trial Judgment, supra note 108, para. 78 (“The nature of command responsibility itself, as a sui generis form of liability, which is distinct from the modes of individual responsibility set out in Article 7(1), does not require a causal link.”).

111 The most careful in this vein is Mettraux, supra note 105, at 37–47, 80 – 81.

112 Prosecutor v. Ntabakuze, Case No. ICTR-98-41A-A, Appeals Judgment (May 8, 2012) (especially paras. 282 (command responsibility as a “form of liability”), 301–04 (“guilty of extremely serious crimes” by virtue of command responsibility), 312 (conviction for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes)).

113 Efforts to develop such a theory appear in Sepinwall, supra note 103.

114 Akerson & Knowlton, supra note 105, at 615, 630 (“obvious flaw”); Fox, supra note 105, at 480 (“weaknesses and limitations”); Langston, Emily, The Superior Responsibility Doctrine in International Law, 4 Int’l Crim. L. Rev. 141, 161 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (“retreat”).

115 Robert Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime (2011).

116 Id.

117 Markus Dubber, The Sense of Justice: Empathy in Law and Punishment (2006).

118 Danner, Allison Marston, When Courts Make Law: How the International Criminal Tribunals Recast the Laws of War, 59 Vand. L. J. 1, 22 (2006)Google Scholar; Robinson, Darryl, The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law, 21 Leiden J. Int’l L. 925, 956–61 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 Danner, Allison Marston, When Courts Make Law: How the International Criminal Tribunals Recast the Laws of War, 59 Vand. L. J. 1, 22 (2006)Google Scholar; Robinson, Darryl, The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law, 21 Leiden J. Int’l L. 925, 956–61 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.