Following Historical Precedent: An Argument for the Continued Use of Military Professionals as Triers of Fact in Some Humanitarian Law Tribunals

The military commissions at Guantánamo Bay have properlybeen the subject of much legal scrutiny and criticism. Theiruse of military officers as triers of fact, however, meritsfurther consideration. Salim Hamdan may have benefited fromhaving military officers decide his case. His panel was composedof highly educated military professionals who have dedicatedtheir lives in service of the law. Despite their enmity towardsthe accused, these officers were actually in a better positionto be sympathetic and understanding to the Hamdan defence thana civilian jury. The unique aspects of military service andcombat experience will also make them excellent partners withprofessional jurists in future humanitarian law tribunals.     

论个人刑事责任原则在国际刑法中的体现

经过历史发展,个人刑事责任原则的观念逐渐形成,并体现在主要的国际性法律文件以及国际刑事审判活动中,成为国际刑法中的一项重要的基本原则。然而,鉴于多种因素的考量,目前权威国际刑法规范所规定的个人刑事责任原则只体现在自然人实施特定国际犯罪的情形中,并没有确认法人和国家的刑事责任主体地位。     

国际航空犯罪法人刑事责任及其国内立法转化研究

2010年《北京公约》和《北京议定书》首次规定了国际航空犯罪法人责任,法人责任以法人的高级管理人员代表法人实施劫持航空器等国际航空犯罪为要件,法人为此承担刑事、民事或行政责任。公约对法人犯罪及其责任的立法需要转化为国内法才能适用。世界各国国内法对法人犯罪及其责任的态度差别较大,英国、加拿大、法国等国刑法规定有航空犯罪的法人刑事责任,德国国内法规定有航空犯罪的法人行政责任,意大利刑法规定有航空犯罪的法人民事责任,我国仅在个别航空犯罪中规定有法人犯罪及其刑事责任。我国法人犯罪及其刑事责任的立法和理论具有较强的包容性,可在我国刑法中取消法人犯罪法定化限制,全面规定包括航空犯罪在内的法人犯罪及其刑事责任。     

On the Use of Criminal Law Notions in Determining State Responsibility for Genocide

On the face of it the 1948 Convention on Genocide appears tobe a treaty that on the one hand obliges contracting statesto criminalize and punish genocide in their domestic legal systemsand, on the other, arranges for interstate judicial cooperationfor the repression of genocide. The International Court of Justice(ICJ), in the Bosnia v. Serbia judgment, has instead held thatthe Convention, in addition to providing for the criminal liabilityof individuals, also imposes on contracting states as internationalsubjects a set of obligations (to refrain from engaging in genocide,to prevent and punish the crime, and also to refrain for allthose categories of conduct enumerated in Article III: conspiracy,incitement, attempt, complicity). This approach raises two questions:(i) is it warranted so to broaden states' responsibility? (ii)when applying such Article III categories to state responsibility,should an international court such as the ICJ that pronounceson interstate disputes rely upon criminal law categories toestablish whether a state incurs responsibility for conspiracy,complicity, and so on? Or should it instead forge autonomouslegal categories better suited to state responsibility? Theauthor sets forth doubts about whether it is appropriate totranspose criminal law categories to the corpus of internationallaw of state responsibility. In particular, his misgivings relateto the category of ‘state complicity in genocide’as set out by the Court: once the Court decided to transplantthis criminal law category to state responsibility, arguablyit should have relied upon the rigorous concept of complicity,as derived by international criminal courts from case law andthe relevant practice of states, rather than apply a notionthat finds no basis in international criminal law, in comparativecriminal law or in state practice.     

An Economic Analysis of State and Individual Responsibility Under International Law

The international law of state responsibility determines whenstates are liable for international law violations. States aregenerally liable when they have control over the actions ofwrongdoers; thus, the actions of state officials can implicatestate responsibility whereas the acts of private citizens usuallydo not. We argue that the rules of state responsibility havean economic logic similar to that of vicarious liability indomestic law: the law in both cases provides third parties withincentives to control the behavior of wrongdoers whom they canmonitor and influence. We also discuss international legal remediesand individual liability under international criminal law.     

当代国际刊法的新发展

大量证据显示国际刑事审判的展开促进了国际刑法的发展,而在国际刑法发展的进程中,出现了一系列新的观念和原则并逐渐得到国际社会的广泛认可,诸如灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪和战争罪的定义,以及合法性原则、补充性管辖原则、个人刑事责任原则和国际合作与司法协助原则等。国际刑事法院的建立在国际刑法制度发展中具有里程碑式的意义,联合国、联合国宪章以及联合国大会的一系列决议为国际刑法的发展发挥了至关重要的作用。     

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.     

Finding a Proper Role for Command Responsibility

This article examines the role that command responsibility currentlyplays in the case law of the International Criminal Tribunalfor the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International CriminalTribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The ad hoc tribunals rely in principleon a broad concept of command responsibility – which canbe applied to all superiors, including political and civilianones. However, in practice, accused persons have only rarelybeen successfully charged under this form of liability. Indeed,recent case law has gradually adopted a rigorous approach withrespect to the legal requirements of command responsibility.This has made it more difficult to establish criminal liabilityof superiors who have not directly participated in the commissionof international offences. The ad hoc tribunals have expressedan explicit preference for forms of ‘direct’ liabilitywhere the accused can be convicted both under ‘direct’and command responsibility. While the ICTY and ICTR have progressivelyinterpreted other international legal concepts to deal effectivelywith collective crimes committed by leaders of organized groups,they seem to have confined command responsibility to internationalcrimes perpetrated in typical military-like contexts.     

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。     

Positive Obligations and the International Criminal Tribunals’ Law of Detention: Funding Family Visits and the ICC Presidency’s Ngudjolo Decision

This article addresses the issue of whether the international criminal tribunals are under an obligation to fund family visits for indigent detainees. It examines the concept of positive obligations and its relation to the detention situation and describes the practice of funding family visits as it has developed at the International Criminal Court. It further analyses relevant developments in the Court’s case law. It argues that the Court is indeed obliged to fund family visits. In this regard, the mere recognition of a detainee’s right to family visits in the tribunals’ legal frameworks andin international soft-law penological standards can be said to inadequately reflect the particularities of international detention.

     

在国内武装冲突中履行“保护的责任”的规范依据及其适用

“保护的责任”要求主权国家保护其人民免遭灭绝种族、战争罪、族裔清洗和危害人类罪之害,以及在其他各种情形下承担人权保护责任,当一国不能或不愿履行这一责任时,国际社会将有责任介入并采取相应的保护行动。在国内武装冲突中,容易发生对平民的生命财产以及民用设施的侵害,但是,主权国家应当怎样实施军事行动等行为才能符合人权保护责任的要求,对此,“保护的责任”本身并没有提供明确具体的标准和依据。为防止评估确认上的主观随意性,避免“保护的责任”被滥用成为干涉他国内政的工具,国际社会应当以国际人权法与国际人道法为基本依据,并主要通过对人道法规范在具体情势下的解释适用,来评估确认政府军事行动是否符合人权保护责任上的特定要求,以及是否构成不能或不愿履行“保护的责任”的严重情形,从而确定国际社会是否应当介入以及应采取的适当措施与方式。     

Bad Torture -- Good Torture?: What International Criminal Lawyers May Learn from the Recent Trial of Police Officers in Germany

The author discusses whether a state agent who applies tortureagainst a suspect in order to prevent the death of one or moreinnocent persons can successfully plead a ground for excludinghis or her criminal responsibility under national (in particular,German) law as well as international law. The author examinesthe judgment of a German court, which recently found two policeofficers guilty of threatening to use violence against a suspectedkidnapper, but refrained from punishing them on account of theirmotivation to save the life of the hostage. The author maintainsthat the court's ‘guilty, but not to be punished’verdict could provide guidance for the resolution of comparablecases under international criminal law. He submits that thetension between the absolute ban on torture under internationalhuman rights law and the availability of defences even to crimesof torture under international criminal law should be resolvedthrough a human rights-oriented interpretation of the latter.The author concludes that criminal responsibility for tortureunder international criminal law cannot be excluded by the factthat the torturer acts to save innocent life; however, his orher altruistic motivation may be taken into account in determiningthe sentence.     

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.     

In Search of the Responsible Subject: History, Philosophy and Social Sciences in Criminal Law Theory

This paper examines the way in which English criminal law's conception of responsibility has changed since the eighteenth century, and explores the relationship between changes in legal framework, changes in processes of criminalisation and punishment, and broader social, political and economic changes. It argues that the development of ideas of individual responsibility for crime are responses to problems of co-ordination and legitimation faced by systems of criminal law, and that these problems can be expected to change according to the environment in which the system operates, with important factors including the distribution of political interests and economic power; the prevailing cultural and intellectual environment; the organisation and status of relevant professional groups and the vigour of alternative means of social ordering. Substantively, the paper explores the hypothesis that criminal responsibility has shifted from a conception founded in ideas of character to a capacity-based conception over the relevant period. Methodologically, the aim is to historicise the structure as well as the content of criminal law within a socio-theoretic framework, constructing a dialogue between criminal law theory of a doctrinal and philosophical temper and socio-historical studies of criminal justice.     

Stateless Crimes,Legitimacy, and International Criminal Law: The Case of Organ Trafficking

Organ trafficking and trafficking in persons for the purpose of organ transplantation are recognized as significant international problems. Yet these forms of trafficking are largely left out of international criminal law regimes and to some extent of domestic criminal law regimes as well. Trafficking of organs or persons for their organs does not come within the jurisdiction of the ICC, except in very special cases such as when conducted in a manner that conforms to the definitions of genocide or crimes against humanity. Although the United States Code characterizes trafficking as “a transnational crime with national implications,” (22 U.S.C. § 7101(b)(24) (2010)), trafficking is rarely prosecuted in domestic courts. It has thus functioned in practice largely as what might be judged a “stateless” offense, out of the purview of both international and national courts. Yet these forms of organ trafficking remain widespread—and devastating to those who are its victims. In this article, we begin by describing what is known about the extent of organ trafficking and trafficking in persons for the purpose of removal of organs. We then critically evaluate how and why such trafficking has remained largely unaddressed by both international and domestic criminal law regimes. This state of affairs, we argue, presents a missed chance for developing the legitimacy of international criminal law and an illustration of how far current international legal institutions remain from ideal justice.     

Holding Collectives Accountable

This article argues that there is a need to understand better the legal origins of collective responsibility, as well as to provide additional material for further judicial interpretation of this form of responsibility. For the purposes of this article, collective responsibility refers to the form of individual criminal responsibility that holds individuals accountable for the criminal purpose or objective of a group where they acted in concert with others or otherwise contributed to the fulfillment of the common criminal plan. To spur on further inquiry into the subject of collective responsibility specifically, this article examines the contribution of the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC) to the development of this mode of liability and discusses how it is relevant today. In order to provide sufficient background information on this subject matter, this article begins by presenting an overview of the evolution of collective responsibility from Nuremberg to where it stands in practice at the ICC. Finally, the article will demonstrate how the Commission’s diplomatic exchanges in tandem with cases under its supervision contributed to early formation of customary international law and how these historical events are important today.     

论卢旺达国际刑事法庭对国际刑法发展的贡献

卢旺达国际刑事法庭在1994年的建立和12年的审判实践经验为国际刑事法的发展作出了一定贡献.主要表现在:卢旺达国际刑事法庭是历史上首次建立专门审理非国际性武装冲突的国际刑事法庭;丰富了国际人道主义法的内容;扩大了对在非国际性武装冲突中犯罪的管辖权,进一步积累了国际刑事法院的审判经验,对国际刑法中的三大罪行的界定作出了新的阐释;推动了非洲国际法学的发展并在一定程度上促进了常设性国际刑事法院的建立.     

Reclaiming Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the Darfur Case

According to the authors, the Report of the UN Commission ofInquiry on Darfur and the Security Council referral of the situationin Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC) bring tolight two serious deficiencies of the ICC Statute and, moregenerally, international criminal law: (i) the systematic ambiguitybetween collective responsibility (i.e. the responsibility ofthe whole state) and criminal liability of individuals, on whichcurrent international criminal law is grounded, and (ii) thefailure of the ICC Statute fully to comply with the principleof legality. The first deficiency is illustrated by highlightingthe notions of genocide and genocidal intent, as well as thatof joint criminal enterprise. The second is exposed by drawingattention to the uncertainties and ambiguities surrounding suchnotions as recklessness and dolus eventualis, and in additionto the frequent reliance in both international case law andthe legal literature on customary international law and looseconcepts such as proportionality. The authors finally pointout that if the ICC tries to operate as a real criminal courtunder the rule of law and shows sensitivity to the rights andinterests of the accused, US fears of politicized prosecutionwill diminish.     

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.     

The Plea of Alibi in International Criminal Law as Viewed Through the Prism of the Common Law

The plea of alibi has acquired a prominent place in the short history of modern international criminal law, just as it does in common law criminal trials. At the ICTR, for instance, it is pleaded in virtually every case. It is expected that alibi will continue to vex the processes of international criminal courts and tribunals, especially given the exclusive focus of international criminal law on individual criminal responsibility, much of which has to do with the presence of accused persons at scenes of planning, conspiracy, instigation, aiding and abetting and execution of crimes. The plea of alibi in international criminal law is still a concept under construction. Jurisprudence is rife with uncertain propositions, tentative analyses and incomplete ideas. In the circumstances, there is a need to pay close attention to this area of the law. A constant review is required, with the aim of improving the law of alibi for its future application in international criminal proceedings. An attempt at such a review is made in the present article. The author reviews, among other things, the meaning of the term ??alibi??; whether it is a ??defence??; the feature of notice of alibi; burdens of proof in alibi cases, the prosecutorial duty to disprove the alibi, the need for clarity in the application of the principle of prosecutorial duty to disprove the alibi, and whether there should be a prosecutorial duty to investigate the alibi when timely notice is given; as well as alibi and the right to silence. The author approaches the discussions from the perspective of the common law, primarily due to the prominence of the plea of alibi in common law criminal trials in contrast to inquisitorial criminal trials.