Book contents
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Biographies
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Cross-Cutting Issues
- Part I Individual Commission
- Part II Joint Commission
- Part III Participation
- Part IV Participating in Group Activities
- Part V Inchoate and Preparatory Acts
- Part VI Other Forms of Responsibility
- Part VII Concluding Observations
- Index
- References
Part VI - Other Forms of Responsibility
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2019
Book contents
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Biographies
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Cross-Cutting Issues
- Part I Individual Commission
- Part II Joint Commission
- Part III Participation
- Part IV Participating in Group Activities
- Part V Inchoate and Preparatory Acts
- Part VI Other Forms of Responsibility
- Part VII Concluding Observations
- Index
- References
Summary
Command responsibility, as a modern doctrine of criminal law, originates in the atrocities committed by members of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippines between 9 October 1944 and 2 September 1945. That the atrocities – starvation, execution, rape and burning of homes – violated the laws of war is uncontroversial. More controversial, and of enduring doctrinal interest, was the potential individual responsibility of General Yamashita, Commanding General of the Imperial Army’s Fourteenth Group prior to his surrender to US forces.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law , pp. 407 - 432Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Select Bibliography
Ambos, K., ‘Superior Responsibility’, in Cassese, A. et al. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 824.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility’, 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2007) 159.Google Scholar
Bonafé, B., ‘Finding a Proper Role for Command Responsibility’, 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2007) 599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burghardt, B., Die Vorgesetztenverantwortlichkeit im völkerrechtlichen Straftatsystem (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2008).Google Scholar
Karsten, N., ‘Distinguishing Military and Non-Military Superiors: Reflections on the Bemba Case at the ICC’, 7 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2009) 983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, J., ‘Understanding Mens Rea in Command Responsibility: From Yamashita to Blaškić and Beyond’, 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2007) 638.Google Scholar
Meloni, C., ‘Mode of Liability for the Crimes of Subordinates or Separate Offence of the Superior’, 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2007) 619.Google Scholar
Meloni, C., Command Responsibility in International Criminal Law (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Mettraux, G., The Law of Command Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Robinson, D., ‘How Command Responsibility Got So Complicated: A Culpability Contradiction, Its Obfuscation, and a Simple Solution’, 13 Melbourne Journal of International Law (2012) 1.Google Scholar
Sander, B., ‘Unravelling the Confusion Concerning Successor Superior Responsibility in the ICTY Jurisprudence’, 23 Leiden Journal of International Law (2010) 105.Google Scholar
Sivakumaran, S., ‘Command Responsibility in Irregular Groups’, 20 Journal of International Criminal (2012) 1129.Google Scholar
van Sliedregt, E., Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Vetter, G., ‘Command Responsibility of Non-Military Superiors in the International Criminal Court (ICC)’, 25 Yale Journal of International Law (2000) 89.Google Scholar