Theories of Co-Perpetration in International Criminal Law.

Intro -- Theories of Co-perpetration in International Criminal Law -- Copyright -- Contents -- Preface -- List of Abbreviations -- List of Cases -- List of Legislation -- 1 A First Look at Individual Liability within the Context of Mass Criminality -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 The Nature of International Crimes: Explaining the Need for a Theory of Joint Liability -- 1.2.1 The Inherent Challenges of Assigning Liability in a Context of Mass Criminality -- 1.2.2 The Limits of Traditional Modes of Liability -- 1.3 Theories of Co-perpetration -- 1.3.1 Choosing between Approaches -- 1.3.2 JCE: A Subjective Approach to Co-perpetration -- 1.3.3 Joint Control over the Crime: A Material-objective Approach to Co-perpetration -- 1.4 Book Scope and Structure -- 1.4.1 Joint Principal Liability in the Wake of International Criminal Law -- 1.4.2 Co-perpetration Based on JCE: Legal Framework and Issues of Controversy -- 1.4.3 Co-perpetration Based on Joint Control: Legal Framework and Issues of Controversy -- 1.5 An Evaluation Framework for Co-perpetration Responsibility in International Criminal Law -- 1.5.1 Legal Basis under International Criminal Law -- 1.5.2 Effective Legal Tool for Allocating Individual Criminal Responsibility -- 1.5.3 Respect for Fundamental Principles of Criminal Justice -- 1.6 Concluding Remarks -- 2 Back to Nuremberg: The Genesis of Joint Liability for International Crimes -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 'Conspiracy' and 'Criminal Organizations': First Approach to Mass War Criminality -- 2.2.1 Introducing the Concepts of Conspiracy and Membership in a Criminal Organization: Bernays' Prosecutorial Strategy -- 2.2.2 Reviewing the Law on Conspiracy and Criminal Membership -- 2.2.3 Drafting the IMT Charter: The London Negotiations on Conspiracy and Membership in a Criminal Organization.

2.2.4 Reaching a Compromise and the Final Text of the IMT Charter -- 2.2.5 The IMT Judgment: Judicial Definition of Conspiracy and Membership in a Criminal Organization -- 2.2.6 The IMTFE Judgment: Controversy and an Adherent Approach to Conspiracy -- 2.2.7 Preliminary Conclusions -- 2.3 The Notion of 'Common Design/Purpose' -- 2.3.1 Article II(2) CCL - Refining the Modes of Criminal Liability -- 2.3.2 The Principal-accessory Distinction in Post-Nuremberg Jurisprudence -- 2.3.3 Liability for Acting in Pursuance of a Common Criminal Purpose/Design -- 2.4 Conclusion -- 3 Joint Criminal Enterprise: Doctrinal Framework and Nature -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Drafting Modes of Liability into the ICTY Statute: From Nuremberg to The Hague -- 3.3 Introducing the Common Purpose Doctrine in the ICTY Jurisprudence -- 3.3.1 The Tadić Trial Judgment (7 May 1997): Case Facts and Findings -- 3.3.2 The Furundžija Trial Judgment (10 December 1998): A Revised Reading of Common Purpose Liability -- 3.3.3 The Tadić Appeal Judgment (15 July 1999): Systemizing Common Purpose Liability -- 3.4 Joint Criminal Enterprise: Theoretical Framework -- 3.4.1 The Objective (Material) Elements -- 3.4.2 The Subjective (Mental) Elements -- 3.5 Joint Criminal Enterprise vis-à-vis the Nuremberg-era Notions on Joint Liability -- 3.5.1 JCE and the Notions of Conspiracy and Membership in a Criminal Organization -- 3.5.2 JCE and the Nuremberg-era Common Purpose Theory -- 3.6 Conclusion -- 4 The Pitfalls of Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 The Customary Status and Nature of JCE III Liability -- 4.2.1 Defining Customary International Law: Theories of Formation -- 4.2.2 The ICTY/R Methodology Affirming the Customary Status of the JCE Doctrine: An Appraisal -- 4.2.3 JCE III and Customary International Criminal Law -- 4.2.4 Evaluating the Customary Status of JCE III.

4.2.5 The Nature of JCE III Liability -- 4.3 The Law on JCE with No Physical Perpetrators -- 4.3.1 A Dubious Start: Early ICTY Case Law on JCE with No Physical Perpetrators -- 4.3.2 Adopting the Notion of Leadership-level JCE -- 4.3.3 Linking the Physical Perpetrators to the 'Leadership-level' JCE -- 4.3.4 Concluding Remarks -- 4.4 Conclusion -- 5 Co-perpetration Based on Joint Control over the Crime: Doctrinal Framework -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 Doctrinal and Jurisprudential Origins of the Theory of Co-perpetration Based on Joint Control over the Crime -- 5.2.1 Back to 1963: Roxin's "Täterschaft Und Tatherrschaft" -- 5.2.2 The ICTY Stakić Trial Judgment: A Debut for the Joint Control Theory in International Criminal Proceedings -- 5.3 Introducing the Joint Control Theory in the ICC Case Law -- 5.3.1 The Prosecutor v. Lubanga: Case Facts and Early Submissions on Co-perpetration -- 5.3.2 The Lubanga Decision on the Confirmation of Charges -- 5.4 Joint Control over the Crime: Theoretical Framework -- 5.4.1 The Objective (Material) Elements -- 5.4.2 The Subjective (Mental) Elements -- 5.5 Conclusion -- 6 Rethinking the Theory of Co-perpetration Based on Joint Control over the Crime -- 6.1 Introduction -- 6.2 Reviewing the Legal Basis for the Joint Control Theory -- 6.2.1 Alleged Basis in Article 25(3) RS -- 6.2.2 A Basis under Article 21(1)(b) RS: 'Principles and Rules of International Law'? -- 6.2.3 A Basis under Article 21(1)(c) RS: 'General Principles of Law'? -- 6.3 Rethinking the Merits of the Theory of Co-perpetration Based on Joint Control -- 6.3.1 The 'Joint Control' Criterion: A Theoretical Critique -- 6.3.2 The 'Joint Control' Criterion in Practice: Much Ado for Nothing? -- 6.4 Conclusion -- 7 Co-perpetration Responsibility in International Criminal Law: Forging a Path Forward -- 7.1 Introduction.

7.2 Searching for the Right Formula: The Alternative Views of Two ICC Judges -- 7.2.1 Judge Fulford's Notion of Co-perpetration and 'Operative Links' -- 7.2.2 Judge Van den Wyngaert's Notion of Co-perpetration and 'Direct Contributions' -- 7.3 Testing the Theories of JCE and Joint Control over the Crime -- 7.3.1 Legal Basis -- 7.3.2 Effectiveness -- 7.3.3 Fairness -- 7.4 Co-perpetration Responsibility in International Criminal Law: A Single Legal Framework -- 7.5 Conclusion -- Bibliography -- Index.

This book provides a refined definition of co-perpetration responsibility that could be uniformly applied in both the ad hoc- and the treaty-based (ICC Rome Statue) model of international criminal justice.

Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.

Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, Michigan : ProQuest Ebook Central, 2024. Available via World Wide Web. Access may be limited to ProQuest Ebook Central affiliated libraries.