At this moment, the literature and discourse on command responsibility is incredibly convoluted and controverted. I will show how these knots were produced by an underlying inadvertent contradiction with the culpability principle. The contradiction was created by surface-level doctrinal reasoning that did not adequately consider the deontic dimension. The subsequent twists and turns to deny, obscure, evade, or resolve this contradiction have led to increasingly complex and obscure claims about command responsibility.

The inquiry demonstrates the problems of inadequate attention to deontic limits. It also shows how deontic analysis can help us better understand the trajectory of the command responsibility debate. We can see old controversies in a new light and generate new prescriptions. I argue that command responsibility can be restored to its simple and elegant origins if it is recognized as a mode of accessory liability. As a result, the causal contribution requirement should be respected. This solution is not perfect, but I will show that this is the best reconciliation of the text, precedents, and the culpability principle. By resolving the core contradiction, the myriad complications and mystical evasions about command responsibility become unnecessary.

In the previous chapter, I explained that we may need to reconsider familiar formulations of fundamental principles when we apply them in new contexts. In this chapter, I ask how we might even embark on such evaluations. A traditional and commendable scholarly reflex is that we must ‘ground’ our analysis in certain and self-evident bedrock. I will show the infeasibility of this search for secure moral foundations.

I suggest a non-foundational approach, using a coherentist method: we do the best we can do with the available clues and arguments. The clues include patterns of practice, normative arguments, and casuistically-tested considered judgments. We can work with ‘mid-level principles’ to carry out fruitful analytical and normative work.

The coherentist approach accepts that our principles are human constructs, that our starting points are contingent, and that we have no guarantees of ‘correctness’. Discussion of fundamental principles is not a matter of ethical computations; it is a conversation. It is a human conversation, a fallible conversation, and nonetheless an important conversation. I also argue that coherentism offers the best explanatory and justificatory account of the method used in most criminal law theory. In other words, it is the best theory of criminal law theory.

This chapter introduces the context and objectives of the book. International criminal law is still a relatively new body of criminal law, that was constructed in a rapid transnational conversation. The time is ripe for careful systematic and normative evaluation of this corpus of law. For example, scholars have noted that some doctrines may contradict fundamental principles of justice that the system claims to uphold. The book proceeds in three steps: it explains a problem, it outlines a solution, and then it demonstrates the solution through application.

The first, preliminary, objective of the book is to demonstrate a problem. Namely, the book highlights the need for an additional type of reasoning in criminal law: ‘deontic’ reasoning, which is different from doctrinal or teleological reasoning, and engages directly with principled constraints such as the legality and culpability principles.

Second, the book outlines a method for deontic reasoning, and in particular for identifying fundamental principles. ICL poses several special challenges for identifying the appropriate principles. The book advances a liberal, open-minded, humanistic, and coherentist approach (and explains each of these features).

Third, the book dissects current controversies in command responsibility in order to demonstrate the method, its questions, and the insights it can generate.

I conclude with three final overarching sets of observations. First, I make explicit some aspects of the coherentist method, which I modelled in the last three chapters. Second, I highlight some emerging themes for criminal law theory of ICL (and particularly the exploration of deontic principles). Third, I survey some additional issues in ICL and criminal law theory to which the proposed frame of inquiry could be fruitfully applied in the future.

The purpose of this Annex is to address some of the responses to ‘Identity Crisis’, in order to better clarify five main points of possible confusion.

In this annex, I outline common concerns with the joint criminal enterprise (JCE), and explore the reasoning that led to these problems, to show the pitfalls of exuberant reasoning that does not engage adequately with the deontic dimension.

In this chapter, I address important preliminary challenges to any discussion of deontic principles in ICL. Thoughtful scholars have raised concerns that familiar liberal principles may be entirely out of place in ICL. I will argue: (1) For any system that chooses to punish individuals, deontic principles do matter, and thus they should constrain ICL. (2) This does not necessarily mean replicating formulations of fundamental principles familiar from national systems; instead we can return to our underlying deontic commitments and see what they entail in these new contexts. (3) We can learn from common critiques of liberal accounts, to build a sensitive, humanistic account of deontic principles.

In response to various criticisms of criminal justice and liberal principles, I emphasize the ‘humanity’ of criminal justice. Criminal justice and its restraining principles are sometimes portrayed as abstract, metaphysical, retributive, vengeful, Western, or ideologically unmoored from experience. But criminal law serves pro-social aims. Its constraints are rooted in compassion, empathy, and regard for humanity. An intelligent liberal account considers all facets of human experience, including social context, social roles, and collective endeavours. Principles reflect broadly shared human concerns, and can be refined through human conversation.

In this chapter, I outline how the approach I have can raise new questions, both for ICL and for general criminal law theory.

The study of extreme cases can unsettle and refine our understandings of the principles developed in everyday experience. I will show how studying ICL problems may require us to unpack the roles traditionally played by ‘the State’ in criminal law thinking, and to re-examine many familiar tools of criminal law thought (such as ‘community’, ‘citizenship’ and ‘authority’). The criminal law theory of ICL might draw on ‘cosmopolitanist’ scholarship, which contemplates forms of governance other than the state, and which is therefore particularly challenging for mainstream criminal law thinking.

I will also highlight ‘promising problems’ in ICL. Exploring such problems can help us refine ICL doctrines and also make contributions to mainstream criminal law theory. These include: legality without a legislature; a humanistic account of duress and social roles; and superior orders and state authority. I will then do an even deeper delve into a selected set of controversies in Chapters 6 to 8, in order to demonstrate the method at work and thereby clarify the method, the work it can do, and the themes it raises.

In this chapter, I move on to resulting normative questions about the culpability principle, causal contribution, and command responsibility. I engage in deontic analysis of what type of contribution the culpability principle actually requires, and whether the requirement might be reconceived.

First, I will examine why criminal law requires causal contribution, and the degree of contribution required. I will argue that the requirement in relation to accessories is not onerous; ‘risk aggravation’ satisfies the culpability principle.

Second, I consider ambitious proposals to re-imagine culpability, i.e. to develop a new deontic account that does not require any causal contribution. A theme of this book is that ICL can present us with new questions that can lead us to adjust our basic assumptions from criminal law theory. On this issue, however, although the arguments are intriguing, my conclusion is that on a coherentist all-things-considered judgement, they are as yet far too tentative and undeveloped to provide a convincing basis for criminal sanctions. Accordingly, the current best theory is that accessories must at least elevate the risk of the crimes occurring.

In this chapter, I examine a different controversy in command responsibility: the mental element. Scholars and jurists have raised powerful, principled objections to the modified fault standards in command responsibility, such as the ‘should have known’ standard in the ICC Statute. They are absolutely right to raise such questions, because a negligence standard in a mode of accessory liability seems to chafe against our normal analytical and normative constructs. However, I advance, in three steps, a culpability-based justification for command responsibility. I argue that the intuition of justice underlying the doctrine is sound.

I argue that the ‘should have known’ standard in the ICC Statute, rather than being shunned, should be embraced. I argue that the ‘should have known’ standard actually maps better onto personal culpability than the rival formulations developed by the Tribunals.

This chapter gives an example of the two-way conversation and illumination in the encounter between criminal law theory and ICL. This is an instance where ICL, by highlighting special contexts and problems, can lead us to reconsider some of our initial reactions and conclusions. Command responsibility delineates a set of circumstances where our normal reflexes about the lesser culpability of criminal negligence may be unsound.