Holdings Information

Bibliographic Record Display

• Title:Command responsibility in international criminal law / by Chantal Meloni.
  
•    
• Author/Creator:Meloni, Chantal.
  
• Published/Created:The Hague : T.M.C. Asser Press, ©2010.
  

• Holdings

  Holdings Record Display

  • Location:LAW LIBRARY (level 3)Where is this?
    
  • Call Number: K5301 .M45 2010
    
  • Number of Items:1
    
  • Status:Available
    

   
• Library of Congress Subjects:Criminal liability (International law)
  Military law.
  War (International law)
  
• Medical Subjects: War Crimes
  
• Description:xvi, 270 pages ; 25 cm.
  
• Notes:Includes bibliographical references (pages 253-263).
  
• ISBN:9789067043243 (hbk.)
  9067043249 (hbk.)
  
• Contents:Machine generated contents note: ch. 1 principle of individual responsibility and the macro-dimension of international crimes
  1.1. Individual criminal responsibility and its relationship with State responsibility under international law
  1.2. macrocriminal and the group dimension of international crimes: Difficulties in attributing individual responsibility
  1.2.1. macrocriminal nature of international crimes
  1.2.2. group dimension of international crimes
  1.3. consolidation of the principle of personal and culpable responsibility in international criminal law: From Nuremberg to The Hague
  1.4. need to establish the responsibility of the top leaders
  ch. 2 historical evolution of command responsibility
  2.1. Forerunners of the command responsibility doctrine
  2.1.1. concept of responsible command introduced by the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907
  2.2. Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War of 1919: First attempts to attribute responsibility for international crimes to the `most senior leaders'
  2.2.1. Treaty of Versailles and the Leipzig Proceedings: The unsuccessful attempt to bring to justice `highly-placed enemies'
  2.3. Yamashita trial of 1945: The first conviction based on command responsibility
  2.3.1. problem of the mens rea standard adopted to convict Yamashita
  2.4. Command responsibility lato sensu and stricto sensu in the proceedings against German war criminals after the Second World War
  2.4.1. Superior responsibility before the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal
  2.4.2. subsequent proceedings: The High Command Trial and the Hostage Trial
  2.5. responsibility of Japanese leaders after the Second World War
  2.5.1. General principles on responsibility for `failure to act' before the International Military Tribunal for the Far East
  2.5.2. criminal responsibilities of members of the Japanese government
  2.5.3. Mr. Justice Roling's dissenting opinion
  2.5.4. trial against Admiral Toyoda
  2.6. first codification of the doctrine: Articles 86 and 87 of the Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions
  2.7. Superior responsibility in the Israeli Kahan Report of 1983 on the Massacres of Sabra and Shatilla
  2.8. recognition of command responsibility for failure to act as a mode of liability in international criminal law
  ch. 3 elements of command responsibility in the jurisprudence of the ad hoc Tribunals
  3.1. express provision of command responsibility in the Statutes of the ad hoc Tribunals
  3.1.1. Similar provisions in the statutes of other international criminal tribunals and special courts
  3.2. Outline of the constitutive elements as developed by the jurisprudence: A critique
  3.3. (A) The underlying offence committed by the subordinate
  3.3.1. subordinate does not need to be the principal perpetrator of the underlying offence
  3.3.2. subordinate does not need to be identified but his responsibility must be determined
  3.3.3. Superior responsibility per superior responsibility?
  3.4. (B) The superior-subordinate relationship
  3.4.1. concept of superior: The military commander and the civilian leader
  3.4.2. De jure and de facto positions of authority
  3.4.3. Parallel chains of command and indirect subordination
  3.4.4. Difficulties in proving the superior-subordinate relationship: Effective control and substantial influence
  3.4.5. effective control must be exercised within a hierarchy
  3.5. (C) The mens rea requirement
  3.5.1. superior knew
  3.5.2. superior had reason to know
  3.6. (D) The failure to adopt the necessary and reasonable measures
  3.6.1. problem of the autonomous relevance of the violation of the duty to punish
  3.6.2. material ability to prevent and/or to punish the crimes
  3.6.3. adequateness of the measures to prevent or punish
  3.6.4. assumption of command/authority by the superior after the commission of the crimes
  3.6.5. problem of causality between the superior's failure to act and the subordinates' crime
  3.7. Differences in the standards applied to military commanders and to civilian leaders
  3.8. uncertain nature of command responsibility in the ICTY jurisprudence
  3.8.1. From the responsibility of the superior `for his subordinates' crimes'
  3.8.2. To the responsibility of the superior for his failure to act `with regard to his subordinates' crimes'
  3.8.3. sui generis responsibility for failure to act when under a duty to do so
  ch. 4 Article 28 of the ICC Statute: The need to distinguish the basic forms of command responsibility
  pt. 1 multilayered provision on command responsibility
  4.1. value of the Rome Statute as first `codification' of international criminal law
  4.2. Article 28 ICC Statue: A multilayered provision
  4.2.1. First elaborations on Article 28 by the Court: The decision confirming the charges against Bemba Gombo of 15 June 2009
  4.3. triggering of command responsibility: The subordinates' crime
  4.3.1. relevance of the attempted form of the underlying crime
  4.3.2. role of the subordinate in the commission of the underlying crime
  4.3.3. Does the subordinate need to be criminally responsible for the underlying crime?
  4.4. superior-subordinate relationship in the military or civilian context
  4.4.1. military commander or the person effectively acting as such
  4.4.2. lowest and highest hierarchical position and the different forms of command
  4.4.3. civilian superior
  4.4.4. Effective command, or authority, and control
  4.4.5. Effective control within a hierarchical structure as the core element of command responsibility
  4.5. different duties of the superior
  4.5.1. primary duty of the superior: Adequate control over his subordinates
  4.5.2. necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress the crimes or to submit the matter to the competent authorities
  4.5.3. adequateness of the measures: The need to consider the aims of the norm
  4.5.4. problem of the causal link between the superior's failure to act and the subordinates' crimes
  4.5.5. ascertainment of the causal link between the superior's failure to prevent and the subordinates' crimes
  4.6. alternative mens rea standards
  4.6.1. commander or superior knew
  4.6.2. commander should have known
  4.6.3. superior consciously disregarded the information
  4.6.4. Object and extent of the superior's knowledge: Is special intent required?
  4.6.5. plurality of mens rea standards in the light of the principle of culpability
  pt. 2 How to clarify command responsibility
  4.7. Mode of liability for the crimes of subordinates or separate offence of the superior?
  4.8. need to distinguish the basic forms of command responsibility
  4.8.1. basic forms of command responsibility
  4.8.2. Intentional failure to prevent
  4.8.3. Negligent failure to prevent
  4.8.4. Intentional or negligent failure to punish
  4.9. enforcement of command responsibility in domestic criminal law
  4.9.1. example of the German Volkerstrafgesetzbuch
  ch. 5 relationship between command responsibility and other modes of liability
  5.1. Possible overlapping of command responsibility and different modes of liability
  5.1.1. Modes of liability pursuant to Article 25 ICC Statute
  5.2. Command responsibility and other forms of liability for omission
  5.2.1. Liability for omission in international criminal law: Is there a general principle?
  5.3. Joint commission of the crime and forms of participation in the common plan
  5.3.1. `joint criminal enterprise' doctrine in the jurisprudence of the ad hoc Tribunals
  5.3.2. adoption of the `control over the crime' approach by the first ICC jurisprudence
  5.3.3. origin of the doctrine: German Dogmatik and international criminal law
  5.4. erosion of command responsibility.