System criminality at the ICTY

Sliedregt, E. van

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511596650.009

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants in a JCE, because JCE is a form of committing, are regarded as perpetrators who are more deserving of punishment than aiders and abettors (see further below, under subsection D). 106 This is problematic since JCE3, like aiding and abetting, generates liability that is not on the same par as participation in a JCE with (full) intent. It connotes a different moral position.…”

Section: 'Just Convict Everyone'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Joint Criminal Confusion: Exploring the Merits and Demerits of Joint Enterprise Liability

Sliedregt¹

2019

Accessorial Liability After Jogee

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In February 2016, the UK Supreme Court fundamentally changed the criminal law principles of accessorial liability when it handed down its decision in R v Jogee. The Court abolished the head of liability known as 'joint criminal enterprise' (JCE) and replaced it with the ordinary principles of aiding and abetting, which it restated for this purpose. JCE features prominently in international criminal law (ICL) where it has an equally contentious status. The full implications of Jogee remain at present uncertain, underexplored and divisive. In this chapter, I evaluate the merits and demerits of joint enterprise by comparing JCE in English law and ICL. A cross-jurisdictional analysis of joint enterprise reveals more deeply the role the notion plays in the overall taxonomy of criminal responsibility. There are different concepts of joint enterprise with different theoretical groundings. By not recognising this, past debates of joint enterprise liability have failed to appreciate the concept's merits alongside complicity liability.

show abstract

Section: 'Just Convict Everyone'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Joint Criminal Confusion: Exploring the Merits and Demerits of Joint Enterprise Liability

Sliedregt¹

2019

Accessorial Liability After Jogee

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there is no reason that this would necessarily be so -a properly differentiated system of responsibility would distinguish among participants at the level of the attribution of responsibility and reflect participants' varied culpability at sentencing. 95 Ideally, this is how modes of responsibility will develop in international criminal law. 96 To be sure, if modes of responsibility were properly differentiated it would not mean that the appropriate fault requirement for accomplice liability is self-evident.…”

Section: Responsibility In International Criminal Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Attribution of Responsibility and Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law

Jackson¹

2016

Leiden Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2012, James Stewart published an article in this journal. The piece – ‘The End of “Modes of Liability” for International Crimes’ – argued for the abolition of accomplice liability in international criminal law and the adoption of a unitary model of participation in crime. This article argues that Stewart's proposal is flawed. As a matter of moral responsibility, the distinction between principals and accomplices follows from the recognition of individuals as moral agents. Turning to ordinary criminal responsibility, neither practical benefits nor expressive benefits nor the mitigating effects of the distinctive institution of criminal sentencing justifies the abolition of the distinction between principals and accomplices. Moreover, despite the collective nature of many international crimes, international criminal law ought to strive to accurately differentiate, in the attribution of responsibility, among participants. Only a differentiated model of participation can accurately and defensibly capture the different ways that individuals contribute to wrongdoing.

show abstract

“…In relation to ICTY case law, Van Sliedregt, for example, observes that the Tadić Appeals Chamber judgment has 'left the door open for a broad interpretation [of the common plan element, MC]'. 34 In particular, it has allowed the Tribunal to infer the existence of a common plan from the unified actions of a plurality of persons. 35 In this respect, 'a Chamber will almost certainly not inquire into the intent of every single person alleged in the indictment to have been a member of the JCE'.…”

Section: Characterising the Common Planmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…138 This dependency is expressed in the principle of Akzessorietät or emprunt de la criminalité. 139 The derivative nature of accessorial responsibility can cause problems in situations that involve complex relations between different actors, like cases of international and/or organised crimes. 140 It may then prove difficult to uncover the relations between all participants and to clarify whether and how the accessory contributed to the crime of the principal.…”

Section: Autonomous Criminal Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Pluralism in Theories of Liability: Joint Criminal Enterprise versus Joint Perpetration

Cupido

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

System criminality at the ICTY

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Joint Criminal Confusion: Exploring the Merits and Demerits of Joint Enterprise Liability

Joint Criminal Confusion: Exploring the Merits and Demerits of Joint Enterprise Liability

The Attribution of Responsibility and Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law

Pluralism in Theories of Liability: Joint Criminal Enterprise versus Joint Perpetration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About