Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T22:07:23.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part II - Joint Commission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2019

Jérôme de Hemptinne
Affiliation:
Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights
Robert Roth
Affiliation:
Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights
Elies van Sliedregt
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Marjolein Cupido
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Manuel J. Ventura
Affiliation:
Western Sydney University
Lachezar Yanev
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Tom Gal
Affiliation:
Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights
Thomas Van Poecke
Affiliation:
KU Leuven, Belgium
Get access

Summary

This chapter examines the concept of co-perpetration, as defined and developed in the jurisprudence of the ICC. To this end, the research contained herein is divided into two separate, yet interrelated, parts that focus on the two distinct forms of co-perpetration, which the Court has recognized in its case law: ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ co-perpetration.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

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

Select Bibliography

Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law – Volume I: Foundations and General Part (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Article 25: Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Triffterer, O. and Ambos, K. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (3rd edn, Munich: C.H. Beck, 2016).Google Scholar
Cryer, R. et al., An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (3rd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Fletcher, G., Rethinking Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gil Gil, A. and Maculan, E., ‘Current Trends in the Definition of “Perpetrator” by the International Criminal Court: From the Decision on the Confirmation of Charges in the Lubanga Case to the Katanga Judgment’, 28 Leiden Journal of International Law (2015), 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jain, N., Perpetrators and Accessories in International Criminal Law: Individual Modes of Responsibility for Collective Crimes (Oxford: Hart, 2014).Google Scholar
Ohlin, J., ‘Co-Perpetration: German Dogmatik or German Invasion’, in Stahn, C. (ed.), The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 517.Google Scholar
Ohlin, J., van Sliedregt, E. and Weigend, T., ‘Assessing the Control-Theory’, 26 Leiden Journal of International Law (2013), 725.Google Scholar
Olásolo, H., The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principals to International Crimes (Oxford: Hart, 2009).Google Scholar
Olásolo, H. and Cepeda, A., ‘The Notion of Control of the Crime and Its Application by the ICTY in the Stakić Case’, 4 International Criminal Law Review (2004), 475.Google Scholar
Roxin, C., Täterschaft und Tatherrschaft (1st edn, Hamburg: Cram, De Gruyter & Co., 1963).Google Scholar
Sadat, L. and Jolly, J., ‘Seven Canons of ICC Treaty Interpretation: Making Sense of Article 25’s Rorschach Blot’, 27 Leiden Journal of International Law (2014), 755.Google Scholar
Schabas, W., The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
van Sliedregt, E., Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Perpetration through an Organization: The Unexpected Career of a German Legal Concept’, 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2011), 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Problems of Attribution in International Criminal Law: A German Perspective’, 12 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2014), 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werle, G. and Burghardt, B., ‘Claus Roxin on Crimes as Part of Organized Power Structures: Introductory Note’, 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2011), 191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Select Bibliography

Ambos, K., ‘Amicus Curiae Brief in the Matter of the Co-Prosecutors’ Appeal of the Closing Order against Kaing Guek Eav “Duch” Dated 8 August 2008’, 20 Criminal Law Forum (2009), 353.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law – Volume I: Foundations and General Part (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Bassiouni, M., Introduction to International Criminal Law (2nd edn, Leiden: Nijhoff, 2013).Google Scholar
Boas, G., Reid, N. and Bischoff, J., International Criminal Law Practitioner Library – Volume I: Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Bogdan, A., ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility in the Execution of a “Joint Criminal Enterprise” in the Jurisprudence of the ad hoc International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, 6 International Criminal Law Review (2006), 63.Google Scholar
Cassese, A., ‘The Proper Limits of Individual Responsibility under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise’, 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2007), 109.Google Scholar
Cassese, A., ‘Amicus Curiae Brief of Professor Antonio Cassese and Members of the Journal of International Criminal Justice on Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine’, 20 Criminal Law Forum (2009), 289.Google Scholar
Cassese, A., Cassese’s International Criminal Law (3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Clarke, C., ‘Return to Borkum Island: Extended Joint Criminal Enterprise Responsibility in the Wake of World War II’, 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2011), 839.Google Scholar
Cryer, R., ‘Imputation and Complicity in Common Law States: A (Partial) View from England and Wales’, 12 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2014), 267.Google Scholar
Cryer, R. et al., An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (3rd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Damgaard, C., Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes: Selected Pertinent Issues (Berlin: Springer, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danner, A. and Martinez, J., ‘Guilty Associations: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility, and the Development of International Criminal Law’, 93 California Law Review (2005), 75.Google Scholar
Eser, A., ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility’ in Cassese, A., Gaeta, P. and Jones, J.R.W.D. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), Vol. I, 767.Google Scholar
Farhang, C., ‘Point of No Return: Joint Criminal Enterprise in Brđanin’, 23 Leiden Journal of International Law (2010), 137.Google Scholar
Gustafson, K., ‘The Requirement of an “Express Agreement” for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability: A Critique of Brdanin’, 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2007), 134.Google Scholar
Haan, V., ‘The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, 5 International Criminal Law Review (2005), 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, K., The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Jackson, R., Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, London, 1945 (Washington, DC: Dept of State, Division of Publications, Office of Public Affairs, 1949).Google Scholar
Jain, N., Perpetrators and Accessories in International Criminal Law: Individual Modes of Responsibility for Collective Crimes (Oxford: Hart, 2014).Google Scholar
Jordash, W. and Van Tuyl, P., ‘Failure to Carry the Burden of Proof: How Joint Criminal Enterprise Lost Its Way at the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, 8 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2010), 591.Google Scholar
Karnavas, M., ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise at the ECCC: A Critical Analysis of the Pre-Trial Chamber’s Decision against the Application of JCE III and Two Divergent Commentaries on the Same’, 21 Criminal Law Forum (2010), 445.Google Scholar
Koessler, M., ‘American War Crimes Trials in Europe’, 39 The Georgetown Law Journal (1950), 18.Google Scholar
Koessler, M., ‘Borkum Island Tragedy and Trial’, 47 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1956), 183.Google Scholar
Meisenberg, S., ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise at the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, in Jalloh, C. (ed.), The Sierra Leone Special Court and Its Legacy: The Impact for Africa and International Criminal Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 69.Google Scholar
Ohlin, J., ‘Joint Intentions to Commit International Crimes’, 11 Chicago Journal of International Law (2011), 693.Google Scholar
Ohlin, J., ‘Searching for the Hinterman: In Praise of Subjective Theories of Imputation’, 12 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2014), 325.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, R., International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Olásolo, H., ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise and Its Extended Form: A Theory of Co-perpetration Giving Rise to Principal Liability, a Notion of Accessorial Liability, or a Form of Partnership in Crime?’, 20 Criminal Law Forum (2009), 263.Google Scholar
Olásolo, H., The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principals to International Crimes (Oxford: Hart, 2009).Google Scholar
Piacente, N., ‘Importance of the Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine for the ICTY Prosecutorial Policy’, 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2004), 446.Google Scholar
Powles, S., ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise: Criminal Liability by Prosecutorial Ingenuity and Judicial Creativity?’, 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2004), 606.Google Scholar
Röling, B.V.A. and Rüter, C.F., The Tokyo Judgment: The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (I.M.T.F.E.), 29 April 1946–12 November 1948 (Amsterdam: APA-U Amsterdam, 1977), Vol. I.Google Scholar
Rose, C., ‘Troubled Indictments at the Special Court for Sierra Leone: The Pleading of Joint Criminal Enterprise and Sex-Based Crimes’, 7 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2009), 353.Google Scholar
Shahabuddeen, M., International Criminal Justice at the Yugoslav Tribunal: A Judge’s Recollection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B., The American Road to Nuremberg: The Documentary Record, 1944–1945 (Stanford: Hoover Institution, 1982).Google Scholar
Taylor, T., Final Report to the Secretary of the Army on the Nuernberg War Crimes Trials under Control Council Law No. 10 (Washington, 1949).Google Scholar
van Sliedregt, E., ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide’, 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2007), 184.Google Scholar
van Sliedregt, E., ‘Modes of Participation’ in Sadat, L. N. (ed.), Forging a Convention for Crimes against Humanity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 223.Google Scholar
van Sliedregt, E., Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Perpetration through an Organization: The Unexpected Career of a German Legal Concept’, 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2011), 91.Google Scholar
Werle, G. and Jessberger, F., Principles of International Criminal Law (3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
van der Wilt, H., ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise and Functional Perpetration’ in Nollkaemper, A., Dolman, M. and Kleffner, J. (eds.), System Criminality in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 158.Google Scholar
Wirth, S., ‘Co-perpetration in the Lubanga Trial Judgment’, 10 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2012), 971.Google Scholar
Yanev, L., ‘A Janus-Faced Concept: Nuremberg’s Law on Conspiracy vis-à-vis the Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise’, 26 Criminal Law Forum (2015), 419.Google Scholar
Yanev, L., ‘The Theory of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the ECCC: A Difficult Relationship’ in Meisenberg, S. and Stegmiller, I. (eds.), The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia: Assessing Their Contribution to International Criminal Law (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2016), 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×