New Criminal Law Review, Vol. 12, pp. 406-419, 2009
14 Pages Posted: 18 Dec 2011
Date Written: December 17, 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.
Keywords: Rome Statute, Article 25, Complicity, JCE, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Conspiracy
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Ohlin, Jens David, Joint Criminal Confusion (December 17, 2009). New Criminal Law Review, Vol. 12, pp. 406-419, 2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1973998