Muutke küpsiste eelistusi

E-raamat: The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principals to International Crimes: With Special Reference to the Rome Statute and the Statute and Case Law of the Ad Hoc Tribunals [Hart e-raamatud]

Foreword by , , Epilogue by (Georg-August-University Göttingen, Germany), Introduction by
Teised raamatud teemal:
  • Hart e-raamatud
  • Hind: 89,98 €*
  • * hind, mis tagab piiramatu üheaegsete kasutajate arvuga ligipääsu piiramatuks ajaks
Teised raamatud teemal:
As shown by the recent trials of Slobodan Milosevic, Charles Taylor, and Saddam Hussein, the large-scale and systematic commission of international crimes is usually planned and set in motion by senior political and military leaders. Nevertheless, the application of traditional forms of criminal liability leads to the conclusion that they are mere accessories to such crimes. This does not reflect their central role and often results in a punishment which is inappropriately low in view of the impact of their actions and omissions. For these reasons, international criminal law has placed special emphasis on developing the concepts of joint criminal enterprise (also known as the common purpose doctrine) and the control of the crime, which aim at better reflecting the central role played by senior political and military leaders in campaigns of large scale and systematic commission of international crimes. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal of the former Yuglosavia, and the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda have, in recent years, played a unique role in the achievement of this goal. The book is a comprehensive study of the modes of responsibility and liability in international criminal law. It fills a gap in the literature, as few books detail the drafting of indictments. It covers both substantive and procedural law and will be useful for both academics and practitioners.
Foreword v
Acknowledgements vii
Table of Abbreviations xvii
Table of Cases xxi
Table of Legislation xxxv
Introduction xliii
1 First Approach to the Criminal Liability of Political and Military Leaders for International Crimes 1
2 Perpetration of a Crime and Participation in a Crime Committed by a Third Person: Principal versus Accessorial Liability 13
I Introduction
13
II First Approach to the Problem: Principal versus Accessorial Liability in National Law
14
III Principal versus Accessorial Liability in International Criminal Law
20
IV Differences between the ICC and the Ad hoc Tribunals with regard to the Notion of Accessorial Liability
27
V Different Approaches to the Distinction between Principal and Accessorial Liability
30
VI First Approach to the Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise as Elaborated by the Case Law of the Ad hoc Tribunals and to the Notion of Control of the Crime
33
VII Are the Notions of Joint Criminal Enterprise and Control of the Crime Part of Customary International Law?
38
A The Backdrop against Which the Analysis of the Customary Status of the Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise Has Taken Place in the Case Law of the Ad hoc Tribunals: The Interpretation of the Principle Nullum Crimen Sine Lege
38
B The Analysis by the Ad hoc Tribunals of the Customary Status of the Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise
42
C Revisiting the Analysis of the Customary Status of the Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Tadic Case
50
i The Rome Statute, the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing and Other International and Regional Conventions
52
ii Post WW II Case Law
55
iii General Principles on Criminal Responsibility in the ICTYS and in General International Criminal Law
57
iv The Notions of Joint Criminal Enterprise and Control of the Crime in National Legislations
59
v Conclusion
63
D Final Remarks on the Lack of Customary Status of the Notions of Joint Criminal Enterprise and Control of the Crime
64
3 Direct Perpetration and Indirect Perpetration 69
I Direct Perpetration
69
A Concept
69
B Fulfilling the Objective Elements of the Crime
70
C Fulfilling the Subjective Elements of the Crime
72
i General Subjective Element and Additional Subjective Elements
72
ii The Subjective Elements of the Crimes in the RS
73
iii The Subjective Elements of the Crimes in the Case Law of the Ad hoc Tribunals
77
II Principal Liability of Senior Political and Military Leaders for Commission by Omission
82
A Concept
82
B Distinguishing Cases of Commission by Omission from Other Cases of Punishable Omissions
85
i Accessorial Liability of Senior Political and Military Leaders for their Participation by Omission in Crimes Committed by Third Persons
86
ii Superior Responsibility for Failures to Prevent or Punish Crimes Committed by Subordinates
89
C Final Remarks: Concurrent Application of Commission by Omission, Instigation, Aiding and Abetting and Superior Liability
109
III Indirect Perpetration
109
A Concept and Treatment in the Rome Statute and in the Case Law of the Ad hoc Tribunals
109
B Indirect Perpetration by Using Persons Who Are Not Fully Criminally Liable
111
i The Erdemovic Case before the ICTY
114
C Indirect Perpetration by Using Persons who are Fully Criminally Liable: Commission of Crimes through Organized Structures of Power
116
i Concept: Superiors' Control of the Subordinates' Will within Organised Structures of Power
116
ii Objective and Subjective Elements of the Notion of OSP
124
iii Applications of the Notion of OSP: The Juntas Trial and the German Border Case
125
iv Final Remarks: Suitability of the Notion of OSP for Reflecting the Criminal Liability of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principals to International Crimes
132
D Distinction between the Notion of Indirect Perpetration and Ordering, Instigating and Planning as Forms of Accessorial Liability
135
i Ordering
135
ii Instigating
142
iii Planning
147
4 Co-perpetration Based on Joint Criminal Enterprise 153
I Joint Criminal Enterprise and Joint Control as Two Competing Definitional Criteria of the Concept of Co-perpetration
153
II Three Forms of Co-perpetration Based on Joint Criminal Enterprise
155
III Elements of Co-perpetration Based on Joint Criminal Enterprise
157
A Objective Elements
157
i Plurality of Persons
158
ii Existence of a Common Plan, Design or Purpose which Amounts to or Involves the Commission of a Crime
158
iii Contribution to Further the Common Criminal Plan
162
B Subjective Elements
166
i Basic Form of Joint Criminal Enterprise
167
ii Systemic Form of Joint Criminal Enterprise
171
iii Extended Form of Joint Criminal Enterprise
174
IV Traditional Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise
182
A Concept
182
B Problems Posed by the Application of the Traditional Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise to Low Level Defendants
185
i The Furundzija Approach
186
ii The Vasiljevic Approach
187
iii The Kupreskic Approach
188
C Problems Posed by the Application of the Traditional Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise to Mid and High Ranking Political and Military Leaders
189
i First Approach to the Problem
189
ii Solutions Proposed by Writers
193
V The Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the Leadership Level
202
A The Rwamakuba and Karemera Cases before the ICTR Appeals Chamber: Rejecting the Claim that the Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise is Limited to Small Cases
202
B The Brdanin Case: The Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the Leadership Level Explicitly Embraced by the ICTY Appeals Chamber
203
C Do Post WW II Cases Really Support the Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the Leadership Level?
207
i The Justice Case under Control Council Law No 10
207
ii Trials pursuant to the IMT and IMTFE Charters
212
D The Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the Leadership Level prior to Its Explicit Endorsement by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Brdanin Case
214
i The Kordic Case
214
ii The Krstic Case
216
iii The Stakic Case
218
iv The Milutinovic Case
222
v The Krajisnik Case
223
E Conclusion: The Struggle for Making the Best of a Bad Choice
227
VI Pleading Co-perpetration Based on Joint Criminal Enterprise
231
A Applicable Principles
231
B Application of the Principles on Pleading Co-perpetration Based on Joint Criminal Enterprise by the Case Law of the Ad hoc Tribunals
237
i Cases of Non-Defective Indictment
238
ii Cases of Defective Indictments Subsequently Cured
239
iii Cases of Non-Cured Defective Indictments
242
iv Guidelines from the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Krnojelac Case
247
C Final Remarks
249
VII Distinguishing between the Notion of Co-perpetration Based on Joint Criminal Enterprise and Aiding and Abetting as a Form of Accessorial Liability
252
A Objective and Subjective Elements of Aiding and Abetting as a Form of Accessorial Liability
252
B Co-perpetration Based on Joint Criminal Enterprise versus Aiding and Abetting
258
VIII Final Remarks on the Relationship between the Notions of Co-Perpetration Based on Joint Criminal Enterprise, Aiding and Abetting and Superior Responsibility
261
5 Co-perpetration Based on Joint Control of the Crime 265
I The Notion of Joint Control of the Crime
265
II The Treatment of the Notions of Joint Control of the Crime and Joint Criminal Enterprise in the Rome Statute
267
III Elements of the Notion of Joint Control of the Crime
273
A Objective Elements
273
i Common Agreement or Common Plan
273
ii Essential Contribution
277
B Subjective Elements
281
IV Cases of Co-perpetration Based on Joint Control of the Crime versus Cases of Indirect Perpetration
285
A Unsuitability of Co-perpetration Based on Joint Control to Deal with Hierarchical Relationships within Organised Structures of Power
285
B Application of Co-perpetration Based on Joint Control of the Crime to Offences Committed through Organisations Which Do Not Qualify as Organised Structures of Power
286
V Applications of the Notion of Co-perpetration Based on Joint Control
291
A The Lubanga Case Before the ICC
291
i Preliminary Remarks: Unsuitability of Indirect Perpetration in its Variant of OSP
291
ii Application of the Objective Elements of Co-perpetration Based on Joint Control
292
iii Application of the Subjective Elements of Co-perpetration Based on Joint Control
294
iv Final Remarks
294
B The Vasiljevic Case before the ICTY: Co-perpetration Based on Control of the Crime under the Formal Label of Joint Criminal Enterprise
296
i Preliminary Remarks: Distinguishing between the Vasiljevic and the Stakic Cases
296
ii Findings of the Trial Chamber
297
iii ICTY Appeals Chamber's Reversal of the Vasiljevic's Conviction as a Co-perpetrator for His Participation in a Joint Criminal Enterprise
299
iv Final Remarks
301
VI Joint Application of the Notions of OSP and Joint Control: Indirect Co-perpetration
302
A Preliminary Remarks: Distinguishing the Notion of Indirect Co-perpetration Based on the Joint Application of OSP and Joint Control from the Notion of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the Leadership Level
302
B Objective and Subjective Elements of the Notion of Indirect Co-Perpetration Based on the Joint Application of OSP and Joint Control
307
C The Application of Indirect Co-perpetration based on OSP and Joint Control in the Stakic case before the ICTY
307
i The Situation in the Stakic Case
307
ii Application of the Objective Elements of Indirect Co-perpetration Based on OSP and Joint Control
310
iii Application of the Subjective Elements of Indirect Co-perpetration Based on OSP and Joint Control
315
D The Application of Indirect Co-perpetration Based on OSP and Joint Control in the Bemba Case before ICC
316
E The Application of Indirect Co-prepetration Based on OSP and Joint Control in the Katanga and Ngudjolo Case before the ICC
318
i The situation in the Katanga and Ngudjolo Case
318
ii Application of the Objective Elements of Indirect Co-prepetration Based on OSP and Joint Control
320
iii Application of the Subjective Elements of Indirect Co-perpetration Based on OSP and Joint Control
325
vi Final Remarks
327
F Final Remarks: Indirect co-perpetration Based on the Joint Application of OSP and Joint Control as a Fourth Manifestation of the Notion of Control of the Crime
328
Epilogue: Future Developments of International Criminal Law in Relation to the Responsibility of Superiors for International Crimes 331
Bibliography 337
Index 347
Hector Olasolo is Professor of International Criminal Law and Procedure at Utrecht University and Chairman of the Iberoamerican Institute of the Hague for Peace, Human Rights and International Justice (IIH). LLM (Columbia University), PhD in Law (Salamanca University). Former Legal Officer in Chambers at the International Criminal Court (2004-2009). Former member of the Legal Advisory and Appeal Sections of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (2002-2004). Former member of the Spanish Delegation to the International Criminal Court Preparatory Commission (1999-2002). The author has written the books entitled 'Corte Penal Internacional: 'Donde Investigar?' (Tirant lo Blanch, 2003), 'The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court' (Brill Publishers, 2005), 'Ataques contra Personas y Bienes Civiles y Ataques Desproporcionados' (Tirant lo Blanch, 2006), 'Unlawful Attacks in Combat Situations' (Brill Publishers, 2007), 'Terrorismo Internacional y Conflicto Armado' (Tirant lo Blanch, 2008) and 'Ensayos sobre la Corte Penal Internacional' (Universidad Javeriana de Bogota/Dyke, 2009). The views expressed herein are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICC, the ICTY, the United Nations or the Spanish Government.