The Crime of Conspiracy in International Criminal Law

Okoth, Juliet R. Amenge

doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-017-6

Cited by 15 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, it reflects a public fear of group criminality and desire to control it. 23 Criminalizing conspiracy, Mohamed Othman concludes, is a protective measure that societies take, meant to shield them from the "substantive mischief" of groups and "strike against the special danger inherent to group criminality." 24 Like its everyday counterpart, conspiracy law attempts to apportion responsibility for societal upheaval among a group of individuals and explain the network of associations that bind them.…”

Section: The Burden Of Proof In Everyday and Legal Conspiracy Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

Assigning Guilt and Dispersing Blame: Conspiracy Discourse and the Limits of Law in the Nuremberg Trials

Niebauer¹

2021

Rhetoric and Public Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay investigates how Allied postwar planners sought to overcome a set of legal, political, and pragmatic problems in the punishment of Nazi perpetrators by turning to conspiracy law. In doing so, they sought to glean the rhetorical benefits of conspiracy discourse and argument but were largely thwarted due to the specialized burdens of proof required by law. Here, I suggest that while everyday uses of conspiracy discourse can overcome the problem of assigning individual guilt in the midst of dispersed and collective criminality due to its low burdens of proof, the heart of the Western legal tradition—the fault principle—stymies the effectiveness of conspiracy law as a charge. Despite its relative inefficacy, conspiracy law has had a significant legacy in shaping postwar understandings of World War II and in providing a precedent to hold perpetrators accountable in recent postconflict trials. The continued usage of conspiracy law, despite its shortcomings, points to the limits of legal solutions in the wake of mass atrocities and the need for creative mechanisms for dealing with perceptions of individual and collective guilt.

show abstract

Section: The Burden Of Proof In Everyday and Legal Conspiracy Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

Assigning Guilt and Dispersing Blame: Conspiracy Discourse and the Limits of Law in the Nuremberg Trials

Niebauer¹

2021

Rhetoric and Public Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This pattern of behaviour portrayed by African states is the consequence of the AU's proposal for amendment of Article 16 deferrals under the Rome Statute such that when the Council declines to consider a proposal of a state with regard to deferral, the matter can be decided upon by the General Assembly of the UN. 65 On 12 October 2013, Kenya, supported by the AU, called on the Security Council to defer proceedings against President Uhuru Kenyatta and his Deputy, William Ruto for crimes committed during the 2007/2008 post-election violence that occurred in Kenya. 66 Once again the Council declined from adopting a resolution in accordance with Article 16 of the Rome Statute.…”

Section: Security Council Deferrals and The Allegation Of Bias Againsmentioning

confidence: 99%

African Union and the Politics of Selective Prosecutions at the International Criminal Court

Endoh¹

2020

African Journal of International Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The African Union (AU) claims that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is selective against African leaders. The issue therefore arises concerning the validity of the allegations of selectivity. Partly because of such concerns, African Heads of States adopted the Malabo Protocol during their annual summit held in June 2014. Article 46A bis of the Protocol provides immunity for sitting Heads of States. This provision contradicts Article 27 of the Rome Statute and, consequently, arguably reverses the progress made so far in international criminal law by giving priority to immunity in the face of impunity. This article considers the validity of some of the allegations of selective application of criminal sanctions by the ICC and the likely consequence of the Malabo Protocol for regional and international criminal justice. The article argues that the Malabo Protocol should not be ratified by African states until the shield of immunity granted to sitting Heads of States is lifted to better advance the interests of justice for the victims of international crimes in Africa. In addition, the complementarity clause stated in the Malabo Protocol should have a nexus with the ICC such that the Court would be allowed to prosecute the perpetrators of international crimes in circumstances where the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJHR) prove reluctant to do so.

show abstract

General Principles of Criminal Responsibility

Satō

2021

Multilayered Structures of International Criminal Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Crime of Conspiracy in International Criminal Law

Cited by 15 publications

References 23 publications

Assigning Guilt and Dispersing Blame: Conspiracy Discourse and the Limits of Law in the Nuremberg Trials

Assigning Guilt and Dispersing Blame: Conspiracy Discourse and the Limits of Law in the Nuremberg Trials

African Union and the Politics of Selective Prosecutions at the International Criminal Court

General Principles of Criminal Responsibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About