The Doctrine of Command and Superior Responsibility
Mwika Musakuzi2020
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
On the 8th of June, 2018, the Appeals Chamber (AC) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) fervently passed judgement in an appeal case of Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo against a judgement for his conviction by the Trial Chamber III (TC III) of March 2016 for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bemba’s conviction in the TC III was conspicuous as it was it was the first time the ICC convicted a leader of such seniority, a former vice President in a transitional Government in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The outrageous ruling in the AC reversed in the decision of the TC III, entitled Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute. The AC acquitted Bemba on the basis that he was a remote commander of the Mouvement de libération du Congo (MLC) troops in the Central African Republic (CAR). This paper seeks to discuss the doctrine of command or superior responsibility in relation to the decision passed by the TC III and critique the inconsistencies and flagrant deviation from principles of international criminal law in the decision made by AC, as the court erred both in law and in fact.
Related papers
Consistency of the interpretation and implementation of command responsibility and its components in international criminal law
2016
This thesis is designed to dissect the interpretations and implementation of ‘command responsibility’ in international criminal law. It closely examines the development of command responsibility as a norm under international criminal law. It then scrutinises the consistency of interpreting and implementing this doctrine under the current jurisprudence and case-law of various international criminal courts and tribunals. Unlike other forms of criminal responsibility, command responsibility was developed through judges’ interpretations following the post-Second World War trials, which formed the customary nature of this doctrine. In these trials, judges established the unique nature and requirements of command responsibility and then it was successfully implemented as a sui generis form of liability. Recently, however, this doctrine was vaguely codified under various international statutes, without taking into account its unique creation and development. This resulted eventually in the...
Command responsibility, joint commission and 'control over the crime' approach in the first ICC jurisprudence
In: "The International Criminal Court in Search of its Purpose and Identity", edited by T. Mariniello, Routledge, 2015
The tendency we observed in the last years, both at the ad hoc tribunals and now at the ICC (at least on the side of the Prosecutor), is to overstretch the notion of ‘commission of the crime’ (and thus principal liability), so as to include forms of participation in the common plan that would be more properly framed as accessorial (and thus secondary) liability under domestic criminal law. The case law of the ICTY has developed the JCE, which, thanks to its ‘mutual attribution’ mechanism, was extensively used to charge as perpetrators individuals who did not perform the actus reus of the crime. JCE however, was immediately rejected by ICC judges. Instead, the ICC judges adopted a sophisticated form of coperpetration, which is based on the notion of ‘control over the crime’. Such a legal theory, heavily influenced by the German ‘Dogmatik’, was welcomed at the time of the very first ICC decisions, but is currently experiencing criticism and resistance even from within the Court itself, especially with regard to the combined form of ‘indirect co-perpetration’. Parallel to that, we can note that the mode of liability of command or superior responsibility – which was considered a very helpful tool before the ad hoc tribunals during their first years of activity, to convict superiors for the crimes of their subordinates – seems to have lost its charm and has so far been scarcely applied before the ICC. Notably, command responsibility is also based on the concept of control: more precisely the possession of ‘effective control’ over subordinates is what triggers the responsibility of the commanders for not having prevented or repressed the crimes committed by subordinates. In this framework, this article deals with the first applications before the ICC of both the mode of liability of (indirect) co-perpetration under Article 25(3)(a) of the ICC Statute , and command responsibility under Article 28 of the Statute, in order to outline current problematic issues vis-à-vis the judicial determination of the responsibility of high-ranking perpetrators for the commission of international crimes.
The Doctrine of Command Responsibility in International Law With Emphasis on Liability for Failure to Punish
Netherlands International Law Review, 1998
The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in War Crime Trials and the Use of Force (Legal Issues Journal, Vol 6, Issue 2, July 2018)
2018
This paper evaluates the relationship of differing rules governing proportionality in the use of force, in jus ad bellum (law regulating justifications for resort to war) and the jus in bello (law regulating conduct in war). It is contended that there is an overlap in the substance of the factual elements and as such the International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction to consider the prohibition on the use of force. The point of focus is Article 8(2)(b)(iv), of the Rome Statute, which obliges military commanders not to take action that is ‘clearly excessive’ to the ‘overall military advantage’ of an attack. The standard of proportionality used is troublesome to apply, as the variables used are incommensurable. In addition, as there are only rare instances of military commanders or soldiers being sanctioned the characteristics of the concept lacks clarity. In the absence of determinative sources to measure jus in bello proportionality, this thesis will contend that the jus ad bellum concept of proportionality can be used as a guide for interpretative purposes.
Chicago Journal of International Law Erosion of the Rule of Law as a Basis for Command Responsibility under International Humanitarian Law Erosion of the Rule of Law as a Basis for Command Responsibility under International Humanitarian Law
Many examples of modern war crimes exhibit a strong link between the institutional breakdown of the rule of law and subsequent commission of humanitarian abuses by service members. Unchecked misconduct, specifically including dehumanizing acts, tends to foster a climate where war crimes are likely to occur. Does the law adequately account for this common thread? This article examines the doctrine of command responsibility in the context of a superior's failure to maintain discipline among troops, and resulting criminal culpability for violations of the law of armed conflict. While customary international law, as applied by modern ad hoc tribunals, contemplates a wide range of misconduct that may trigger a commander's affirmative duty to prevent future abuses by subordinates, U.S. law does not. This article examines the contours of the command responsibility doctrine as it relates to this duty to prevent, and assesses its efficacy in averting humanitarian atrocities.
International Humanitarian Law violations in the armed conflict in eastern part of DR Congo: the case of the National Congress for the Defense of People
A38 Journal of International Law, 2013
More than six decades since the adoption of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, mankind has experienced an alarming number of armed conflicts affecting almost every continent. During this time, the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols of 1977 have provided legal protection to people not or no longer participating directly in hostilities (the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to an armed conflict and civilians). Even so, there have been numerous violations of these treaties, resulting in suffering and death which could have been avoided if International Humanitarian Law (IHL) was better respected. For more than two decades, the African Great Lakes Region has been characterized by intense political violence which has resulted in various violations of serious international crimes including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. This article will focus on the third armed conflict (2004-2009) under the leadership of General Nkunda and Colonel Mutebusi’s rebellions. Besides, it the legal reasoning of the violations of international humanitarian law during the third conflict in the DRC and then presentes the necessity to prosecute the perpetrators.
THE RULES OF ACTUSREAUS AND MENS REA IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW OUGHT TO THE SUPPORT VICTIMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS THROUGH LIABILITY OF COMBATANTS
The normative principles of criminal law were in some cases founded upon concepts of individual criminal responsibility for a person’s unlawful conduct. However under international criminal law the challenges of individual criminal responsibility may tend to arise from the effects of the hierarchal based-leadership structures that are used in the military. The hierarchal based structures are operationalised through a line of command which enhances maximum obedience to the instructions issued by military leaders. Disciplinary actions could be used under the military codes of practice to encourage compliance with the line of command. Possibly the line of command might be contributing to some cases of human rights violations. The problems that the line of command might creat to individual criminal responsibility are dealt with under this article. Cases where the members of armed forces are instructed by their superiors to act upon the instructions that are inconsistent with norms of human right protection are taken into account by this paper. The paper considers that in other cases those instructions have turned out as; misleading, misguiding or founded upon misconceived facts that may result into war crimes or crimes against humanity. This article examines how the principles of private criminal law have contributed in responding to the challenges of international criminal law. The article also examines if these developments have reshaped the ways of pursuing post conflict justice for the violations of human rights.
Related topics
Related papers
The Ascension of Blue Beret Accountability: International Criminal Court Command and Superior Responsibility in Peace Operations
Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 2010
Personnel involved in United Nations (UN) peace operations have been found to commit misconduct, some of which amounts to criminal conduct. The UN has been working to establish a disciplinary system which will prevent and punish any misconduct by peace operation personnel. However, the UN cannot prosecute criminal perpetrators. Criminal jurisdiction can only be enacted by states and the International Criminal Court (ICC). This article seeks to analyse how Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the ICC can be used to prosecute commanders and superiors of a UN peace operation for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The application of Article 28, however, is not straightforward, due to the complexity of the command, authority and control structure of a peace operation. Examination of both military command and civilian superior responsibility is undertaken, including recognition of the cross-over of the roles of military and civilian commanders and superiors in peace operations. While this article argues that prosecution under command and superior responsibility is essential, the complications that may arise with the application of such responsibility are recognized and directions for the prosecutor offered.
Book Review of "Command Responsibility in International Criminal Law" by Chantal Meloni
Criminal Law Forum, 2013
The doctrine of command responsibility has gained a lot of scholarly attention in the recent years. Pursuant to the doctrine, military commanders and civilian superiors may be held responsible for the crimes committed by their subordinates that they failed to prevent or punish. The concept first appeared in the military field and subsequently was applied in the context of international humanitarian law (IHL), to later become one of the key principles of international criminal law (ICL). This complicated mode of responsibility has been a source of debate after its first applications since the Second World War, and it continues to present critical difficulties and pose open questions for its interpreters and appliers. The interest to explore the issue has not waned, considering the gradual development of the ICC's case-law where the doctrine is expected to be used, and it is in this line that the book by Chantal Meloni may be called a timely work for all those who would be interested in researching this complex form of liability. It is a noteworthy contribution to the ongoing discussions on command responsibility, albeit, perhaps, with some reservations
International Criminal Law Guidelines: Command Responsibility
2016
The Case Matrix Network (CMN) provides knowledge-transfer and capacity development services to national and international actors in the fields of international criminal and human rights law. We seek to empower those working to provide criminal accountability for violations of core international crimes and serious human rights violations, by providing access to legal information, legal expertise and knowledge tools. The CMN is a department of the Centre for International Law Research and Policy, which is an international not for profit organisation, registered in Belgium.
The Challenges of the Obligation to Co-operate between the ICC and the DR Congo : The Case of the Fourth Arrest Warrant Against General Bosco Ntaganda
The A38 Journal of International Law, 2012
Special Responsibility of Superiors (Commanders)In the International Criminal Law
2013
The article deals with the responsibility for a crime committed by command. In international criminal law exists two types of responsibilities. The first is the so called direct or active command responsibility, when the commander displays an active behavior in regards of the crime committed by subordinates, for example, by ordering them to commit a crime. These cases should be judged based on the traditional individual responsibility and the commander should be considered as a perpetrator based on the Statute of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter: ICC), and as an indirect perpetrator based on the dogmatics of the Hungarian criminal law. The second type – the command responsibility proper – is the indirect or passive one, the point of which is the special behavior of the commander in being guilty of negligence. As the task of proving whether a particular order for committing a crime was given or not is usually a difficult one, this indirect form of the command responsibil...
Individual Responsibility for Crimes Under International Law: The Un Ad Hoc Tribunals and the International Criminal Court
The Summer School on International …, 2005
The International Criminal Court in Central and Eastern Africa: Between the Possible and the Desirable
2010
The field of transitional justice has been haunted and enriched by the peace versus justice dilemma and the difficulty of navigating the thin line between the logic of appropriateness and the logic of consequence. These questions have gained renewed urgency over the last two decades as the increasing vigor of international criminal law and the human rights discourse demanded that accountability replace impunity as a general norm after mass atrocities. The goal of this study is to challenge the notion that war crimes courts may undermine peace and stability by adapting this debate to a new institution, the first ever permanent international criminal tribunal, and its first investigations and trials in Central and Eastern Africa. The central thesis of this dissertation is that, in the context of the International Criminal Court's involvement in Uganda, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the pursuit of justice measures has not undermined peace. I set out to examine whether the court's multiple interventions in this region of the world have been followed by a deterioration or exacerbation of the conflicts under study and/or the failure of peace negotiations caused by the question of accountability. I conclude that this has not been the case in the contexts under review, and that it is wrong to present the conceptual pairs of peace and justice as opposing or contradictory. 67 This has not entirely rid the court from the accusation of representing "white man's justice," a charge that rang louder when the head of the investigations team, Peter Halloran, was convicted of sexually molesting a Sierra Leonean child (Okello, 2005: 24). 68 To date, it has indicted offenders from the RUF, the AFRC, and the pro-government Civilian Defense Forces (CDF). Three of these individuals have died, including Foday Sankoh and his deputy Sam Bockarie. Recently, the SCSL issued its first convictions, and transferred Charles Taylor to The Hague. Updated information is available at the court's website: www.sc-sl.org. 69 Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International thought that David Crane's interpretation of the court's mandate was too narrow, and advocated the indictment of regional and mid-level commanders as well as top-level officials. See Human Rights Watch, "Bringing Justice: The Special Court for Sierra Leone accomplishments, shortcomings, and needed support (September, 2004).
THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT IN AFICAN POLITIES: A REALITY OR A MYTH
It is indeed a trite law that the jurisdiction of courts is radical and crucial. Where a court lacks jurisdiction over a matter, it lacks the vires to entertain and deliberate on it. A defect in competence is therefore fatal in that, it renders an entire proceedings, trial or findings invalid, null and void abinitio however brilliantly they must have been conducted and concluded . The International Criminal Court is an independent judicial institution with the power to try and punish individuals for the most serious crimes of International concern such as genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression, and war crimes. First approved in 1998 vide a treaty known as the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court came into being on the 1st July, 2002, with its headquarters in The Hague. However, its proceeding may hold anywhere . The International Criminal Court has handled lots of cases, but the parties subject to prosecution before the court raise questions of serious concern. The objective of this paper is to analyze the jurisdiction situation of the International Criminal Court vis – a- vis the reality of the existence of the court in the Africa polities, the limitation it had set down for the inefficient operation of the African Human Right Court, the usage of ICC as a witch hunting stage by Africans, the effect of Article 12 (3) and Article 13 (b) and the general challenges of the African States, with view to proffering recommendations to that effect.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.