Three Conceptual Problems with the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise

This article dissects the Tadi court's argument for findingthe doctrine of joint criminal enterprise in the ICTY Statute.The key arguments are identified and each are found to be eitherproblematic or insufficient to deduce the doctrine from thestatute: the object and purpose of the statute to punish majorwar criminals, the inherently collective nature of war crimesand genocide and the conviction of war criminals for joint enterprisesin World War II cases. The author criticizes this over-relianceon international case law and the insufficient attention tothe language of criminal statutes when interpreting conspiracydoctrines. The result of these mistakes is a doctrine of jointcriminal enterprise that fails to offer a sufficiently nuancedtreatment of intentionality, foreseeability and culpability.Specifically, the doctrine in its current form suffers fromthree conceptual deficiencies: (1) the mistaken attributionof criminal liability for contributors who do not intend tofurther the criminal purpose of the enterprise, (2) the impositionof criminal liability for the foreseeable acts of one's co-conspiratorsand (3) the mistaken claim that all members of a joint enterpriseare equally culpable for the actions of its members. The authorconcludes by briefly suggesting amendments to the Rome Statuteto rectify these deficiencies.     

国际投资仲裁中法庭之友意见书接受标准的完善

法庭之友制度的适用在一定程度上缓解了国际投资仲裁的正当性危机。虽然仲裁庭接受法庭之友意见书的权利已为普遍认可接受,但实践中对于法庭之友参与标准的解释存在不确定性和不一致性问题。现有投资规则对于法庭之友参与投资仲裁的规定并未形成明确、系统的考量方法,特别是对利益要素和独立性问题的考察在条约实践和仲裁实践中都存在较大分歧,导致法庭之友参与投资仲裁得不到制度保障而缺乏可预测性。仲裁庭在考量是否接受法庭之友书面意见时,应当同时满足"公共利益"与"重大利益"双重标准。此外,不宜采用过于严苛的的标准来判断法庭之友的独立性,以避免对法庭之友参与投资仲裁造成不必要的障碍。     

The Proper Limits of Individual Responsibility under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise

Joint criminal enterprise (JCE) as a mode of liability in internationalcriminal law is a concept widely upheld by international caselaw. It has, however, been harshly attacked by commentators,particularly with regard to what has come to be known as the‘third category’ of the notion, that of liabilitybased on foreseeability and the voluntary taking of the riskthat a crime outside the common plan or enterprise be perpetrated.This author considers that while most criticisms are off themark, at least two are pertinent: (i) that the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamberin Tadi (1999) was wrong in indiscriminately using terminologytypical of both the civil law and common law tradition, and(ii) that the foreseeability standard, being somewhat looseas a penal law category of culpability and causation, needssome qualification or precision. Generally speaking, the notionof JCE needs some tightening up. For instance, in Kvoka, anICTY Trial Chamber rightly stressed that the contribution ofa participant in a common criminal plan must be ‘substantial’(the Appeals Chamber, however, disagreed to some extent in thesame case). Furthermore, with specific regard to the third categoryof JCE, the author, after setting out the social and legal foundationsof the foreseeability standard and the motivations behind itsacceptance in international criminal law, suggests various waysof qualifying and straightening it out. One of them could liein assigning to the ‘primary offender’ (i.e. theperson who, in addition to committing the concerted crimes,also perpetrates a crime not part of the common plan or purpose)liability for all the crimes involved, while charging the ‘secondaryoffender’ with liability for a lesser crime, wheneverthis is legally possible. The author then suggests, contraryto a 2004 decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber in Branin, thatthe third category of JCE may not be admissible when the crimeother than that agreed upon requires special intent (this appliesto genocide, persecution as a crime against humanity, and aggression).In such cases, the other participants in JCE could only be chargedwith aiding and abetting the crimes committed by the ‘primaryoffender’ if the requisite conditions for aiding and abettingdo exist. The author then suggests that the view propoundedin 2004 by an ICTY Trial Chamber in Branin is sound, namelythat the general notion of JCE may not be resorted to when thephysical perpetrators of the crimes charged were not part ofthe criminal plan or agreement, but rather committed the crimesunaware that a plan or agreement had been entered into by anothergroup of persons. In conclusion, he contends that this qualifiednotion of JCE, in addition to being provided for in customaryinternational law, does not appear to be inconsistent with abroad interpretation of the provision of the ICC Statute governingindividual criminal responsibility, that is, Article 25, inparticular 25(3)(d).     

International Criminal Trials and the Circumstances of Justice

Transitional justice is broadly understood to refer to formal efforts to deal with past wrongs in the midst of a transition from an extended period of conflict or repression to democracy. In this paper, I consider the role of international criminal trials in transitional justice. I argue that such trials may contribute to transitional justice, but such contributions are conditional on two main factors. The first factor is time. The second factor is what other transitional justice responses are adopted domestically.     

Damaska and the Faces of International Criminal Justice

Mirjan Damaka 's scholarly publications provide important insightsfor the analysis of systems of criminal justice at the internationallevel. This is particularly true for his major book: The Facesof Justice and State Authority – A Comparative Approachto the Legal Process. The book develops ideal types, or models,of the structure and the function of government. As far as thestructure of government, the ideal types of hierarchical andcoordinate officialdom are contrasted with one another. Withregard to the function of government in society, two other mutuallyexclusive ideal types are developed: the ideal type of the purelyreactive state and that of the purely activist state. In thepurely reactive state all state activities are essentially aform of dispute resolution between individual citizens. Consequently,all proceedings take the shape of a contest between two parties.In the reactive state, on the other hand, all law is an expressionof state policies. This entails that all proceedings are essentiallyan official inquiry enabling the state to implement its policies.The four ideal types call for several observations, one of thembeing that, at the international level, there is no authoritythat can be compared to a state. Setting up international criminal courts requires choices withregard to the structure and function of authority. Internationalhuman rights instruments provide no guidance as to the natureof the choices to be made. In particular, they do not indicatewhether the legal process should be structured as a contestbetween two parties or as an official inquiry. The same is truefor empirical evidence. An analysis of the structures of authority in internationalcriminal courts reveal that they represent hybrids of the hierarchicaland the coordinate ideal types of officialdom. The fact thatthese courts are unitary courts has a profound effect on evidentiaryarrangements. The most important issue raised by the exposition of ideal typesof The Faces of Justice concerns the relationship between thegoals of international criminal justice and the appropriatelegal process to serve their realization. Goals of a conflict-solvingnature are best served by a legal process structured as a contestbetween two parties and goals related to the implementationof policies by a legal process structured as an official inquiry.It is therefore essential to determine what goals are beingpursed by international criminal courts. One may distinguishhere between goals that international systems of justice mayor may not have in common with national systems of criminaljustice. The pursuit of the traditional goals of criminal justicecommon to international and national systems of justice doesnot provide compelling reasons to prefer either a contest modelor an inquest model of the legal process. This is different,however, for the idiosyncratic goals of international criminaljustice that set apart international systems of criminal justicefrom national systems. The pursuit of these goals makes it desirablethat historical facts are established as accurately as is possiblein the given circumstances. They are, therefore, best servedby a legal process that takes the shape of an official inquiry.In the hybrid type of procedure adopted by the ICTY there isinsufficient clarity about the procedural status of the peculiargoals of international criminal justice as well as about theuse of procedural means to pursue them. This entails that itis not really possible to determine whether this hybrid representsa success. Hybrid types of procedure cannot truly exist withoutadopting a view with regard to the impartiality of judges thatis inspired by standards enshrined in international human rightsinstrument rather than those that are characteristic for thelegal process shaped as a contest between two parties.     

My Professor is Hot! Correlates of RateMyProfessors.com Ratings for Criminal Justice and Criminology Faculty Members

“RateMyProfessors.com” ratings of the easiness, helpfulness, clarity, overall quality, and “hotness” of 407 criminal justice and criminology faculty members from across the United States were collected. Data were analyzed to determine what faculty characteristics determined these ratings. Experience working in the criminal justice field predicted higher ratings, while years of teaching experience was predictive of lower ratings. After controlling for instructors easiness and “hotness” ratings, the instructors’ ascribed characteristics (such as race and sex) explained the greatest proportion of variance in clarity, helpfulness, and overall quality scores. Professional characteristics, such as years of experience, publication rate, and possession of a doctorate were less influential on Ratemyprofessors.com scores.     

国际刑事司法协助与引渡问题探析

刑事司法协助是国家关系的重要内容,是一国司法权的有效域外延伸,具有重要的外交价值和司法价值。开展刑事司法协助问题的研究,特别是建立我国现代引渡制度,对于打击跨国犯罪、引渡跨国犯罪、追究逃窜到国外罪犯的刑事责任、监控追缴赃款赃物等方面具有重要意义。目前,在我国现存的各种法律规范以及与外国签订的司法协助协定之中,缺乏切实可行的措施。为此,制定切实可行的引渡制度仍是任重而道远的法制任务。     

心理学与司法决策:美国心理学会法庭之友辩护状的启示

美国"法庭之友"制度的盛行,为心理学家直接介入具体的诉讼案件提供了法律途径.介绍了美国心理学会通过向上诉法院特别是向最高法院提交法庭之友辩护状,为法官提供有关的心理学理论知识与经验研究结果以帮助其正确认定案件事实和有关法律问题,从而影响司法决策的运作概况及效果,评述了借鉴"法庭之友"制度对于完善我国现行司法制度的意义,以及美国心理学会法庭之友辩护状的运行对于我国增强司法能力建设的启示.     

反恐与国际刑事司法准则的底限

恐怖主义是人类生存面临的难题,它通过暴力和残忍的手段,对世界和平、经济发展、社会生活乃至人类文明造成严重威胁.恐怖主义是当代人类之间展开的另一种形式的自相残杀.但是,即使其在法律上是严重违法的,在道德上是难以立足的,然而,毕竟有其存在的深层根源.因此,应当明晰恐怖主义与反恐的性质,正确认识反恐与国际刑事司法准则的价值与效力之间的冲突,并从世界其他一些国家的反恐立法及司法实践中寻找经验和借鉴,从而正确协调恐怖主义与反恐以及反恐与国际刑事司法准则的关系,为解决这一死结提供一条可行路线.     

The Dutch Engagement with the Project of International Criminal Justice

Netherlands International Law Review -     

Toward Peace in the World of Business through International Criminal Justice

In response to the concerns of the world community over the interlockings between the abuse of economic and political power and its potential negative effect on national socio-economic development efforts, the United Nations has undertaken several major strategic programs. The recent Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders focused on this topic, with a global strategy beginning to emerge. Yet that strategy could be on a collision course with the policies of the new American administration. The author reasons that support for an international control strategy is in the best interests of the United States and other Western nations, that it need not collide with a laissez-faire domestic policy, and that it provides an alternative to violent acts of aggression and other non-negotiated mechanisms for achieving world economic justice.