Book contents
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Biographies
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Cross-Cutting Issues
- Part I Individual Commission
- Part II Joint Commission
- Part III Participation
- Part IV Participating in Group Activities
- 10 Group Acting with a Common Purpose
- Part V Inchoate and Preparatory Acts
- Part VI Other Forms of Responsibility
- Part VII Concluding Observations
- Index
- References
10 - Group Acting with a Common Purpose
from Part IV - Participating in Group Activities
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2019
Book contents
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Biographies
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Cross-Cutting Issues
- Part I Individual Commission
- Part II Joint Commission
- Part III Participation
- Part IV Participating in Group Activities
- 10 Group Acting with a Common Purpose
- Part V Inchoate and Preparatory Acts
- Part VI Other Forms of Responsibility
- Part VII Concluding Observations
- Index
- References
Summary
Criminal responsibility for contributing to a group acting with a common purpose is a key – yet controversial – issue in ICL. On the one hand, it is well-known that international crimes are normally committed by groups of people acting pursuant to joint plans or agreements. This calls for liability theories that establish responsibility based on the accused’s participation in a collective criminal effort. On the other hand, the principles of individual criminal responsibility and personal guilt proscribe the attribution of crimes committed by others to the accused merely because of his/her membership in a group or organization.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law , pp. 309 - 336Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Select Bibliography
Ambos, K., ‘Article 25: Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Trifferer, O. (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (2nd edn, Munich: C.H.Beck, 2008) 743.Google Scholar
Ambos, K., ‘The International Criminal Court and Common Purpose: What Contribution Is Required under Article 25 (3)(d)?’, in Stahn, C. (ed.), The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) 592.Google Scholar
Cupido, M., ‘Common Purpose Liability versus Joint Perpetration: A Practical View on the ICC’s Hierarchy of Liability Theories’, 29 Leiden Journal of International Law (2016) 897.Google Scholar
DeFalco, R.C., ‘Contextualizing Actus Reus under Article 25 (3)(d)of the ICC Statute’, 11 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2013) 715.Google Scholar
Eser, A., ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Cassese, A., Gaeta, P. and Jones, J.R.W.D. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002), Vol. I, 767.Google Scholar
Ohlin, J.D., ‘Joint Criminal Confusion’, 12 New Criminal Law Review (2009) 406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saland, P., ‘International Criminal Law Principles’, in Lee, R., The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1998) 189.Google Scholar
van Sliedregt, E., The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar