¹ The book’s overarching topic of a legal theory and its application to the concepts, methodology, and parameters of extended liability has been the subject of numerous articles. For an overview, see Robinson, Darryl, Justice in Extreme Cases: Criminal Law Theory Meets International Criminal Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 5 [Robinson, Justice in Extreme Cases]. See also Einarsen, Terje & Rikhof, Joseph, A Theory of Punishable Participation in Universal Crimes (Brussels: Torkel Opsahl, 2018)Google Scholar, especially at 305–70 (ch 6, “Personal Liability Concepts in the Literature”). For more general theoretical discussions, see Bergsmo, Morten & Buis, Emiliana J, eds, Philosophical Foundations of International Criminal Law: Correlating Thinkers (Brussels: Torkel Opsahl, 2018)Google Scholar; Bergsmo, Morten & Buis, Emiliana J, eds, Philosophical Foundations of International Criminal Law: Foundational Concepts (Brussels: Torkel Opsahl, 2019)Google Scholar.

² Earlier works include Robinson, Darryl, “The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law” (2008) 21 Leiden J Intl L 925 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, Darryl, “A Cosmopolitan Liberal Account of International Criminal Law” (2013) 26 Leiden J Intl L 127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, Darryl, “International Criminal Law as Justice” (2013) 11 J Intl Crim Just 699 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, Darryl, “How Command Responsibility Got So Complicated: A Culpability Contradiction, Its Obfuscation, and a Simple Solution” (2012) 13 Melbourne J Intl L 1 Google Scholar; Robinson, Darryl, “A Justification of Command Responsibility” (2017) 28 Crim L Forum 633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As Robinson indicates in the text under review, the ideas in these articles have been further refined and developed in this book. Robinson, Justice in Extreme Cases, supra note 1 at ix.

³ The book was the subject of a symposium hosted by the blog Opinio Juris in March and April 2021, attracting contributions from six scholars in international criminal law (ICL), followed by a response by the author. It was also the focus of a symposium held at Temple University’s James E Beasley School of Law, with fourteen contributions and a response by the author that were later published in volume 35 of the Temple International and Comparative Law Journal (2021). Robinson has also provided some insights into the purpose and methodology of the book in “An Interview with Darryl Robinson on Justice in Extreme Cases: Criminal Law Theory Meets International Criminal Law” (2021) 5 PKI Global Justice J 10.

⁴ Robinson, Justice in Extreme Cases, supra note 1 at 11, 20, 54.

⁵ Ibid at 23, 27–31 (with Robinson making clear that he does not oppose teleological reasoning in general but only its “reductive and aggressive form,” at 31).

⁶ Ibid at 23, 39–42 (Robinson points out that, given the different purposes of international human rights law and international humanitarian law versus ICL, the transposition of norms with superficially the same contents should be examined with those purposes in mind — namely, the responsibility of states versus the responsibility of individuals, at 39).

⁷ Ibid at 23, 45–50 (with Robinson making clear that principles on the limitation of the sovereignty of states vis-à-vis their citizens can also play a role in the protection of rights of individuals in ICL and are not to be spurned solely because of their original source, at 47).

⁸ Ibid at 11; see also at 23, 52, 62, 64, 66, 84, 94, 229, 282.

⁹ Ibid at 11.

¹⁰ The book refers to three theories — namely, the doctrinal approach, the liberal critique of ICL, and the critique of the liberal critique (ibid at 60–61).

¹¹ Ibid at 62 (see also his responses to various criticisms of a liberal approach to ICL, at 74–83).

¹² Ibid at 96–99.

¹³ Ibid at 100–01; see also at 113–18.

¹⁴ Ibid at 105–06 (see also his responses to objections to using this approach, at 106–12).

¹⁵ Ibid at 147.

¹⁶ For the reasons for choosing this particular form of extended liability, see ibid at 139–40.

¹⁷ Ibid at 155–56 (see also a discussion of the jurisprudence regarding the second question, at 156–59).

¹⁸ Ibid at 158–74.

¹⁹ Ibid at 175–76.

²⁰ Ibid at 177–78.

²¹ Ibid at 181–82.

²² Ibid at 184, 190 (see also a discussion of why liability without contribution is the incorrect approach, at 185–90; for an assessment of how far this approach has been applied in international jurisprudence, see at 190–92).

²³ 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 3, Can TS 2002 No 13 (entered into force 1 July 2002) [Rome Statute].

²⁴ Robinson, Justice in Extreme Cases, supra note 1 at 195 (for an overview of the jurisprudence, see at 199–205).

²⁵ Ibid at 209, 218–20, 222–23 (see also a discussion for this choice, at 209–18).

²⁶ Ibid at 224–26.

²⁷ Ibid at 232–33.

²⁸ Ibid at 234–35 (see also an initial analysis regarding the defence of duress, at 37–38). For an overview of the jurisprudence in these areas, see Currie, Robert J & Rikhof, Joseph, International and Transnational Criminal Law, 3rd ed (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2020) at 718–21, 730–37, 745–48Google Scholar.

²⁹ While most commentators have agreed with, or expanded upon, the various chapters of the book, the most controversial aspect has been Robinson’s discussion regarding mens rea for command responsibility. For criticisms, see Harmen van der Wilt, “Justice in Extreme Cases Symposium: Some Observations on the ‘Genius of Command Responsibility’, As Understood by Darryl Robinson” (1 April 2021), online (blog): Opinio Juris <opiniojuris.org/2021/04/01/justice-in-extreme-cases-symposium-some-observations-on-the-genius-of-command-responsibility-as-understood-by-darryl-robinson/>; Saira Mohamed, “Justice in Extreme Cases Symposium: The Harms of the Derelict Commander” (1 April 2021), online (blog): Opinio Juris <opiniojuris.org/2021/04/01/justice-in-extreme-cases-symposium-the-harms-of-the-derelict-commander/>; Jain, Neha, “A Tale of Two Cities: Reflections on Robinson’s Twinning of International Criminal Law and Criminal Law Theory” (2021) 35:1 Temple Intl & Comp LJ 25 at 32–35Google Scholar; deGuzman, Margaret M, “Coherentist Deontic Analysis or Dialogic Community Value Identification: Which Way Forward for ICL?” (2021) 35:1 Temple Intl & Comp LJ 57 at 65–67Google Scholar; Ohlin, Jens David, “Complicity, Negligence, and Command Responsibility” (2021) 35:1 Temple Intl & Comp LJ 109 at 117–20Google Scholar; Greenawalt, Alexander KA, “Advancing Fundamental Principles through Doctrine and Practice: Comments on Darryl Robinson, Justice in Extreme Cases” (2021) 35:1 Temple Intl & Comp LJ 79 at 91–93Google Scholar. For a response, see Robinson, Darryl, “The Author Responds: Culpability Theories in Extreme Cases” (2021) 35:1 Temple Intl & Comp LJ 155 at 164–65Google Scholar.

³⁰ The book alludes very briefly to this possibility. Robinson, Justice in Extreme Cases, supra note 1 at 21. One of the commentators also refers to this possibility, see Jain, supra note 29 at 26–28.

³¹ Inhumane acts are crimes against humanity while inhumane treatment is a war crime.

³² Delalić et al (Čelebići Case), IT-96-21, Judgment (16 November 1998) at paras 519–42 (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Trial Chamber).

³³ Kupreškić et al, IT-95-16-T, Judgment (14 January 2000) at para 566 (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Trial Chamber).

³⁴ Ibid at para 589.

³⁵ Nahimana et al, ICTR-99-52-T, Judgment (3 December 2003) at paras 1074–76 (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Trial Chamber).

³⁶ Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-1962, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Ntaganda against the “Second Decision on the Defence’s Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court in Respect of Counts 6 and 9” (15 June 2017) at paras 46–70 (International Criminal Court Appeals Chamber).

³⁷ Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-2/06 A A2, Judgment (30 March 2021) at paras 1164–68 (International Criminal Court Appeals Chamber).

³⁸ See Assembly of States Parties, International Criminal Court, Report on the Working Group on Amendments, ICC-ASP/10/32 (9 December 2011) at 4–5, 17–20.

³⁹ See Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide: Commentary and Core Text (June 2021). See also Darryl Robinson, “Your Guide to Ecocide — Part 1” (16 July 2021), online (blog): Opinio Juris <opiniojuris.org/2021/07/16/your-guide-to-ecocide-part-1/>; Darryl Robinson, “Your Guide to Ecocide — Part 2: The Hard Part” (16 July 2021), online (blog): Opinio Juris <opiniojuris.org/2021/07/16/your-guide-to-ecocide-part-2-the-hard-part/>.

⁴⁰ Gaddafi and Al-Senussi, ICC-OI/II-OI/IIOA6, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Abdullah Al-Senussi against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 11 October 2013 entitled “Decision on the Admissibility of the Case against Abdullah Al-Senussi” (24 July 2014) at paras 145–58, 168–69, 189–96 (International Criminal Court Appeals Chamber).

⁴¹ See Darryl Robinson, “The Other Poisoned Chalice: Unprecedented Evidentiary Standards in the Gbagbo Case?” (5 November 2019), online (blog): EJIL Talk! <www.ejiltalk.org/the-other-poisoned-chalice-unprecedented-evidentiary-standards-in-the-gbagbo-case-part-1/>.