The Personal Nature of Individual Criminal Responsibility and the ICC Statute

By affirming criminal responsibility of the individual, theICC Statute recognizes a distinction from the internationalresponsibility of states, which is the basis of modern internationalcriminal law. The importance of the principle is evident notonly in the breadth and analytical nature of the provision dealingwith it, i.e. Article 25 of the Statute, but by its being placedin the part of the Statute devoted to the ‘General Principlesof Criminal Law’. After an introductory considerationof the context of the Article and of its general implications,this article analyses the contents of the regulation and thetype of responsibility outlined in it. The principle that emergescould be called the ‘personal nature’ of internationalcriminal responsibility. Although the general principles setout in the ICC Statute are rather rudimentary in comparisonwith what is to be found in the ‘General Part’ ofmost national criminal laws, the principle of personal responsibilityemerging from the Statute is nevertheless in the best traditionsof criminal law. It serves both as the foundation and as thelimitation of international criminal responsibility, so helpingto ensure that modern international criminal law is not a toolfor oppression but rather an instrument of justice.     

Any Other Contribution? Ascribing Liability for Cover-Ups of International Crimes

As the International Criminal Court (the Court or ICC) continues to develop the parameters of the various modes of liability set out in Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute, recent developments raise questions as to whether the Court can consider participation in cover-ups or concealment of crimes as giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. It is only recently that international tribunals, and notably the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), have turned to consider how international criminal law approaches responsibility for cover-ups or concealment of crimes. In reviewing how and why the ICTY has addressed individual criminal liability for engaging in cover-ups, and in light of the ICC’s Mbarushimana decision, the aim of this paper is to suggest how the ICC might consider such issues in future cases. Having demonstrated the necessity of international criminal law accounting for cover-ups, the paper will discuss how the jurisprudence, in toto, excludes the possibility of holding to account individuals who contribute to the cover up of international crimes, by whatever means, or however grave, unless they were acting on the premise of a prior agreement with the principals. By way of conclusion the paper will suggest that an expansive interpretation of Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute may provide a means of addressing this gap.     

Individual Criminal Responsibility in Article 25 ICC Statute

The collective nature of crimes under international law doesnot absolve us of the need to determine individual responsibility.Article 25 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court(ICC) now contains a detailed regulation of individual criminalresponsibility. While discussing the elements of various modesof individual criminal responsibility, this essay shows thatthe most important difference between prior legal frameworksand Article 25(3) ICC Statute lies not in the redefinition ofthe scope of individual responsibility in international criminallaw, but in the systematization of modes of participation. Thecase is made that Article 25(3) is best construed as a differentiationmodel with four levels of participation. In this model, modesof participation should be understood as indicative of the degreeof individual guilt, and thus as helpful guidelines in sentencingmatters. With particular reference to joint commission, theauthor shows that this concept also leads to a coherent interpretationof the various modes of participation.     

The State of the International Criminal Court,of Special Tribunals and of International Criminal Law: A Concise Review

International criminal law has changed rather dramatically in the last three decades. Whereas in the early 1990s the field was an almost exotic specialization of penal law, it has now developed into a thriving part of the law. Nowadays, most law schools have specialists in international criminal law which has usually developed into an important field of research. An important factor in this development has been the performance of three Special Criminal Tribunals established by the United Nations Security Council. In this article their institutional record as well as their importance for the development of international criminal law will be reviewed. In both senses, on the basis of a necessarily concise review, it is submitted that the performance of the tribunals must be considered a success. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is already twenty years in existence. Its performance cannot be judged equally successfully, however. In particular as an institution it cannot point to records comparable to those of the Special Criminal Tribunals. Still, although it is undoubtedly fragile, the ICC has become a relevant feature of modern international law and in international relations (as a brief examination of its potential role regarding the Special Military Operation in Ukraine shows). Notwithstanding its institutional weaknesses, the importance of the ICC manifests itself in its Statute which can be seen as a codification of international criminal law. The strong increase in the domestic administration of international crimes as a consequence of the principle of the complementarity of the Statute is taken into consideration.

     

国际刑事法院的司法能动主义:实践、反思及限制

国际刑事法院对《罗马规约》近年来的解释中呈现出司法能动主义的趋势,即背离约文的字面含义和立法者的原意,扩张国际刑事法院管辖下犯罪的定义和可受理案件的范围。国际刑法的混合性质、先前国际刑事法庭的司法能动主义政策以及《罗马规约》适用法条款和解释规则的不确定性都是导致国际刑事法院司法能动主义的原因。作为非经授权的司法立法行为,国际刑事法院的司法能动主义不但违背国家主权原则和罪刑法定主义,而且损害了国际社会通过其追究国际犯罪的信心。构建对其司法能动主义进行规制的关键在于厘清和协调《维也纳条约法公约》中的解释规则、罪刑法定原则下的严格解释以及存疑有利于被告解释方法三者在《罗马规约》解释中的适用范围及适用关系。     

Corporate Liability for International Crimes under Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act

Given that the Rome Statute does not provide jurisdiction totry corporations for breaches of international criminal law,it has been suggested that national jurisdictions might be usedto fill this impunity gap. The author presents several arguments.First, the international criminal law system, including theRome Statute — and particularly the principles of universaljurisdiction and complementarity — provides the theoreticalgrounding for states to assert jurisdiction over internationalcrimes wider than the International Criminal Court (ICC). Second,Canada, owing to interactions between its domestic legislationimplementing the ICC Statute and existing national criminallaw, is now able to prosecute corporations for breaches of internationalcriminal law. Finally, this increased jurisdiction of Canadiancourts is consistent with the current status of corporationsunder international criminal law. What is really interestingabout Canada's approach, however, is not so much that it hascreated a new legal principle, but rather that it is one ofthe first countries to establish jurisdiction over internationalcrimes committed by corporate entities which were previouslycommitted with impunity.

By stating that I could not guaranteethat the army is not using forced labour, I certainly implythat they might, (and they might) but I am saying that we donot have to monitor the army's behaviour: we have our responsibilities;they have their responsibilities; and we refuse to be pushedin to assuming more than what we can really guarantee. Aboutforced labour used by troops assigned to provide security onour pipeline project, let us admit between Unocal and Totalthat we might be in a grey zone.¹

     

国家与国际刑事法院的国际合作与司法协助义务述评

国际刑事法院是否成功的关键取决于《罗马规约》的缔约国和国际社会与之真诚的国际合作与司法协助。反之 ,国家也应根据国际法的基本原则善意履行其自愿承担的义务 ,向国际刑事法院提供国际合作与司法协助。本文通过阐述《罗马规约》有关国家与国际刑事法院的国际合作与司法协助方面的实体性和程序性规定 ,说明国家在国际刑事法院调查、起诉和惩治国际社会关注的最严重的国际犯罪中的作用和义务     

从苏丹情势分析国际刑事法院管辖权的补充性原则

联合国安理会向国际刑事法院的检察官提交的苏丹达尔富尔地区发生的情势,引发了非缔约国对国际刑事法院管辖权补充性的质疑。将达尔富尔的情势提交国际刑事法院,应由独立的机构判断苏丹政府“不愿意”和“不能”行使管辖权的客观证据。这样做,一方面为了充分支持安理会向检察官提交情势的行为;另一方面为了国际刑事法院审判工作的独立性和有效性吸引诸如中国和美国等司法制度健全的非缔约国批准《罗马规约》。中国虽然是非缔约国,但始终支持国际刑事法院的建立及其工作,并对国际刑事法院的审判活动采取一种审视态度。有理由相信,通过国际刑事法院建立的良好工作模式,如对达尔富尔公正有效的处理,以及在我国法律条件成熟的情况下,中国会成为《罗马规约》的缔约国。     

战争罪的国内立法研究

战争罪是在战争或者武装冲突中发生的违反战争法规、严重侵犯人权的罪行。战争罪主要是国际法上的罪行,但国内法院也承担着追究战争罪罪犯刑事责任的重要任务。将我国缔结的国际公约里规定的战争罪转化为国内刑法上的犯罪,是我国作为缔约国应当履行的条约义务。但我国《刑法》只有第446条和第448条规定的两个犯罪才基本符合国际法对于战争罪的定义。我国《刑法》应当专章设立“危害人类和平与安全罪”,使其包括战争罪等核心罪行,这样可以更好地维护我国的刑事管辖权,有效地避免我国公民受到国际刑事法庭的审判,以便享受《国际刑事法院规约》补充管辖原则提供的益处。     

The Responsibility of Accomplices in the Case-Law of the Ad Hoc Tribunals

This article discusses complicity as a form of liability in international criminal law, in particular as interpreted and applied by the ad hoc Tribunals in their case-law. After a short introduction on the distinguishing features of complicity, in particular with respect to joint criminal enterprise, reference is made to the complicity doctrines which, it is argued, mostly exerted an influence on the international judges – namely those developed in the English and French criminal orders. Subsequently, a critical and thorough assessment of the international case-law is provided. Looking forward, some remarks are also made to the complicity model delineated in the ICC Statute. The author concludes with some general observations on the contribution made by the ad hoc judges in giving actual content to the notion of complicity.     

Divergent Approaches to Determining Responsibility for Genocide: The Darfur Commission of Inquiry and the ICJ's Judgment in the Genocide Case

Internationally sanctioned assessments of genocide are relativelyuncommon, and since genocide is usually assessed in the contextof an individual's criminal prosecution, assessments of stateresponsibility for genocide are even rarer. Yet two such analyseshave recently been completed: the International Commission ofInquiry on Darfur's Report and the International Court of Justice'sJudgment on genocide in Bosnia. On a key issue, the methodologyfor determining whether a state is responsible for genocide,they diverged. Whereas the Darfur Commission determined whetherthe ‘central government’ of Sudan pursued a statepolicy or plan for genocide in Darfur, the ICJ stressed thata state commits genocide through the acts of its officials,holding that if a state organ or a person or group whose actsare legally attributable to the state, engages in genocide,then the international responsibility of that state is incurred.This article critically examines the different methodologicalapproaches taken by these two bodies in light of internationaljurisprudence. It argues that the Darfur Commission erred infocusing its genocide inquiry on whether high-level officialsin Sudan's government possessed genocidal intent, rather thanon the perpetrators of the underlying criminal acts. In addition,it argues that, whether the Commission's goal was to determinestate responsibility or individual criminal responsibility,its approach was at variance with international law as elucidatedin the UN ad hoc tribunals and as subsequently confirmed bythe ICJ in the Genocide Case. In that regard, the ICJ Judgmentreestablishes two sound methodological principles: the existenceof a state plan or policy, although probative of intent, isnot an implicit element of genocide; and determining state intent(however that may be defined) is not a part of determining stateresponsibility for genocide.     

Superior Responsibility under Article 28 ICC Statute: For What Exactly is the Superior Held Responsible?

Superior responsibility is a concept for attributing criminalliability to military commanders and other superiors that isemployed with some frequency in the ad hoc international criminaltribunals. Nevertheless, it remains unclear for what the superioris actually blamed. The author argues that with respect to superiorresponsibility as construed in Article 28 ICC Statute the answerto this question depends on the form of superior responsibilityfor which the accused is found guilty. If the superior is heldresponsible for not having prevented or repressed the subordinate'scrime even though the superior knew of the crime, he or shecan be blamed for both, the criminal conduct of the subordinateand the wrongful consequence caused by it. For all other formsof superior responsibility, the superior can only be blamedfor his or her failure to exercise control properly, which resultedin a wrongful consequence, but not for the criminal conductof the subordinate.     

A Critical Assessment of Using Children to Participate Actively in Hostilities in Lubanga Child Soldiers and Direct Participation

The first judgment of the International Criminal Court, delivered on 9 March 2012, raises a pivotal and equally controversial issue of what constitutes ‘active participation in hostilities’ for the purpose of the child solider offences under the Rome Statute in the case against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. The Majority (Judge Fulford and Judge Blattmann) adopted a broad definition of the notion of ‘active’ participation and the Minority (Judge Benito) an even more ample one. This was achieved by distinguishing between ‘active participation in hostilities’ and ‘direct participation in hostilities’ and by recourse to the travaux préparatoires of the Rome Statute and to human rights norms. The purpose of this contribution is to demonstrate that the meaning of ‘active participation in hostilities’ under Articles 8(2)(b)(xxvi) and 8(2)(e)(vii) of the Rome Statute is not ambiguous or obscure, but is the same as that of ‘direct participation in hostilities’ under international humanitarian law. Recourse to supplementary means of interpretation by the Trial Chamber, be it to the travaux préparatoires, or to human rights norms, was unnecessary and misguided. The contribution will also draw some conclusions on how criminal liability before the ICC may be excluded for Articles 8(2)(b)(xxvi) or 8(2)(e)(vii) of the Rome Statute on the basis of the broad definition adopted by the Trial Chamber of the notion of ‘active participation in hostilities’ and will discuss other consequences arising from the judgement at hand.     

凯尔森的国际法治理论及其现实意义

随着全球化程度的不断深入,对和平与安全的期盼使得国际法治成为国际社会的理想与目标。为了建立以和平为目标的国际法律秩序,凯尔森提出了国际法治理论,即通过有强制管辖权的国际法院和确立个人违反国际法的责任来构建世界和平。本文将以此为基础,探讨凯尔森的国际法治理论对国际刑事秩序法治化所具有的现实意义,分析国际刑事法院在实现国际刑事法治化过程中面临的政治制约因素,以期国际刑事法治和国际法治的进一步完善和发展。     

国际刑事法院《罗马规约》犯罪构成要件刍议——以危害人类罪作为样本

尽管世界各国对于犯罪的规定各不相同,但其犯罪规定中所涵盖的成立犯罪的要件(犯罪要素)却大体相当.这种认识对象与内容的相通,正是国际犯罪概念和国际刑事司法审判活动及其机构产生的基础.国际刑事法院管辖的是整个国际社会关注的最严重犯罪,具体包括四类:灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪、战争罪和侵略罪.《罗马规约》对于犯罪构成要件的规定采用规约规定与《犯罪要件》细释相结合的方式,为在国际刑法领域实现法治化作出了有益的创新,开辟了国际刑事司法的新纪元.     

Remarks on the General Part of International Criminal Law

After decades of little reflection on the General Part of InternationalCriminal Law (‘ICL’), the practice of the Ad HocTribunals and Part III of the ICC Statute both offer a uniqueopportunity and create a necessity to give more thought to therules of attribution for international crimes. Indeed, the aimof further research must be to develop a more refined systemof attribution. This is especially important in ICL, since itis primarily concerned with high level perpetrators who rarelycommit the crimes themselves but use mid- or low-level perpetratorsto execute their criminal plans. While ICL ‘in action’is recognized today as primarily criminal law, the rules ofattribution are still underdeveloped. Some rules developed bythe case law even violate, when applied in their extreme form,fundamental principles of criminal law. Identifying and applyingthese principles, specifically the principles of legality andculpability, will be the first step in constructing a more legitimatesystem of attribution.     

Military Courts and Prosecution of Offences by National Defense Forces in the Dawn of the Complementarity Regime: The Case of Uganda

With the coming into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute) and its complementarity regime, much emphasis has been placed on the role of national courts in prosecuting international crimes. Some states have demonstrated their commitment to this regime by; inter alia, ratifying the ICC Statute, enacting national legislation to implement the ICC Statute and establishing national judicial forums for prosecution of international crimes. Uganda is a prime example of states rising up to this challenge. Uganda ratified the ICC Statute in 2002. In 2008, it established the International Crimes Division (ICD) to prosecute international crimes and in 2010, it enacted the International Criminal Court Act to implement the ICC Statute. Even before these reforms, Uganda’s military courts had always relied on service offences to prosecute members of the national defence force. Worthy to note, members of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) have been implicated in a number of atrocities, some of which can be categorised as international crimes. However, military courts continue to prosecute UPDF soldiers for these atrocities on the basis of service offences. The situation current in Uganda highlights a number of legal issues relating to: first, the adequacy of service offences to advance accountability for the international crimes allegedly committed by UPDF soldiers; secondly, the jurisdiction of military courts over international crimes; and thirdly, the effect of concurrent jurisdiction by the ICD and military courts on the rule against double jeopardy.     

The Enforcement of Arrest Warrants by International Forces: From the ICTY to the ICC

The conflict in the former Yugoslavia set a precedent in modernhistory for having a multinational military force being empoweredand directed to execute arrest warrants issued by an internationalcriminal tribunal. On legal grounds, the International CriminalTribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) attained this resultby relying on the broad wording of its governing Statute coupledwith the ICTY's own rule-making powers. In contrast, the draftersof the International Criminal Court (ICC) Statute elaboratedon the nature of the cooperation from international forces insignificantly more details but at the same time opted for reducingthe ICC's powers vis-à-vis these forces. Therefore, theICC Statute now runs contrary to the ICTY's case law recognizinga judicial power to order an international force to executean ICTY arrest warrant. This deferential stance towards collectiveenterprises of states not only infringes upon the States Parties’general obligation to cooperate with the ICC, but, in the end,weakens the ICC's ability to enforce international criminaljustice.     

International Crimes and ICC Cooperation in England and Wales

The United Kingdom, as a party to the ICC Statute, has broughtin a series of similar pieces of legislation in order to fulfilits obligations under the Statute, and to ensure that crimessubject to the jurisdiction of the ICC are also crimes in domesticlaw. This article concentrates on the International CriminalCourt Act 2001, which applies in England and Wales, to appraisewhether it adequately provides for assistance to the ICC, andwhether the crimes subject to the ICC's jurisdiction are adequatelyincorporated into domestic law. The article also mentions thepossible role of the common law of England and Wales in relationto international crimes. It concludes that, for the most part,the Act reflects a sensible approach to issues involved in assistingthe ICC and provides a workable basis for the prosecution ofinternational crimes in that jurisdiction.     

非政府组织与国际刑事法院

近十年来,非政府组织在国际关系中取得的最大成绩就是在促成国际刑事法院的建立方面做出了巨大的努力和贡献。从建立国际刑事法院构想的提出,到《国际刑事法院规约》的起草、谈判,到《规约》的通过与生效,以"支持国际刑事法院的非政府组织联盟"(简称"国际刑事法院联盟")为核心的非政府组织都发挥了至关重要的作用。在国际刑事法院的诉讼程序中,非政府组织也可以发挥信息提供者、法庭之友、法院与受害人和证人之间桥梁、监督人等作用。国际刑事法院已正式认可了非政府组织的作用。非政府组织在国际刑事法院的建立和运行中所发挥的作用堪称国际市民社会参与国际关系的一个范例。