| 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 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
69 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
135 | |
|
|
|
142 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
157 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
214 | |
|
|
|
216 | |
|
|
|
218 | |
|
|
|
222 | |
|
|
|
223 | |
|
E Conclusion: The Struggle for Making the Best of a Bad Choice |
|
|
227 | |
|
VI Pleading Co-perpetration Based on Joint Criminal Enterprise |
|
|
231 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
273 | |
|
i Common Agreement or Common Plan |
|
|
273 | |
|
ii Essential Contribution |
|
|
277 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
|
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 | |