Joint Criminal Confusion
Jens David Ohlin
Cornell University - School of Law
December 17, 2009
New Criminal Law Review, Vol. 12, pp. 406-419, 2009
Article 25 on individual criminal responsibility has generated more conflicting interpretations than any other provision in the Rome Statute. Part of the problem is that it is impossible to construct a coherent and nonredundant interpretation of Article 25(3)(d) on group complicity. Because of unfortunate drafting, both the required contribution and the required mental element are impossible to discern from the inscrutable language. As a result, it is nearly impossible to devise a holistic interpretation of Article 25(3)(d) that fits together with the rest of Article 25 and Article 30 on mental elements. One possible solution is to repair Article 25 with an amendment that replaces Article 25(3)(d) with a clear provision specifically incorporating some joint liability doctrine, albeit a version that excludes the worst excesses of the doctrine known as joint criminal enterprise.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 14
Keywords: Rome Statute, Article 25, Complicity, JCE, Joint Criminal Enterprise, ConspiracyAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: December 18, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.406 seconds