Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T04:25:08.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“For private or personal use”: The meaning of the special intent requirement in the war crime of pillage under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2021

Yulia Nuzban
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Legislating for international courts and tribunals is a delicate and complex process, which sometimes results in unintended consequences. Arguably, the inclusion of a special intent requirement, also known as dolus specialis, concerning “private or personal use” in the definition of pillage under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is one such consequence. But this is not the only reason why the war crime of pillage deserves special attention. On closer examination, other questions arise concerning its interpretation and application. What is the meaning of “military necessity” and “necessity” in relation to pillage, and how do they correlate with the special intent requirement? To answer these questions, the article examines the drafting history, law and current practice relating to the crime's ambiguous new element. It then proposes several avenues to address the recurring uncertainty regarding its meaning: conservative, radical and pragmatic.

Keywords

pillageplunderInternational Criminal CourtRome StatuteElements of Crimes
Type
Selected articles
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 102 , Issue 915: Non-State armed groups , December 2020 , pp. 1249 - 1272
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the ICRC.

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.)

Footnotes

*

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICC. The author would like to express her gratitude to Matthew Cross for his insights, and Nikila Kaushik for her prior collaboration and research assistance.

References

1 The research and writing of this article concluded on 1 September 2021.

2 Stewart, James G., Corporate War Crimes: Prosecuting Pillage of Natural Resources, Open Society Foundations, New York, 2011, p. 10Google Scholar. See also Steinkamm, Armin, “Pillage”, in Bernhardt, Rudolf (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 3, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1997, p. 1029Google Scholar; Carducci, Guido, “Pillage”, in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012Google Scholar; available at: https://opil.ouplaw.com/ (all internet references were accessed in October 2021).

3 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Delalić et al., Judgment, IT-96-21-T, 16 November 1998, para. 591; Request from the Governments of Belgium, Costa Rica, Finland, Hungary, the Republic of Korea and South Africa and the Permanent Observer Mission of Switzerland regarding the text prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross on Article 8, para. 2(b), (c) and (e) of the Rome Statute of the ICC, PCNICC/1999/WGEC/INF.2, 14 July 1999 (hereafter Request from the Governments), p. 41. See also Dörmann, Knut, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Sources and Commentary, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. 273CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 J. G. Stewart, above note 2, p. 13.

5 In relation to military authority over the territory of the hostile state (occupation), Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land states that “[p]illage is formally forbidden”, and Article 46 states that “private property […] must be respected” and “[p]rivate property cannot be confiscated”.

6 Proposal submitted by the United States: War Crimes, A/AC.249/1997/WG.I/DP.1, 14 February 1997. See also Andreas Zimmermann and Robin Geiß, para. 2(b)(xvi): “Pillage”, in Otto Triffterer and Kai Ambos (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd ed., Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2016, p. 452.

7 Working paper submitted by the delegations of New Zealand and Switzerland, A/AC.249/1997/WG.1/DP.2, 14 February 1997, pp. 3 and 5.

8 Draft consolidated text: War Crimes, 20 February 1997, A/AC.249/1997/WG.1/CRP.2, pp. 6 and 8.

9 For example, in a non-international armed conflict, the final two elements require that: “4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict not of an international character. 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.”

10 See also Ntaganda, Judgment, ICC-01/04-02/06-2359, 8 July 2019, para. 1027.

11 Proposal submitted by the United States of America: Draft Elements of Crimes, PCNICC/1999/DP.4/Add.2, 4 February 1999, pp. 6, 14 and 21.

12 Request from the Governments, above note 3, pp. 1 and 42.

13 Proposal submitted by Costa Rica, Hungary and Switzerland on certain provisions of Article 8, para. 2(b), of the Rome Statute of the ICC: (viii), (x), (xiii), (xiv), (xv), (xvi), (xxi), (xxii), (xxvi), PCNICC/1999/WGEC/DP.8, 19 July 1999, p. 3.

14 Proposal submitted by Costa Rica, Hungary and Switzerland on certain provisions of Article 8, para. 2(e), of the Rome Statute of the ICC: (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (xi), (xii), PCNICC/1999/WGEC/DP.11, 19 July 1999, p. 1; Request from the Governments, above note 3, pp. 122–3.

15 Proposal submitted by Japan: Elements of Crimes: Article 8, para. 2(b)(i) to (xvi), PCNICC/1999/WGEC/DP.12, 22 July 1999, p. 5.

16 Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Annex III: Elements of Crimes, PCNICC/1999/L.5/Rev.1/Add.2, 22 December 1999, pp. 24–5 and 33.

17 See also K. Dörmann, above note 3, p. 273.

18 Hosang, Hans Boddens, “Pillaging”, in Lee, Roy, International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Transnational Publishers, New York, 2001, p. 176Google Scholar.

19 Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Part II: Finalized draft text of the Elements of Crimes, PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2, 2 November 2000, pp. 31–2 and 43.

20 See also Delalić et al., Judgment, IT-96-21-A, 20 February 2002, para. 732.

21 Katanga, Decision on Sentence pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07-3484-tENG, 22 September 2015, paras 143 and 145.

22 Ntaganda, Sentencing Judgment, ICC-01/04-02/06-2442, 7 November 2019, para. 136. See also Al Mahdi, Judgment and Sentence, ICC-01/12-01/15-171, 27 September 2019, para. 77.

23 Delalić et al., Judgment, IT-96-21-T, 16 November 1998, para. 591. See also Kordić & Čerkez, Appeal Judgment, IT-95-14/2-A, 17 December 2004, para. 79.

24 Hadžihasanović & Kubura, Judgment, IT-01-47-T, 15 March 2006, para. 49.

25 Kordić & Čerkez, Judgment, IT-95-14/2-T, 26 February 2001, para. 352; Hadžihasanović & Kubura, Judgment, IT-01-47-T, 15 March 2006, para. 49.

26 See, for example, Dörmann, K., Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Sources and Commentary, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stewart, J. G., Corporate War Crimes: Prosecuting Pillage of Natural Resources, Open Society Foundations, New York, 2011Google Scholar.

27 Apart from the Katanga & Ngudjolo case, which was later split, the ICC Prosecutor has brought no pillage charges in international armed conflict under Article 8(2)(b)(xvi) of the ICC Statute.

28 Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014, paras 658–9. Earlier, in April 2013, the Trial Chamber acquitted his co-accused, Mr Ngudjolo, of all the charges. See Ngudjolo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-02/12-3-tENG, 26 December 2012, p. 197.

29 Katanga, Decision on Sentence pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07-3484-tENG, 22 September 2015, paras 146–7.

30 Pursuant to Article 78(3) of the ICC Statute, when a person has been convicted of more than one crime, the Court shall pronounce a sentence for each crime and a joint sentence specifying the total period of imprisonment.

31 Bemba, Decision on Sentence pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08-3399, 21 June 2016, para. 94.

32 Bemba, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against Trial Chamber III's “Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute”, ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Red, 8 June 2018.

33 Ntaganda, Judgment, ICC-01/04-02/06-2359, 8 July 2019.

34 Ntaganda, Sentencing Judgment, ICC-01/04-02/06-2442, 7 November 2019, paras 155 and 246.

35 Ntaganda, Public Redacted Version of Judgment on the appeals of Mr Bosco Ntaganda and the Prosecutor against the decision of Trial Chamber VI of 8 July 2019 entitled “Judgment”, ICC-01/04-02/06-2666-Red, 30 March 2021; Ntaganda, Public Redacted Version of Judgment on the appeal of Mr Bosco Ntaganda against the decision of Trial Chamber VI of 7 November 2019 entitled “Sentencing Judgment”, ICC-01/04-02/06-2667-Red.

36 Ongwen, Trial Judgment, ICC-02/04-01/15-1762-Red, 4 February 2021.

37 Ongwen, Sentence, ICC-02/04-01/15-1819-Red, 6 May 2021.

38 Since the parties did not raise any issues related to the crime of pillage on appeal, these proceedings are not expected to affect the ICC's jurisprudence on pillage.

39 Elements of Crimes, General Introduction, para. 7(a).

40 Cambridge Business English Dictionary, available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/.

41 Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014, para. 905; Ntaganda, Judgment, ICC-01/04-02/06-2359, 8 July 2019, para. 1028; Ongwen, Trial Judgment, ICC-02/04-01/15-1762-Red, 4 February 2021, para. 2763. See also Delalić et al., Judgment, IT-96-21-T, 16 November 1998, para. 590.

42 Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014, para. 519.

43 “Article 33. Individual Responsibility, Collective Penalties, Pillage, Reprisals”, in Jean Pictet (ed.), ICRC Commentary on Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 1 August 1949, ICRC, Geneva, 1958.

44 Ongwen, Trial Judgment, ICC-02/04-01/15-1762-Red, 4 February 2021, para. 2764.

45 Katanga & Ngudjolo, Decision on the confirmation of charges, ICC-01/04-01/07-717, 14 October 2008, para. 330; Bemba, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08-3343, 21 March 2016, para. 115.

46 Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/03-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014, footnote 430; Mbarushimana, Decision on the confirmation of charges, ICC-01/04-01/10-465-Red, 16 December 2011, footnote 411.

47 Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014, para. 907.

48 Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014, para. 954. See also Katanga & Ngudjolo, Decision on the confirmation of charges, ICC-01/04-01/07-717, 14 October 2008, para. 337.

49 Bemba, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08-3343, 21 March 2016, para. 121; Ntaganda, Judgment, ICC-01/04-02/06-2359, 8 July 2019, para. 1029; Ongwen, Trial Judgment, ICC-02/04-01/15-1762-Red, 4 February 2021, paras 2766 and 2844.

50 Arts 7(1)(g)-1, -3, -5 and -6 (crimes against humanity), Arts 8(2)(b)(xxii)-1, -3, -5 and -6 (international war crimes) and Arts 8(2)(e)(vi)-1, -3, -5 and -6 (non-international war crimes) of the ICC Statute.

51 Bemba, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08-3343, 21 March 2016, para. 115.

52 In Ntaganda, for example, the Trial Chamber found that pillaging of protected objects does not constitute an attack against protected objects (such as hospitals and churches) under Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of the ICC Statute.

53 Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014, paras 772 and 913.

54 K. Dörmann, above note 3, pp. 272–3.

55 H. B. Hosang, above note 18, pp. 176–7.

56 Bemba, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08-3343, 21 March 2016, para. 120. See also J. G. Stewart, above note 2, pp. 20–1; Brima et al., Judgment, SCSL-04-16-T, 22 February 2008, paras 753–4; Fofana & Kondewa, Judgment, SCSL-04-14-T-785, 2 August 2007, para. 160.

57 Bemba, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08-3343, 21 March 2016, para. 120.

58 Bemba, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against Trial Chamber III's “Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute”, Dissenting Opinion of Judges Monageng and Hofmański, ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Anx1-Red, 8 June 2018, para. 561.

59 Hadžihasanović & Kubura, Judgment, IT-01-47-T, 15 March 2006, para. 52.

60 Brima et al., Judgment, SCSL-04-16-T, 20 June 2007, para. 754. However, the SCSL Appeals Chamber held that “[s]eizure is distinct from pillage because seizure is the appropriation of property for public purposes, whereas pillage is for private purposes”. See Fofana and Kondewa, Judgment, SCSL-04-14-A, 28 May 2008, footnote 770.

61 Bemba, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08-3343, 21 March 2016, para. 124; Ntaganda, Judgment, ICC-01/04-02/06-2359, 8 July 2019, para. 1030.

62 Bemba, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08-3343, 21 March 2016, para. 119; Ntaganda, Judgment, ICC-01/04-02/06-2359, 8 July 2019, para. 1029.

63 Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/03-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014, paras 913 and 951.

64 Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/03-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014, paras 951–2. Footnotes omitted.

65 Bemba, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08-3343, 21 March 2016, paras 125 and 643–4.

66 Bemba, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against Trial Chamber III's “Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute”, Dissenting Opinion of Judges Monageng and Hofmański, ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Anx1-Red, 8 June 2018, para. 566.

67 Ntaganda, Judgment, ICC-01/04-02/06-2359, 8 July 2019, paras 1041–2.

68 Ongwen, Trial Judgment, ICC-02/04-01/15-1762-Red, 4 February 2021, paras 2762–7.

69 Ongwen, Trial Judgment, ICC-02/04-01/15-1762-Red, 4 February 2021, paras 2873, 2926, 2972 and 3019.

70 Jong, Daniëlla Dam-de, “From Engines for Conflict into Engines for Sustainable Development: The Potential of International Law to Address Predatory Exploitation of Natural Resources in Situations of Internal Armed Conflict”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. 82, No. 1, 2013, pp. 165–6Google Scholar.

71 Gillett, Matthew, “Eco-Struggles: Using International Criminal Law to Protect the Environment During and After Non-International Armed Conflict”, in Stahn, Carsten, Iverson, Jens and Easterday, Jennifer S. (eds), Environmental Protection and Transitions from Conflict to Peace: Clarifying Norms, Principles, and Practices, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017, p. 231Google Scholar.

72 Olivia Radics and Carl Bruch, “Pillage, Conflict Resources, and Jus Post Bellum”, in C. Stahn, J. Iverson and J. S. Easterday (eds), ibid., pp. 150–1.

73 Request from the Governments, above note 3, p. 40.

74 K. Dörmann, above note 3, pp. 272–3.

75 Ntaganda, Judgment, ICC-01/04-02/06-2359, 8 July 2019, para. 1030; Bemba, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08-3343, 21 March 2016, para. 124. See also Ongwen, Trial Judgment, ICC-02/04-01/15-1762-Red, 4 February 2021, para. 2767.

76 H. B. Hosang, above note 18, p. 177.

77 Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code), 24 April 1863, Art. 14.

78 Mbarushimana, Decision on the confirmation of charges, ICC-01/04-01/10-465-Red, 16 December 2011, para. 176.

79 See Bemba, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08-3343, 21 March 2016, para. 124.

80 For example, Article 8(2)(a)(iv) of the ICC Statute requires that “[t]he destruction or appropriation was not justified by military necessity”.

81 Bemba, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against Trial Chamber III's “Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute”, Dissenting Opinion of Judges Monageng and Hofmański, ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Anx1-Red, 8 June 2018, para. 560.

82 The Cambridge Dictionary defines requisition as the “act of officially asking for or taking something”. It defines seizure as “the action of taking something by force or with legal authority”.

83 Naletilić and Martinović, Judgment, IT-98-34-T, 31 March 2003, para. 616.

84 J. Pictet, above note 43, p. 227.

85 Delalić et al., Judgment, IT-96-21-T, 16 November 1998, para. 587.

86 Hadžihasanović & Kubura, Judgment, IT-01-47-T, 15 March 2006, para. 56.

87 Simić et al., Judgment, IT-95-9-T, 17 October 2003, para. 100. Footnotes omitted.

88 Yoram Dinstein, “Booty in Warfare”, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, above note 2. See also Hadžihasanović & Kubura, Judgment, IT-01-47-T, 15 March 2006, para. 51.

89 K. Dörmann, above note 3, p. 277.

90 Article 31(3) of the ICC Statute allows raising other grounds for excluding criminal responsibility, in accordance with the procedure elaborated in Rule 80 of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

91 Hadžihasanović & Kubura, Judgment, IT-01-47-T, 15 March 2006, para. 53.

92 Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/03-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014, para. 949.

93 Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/03-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014, para. 955.

94 Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/03-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014, para. 956.

95 The Defence appears to have abandoned these arguments in its closing brief and oral submissions. See Ongwen, Public Redacted Version of “Corrected Version of ‘Defence Closing Brief’, filed on 24 February 2020”, ICC-02/04-01/15-1722-Corr-Red, 13 March 2020; Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-T-258-Red-ENG, 12 March 2020.

96 Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-T-179-Red-ENG, 18 September 2018, p. 16.

97 Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-T-179-Red-ENG, 18 September 2018, p. 32.

98 Ongwen, Trial Judgment, ICC-02/04-01/15-1762-Red, 4 February 2021, paras 2767 and 2873.

99 Ongwen, Trial Judgment, ICC-02/04-01/15-1762-Red, 4 February 2021, paras 2581–672.