Joint Criminal Confusion

New Criminal Law Review, Vol. 12, pp. 406-419, 2009

14 Pages Posted: 18 Dec 2011

See all articles by Jens David Ohlin

Jens David Ohlin

Cornell University - School of Law

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

Ohlin, Jens David, Joint Criminal Confusion (December 17, 2009). New Criminal Law Review, Vol. 12, pp. 406-419, 2009, Available at SSRN:

Jens David Ohlin (Contact Author)

Cornell University - School of Law ( email )

218 Myron Taylor Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853-4901
United States
(607) 255-0479 (Phone)
(607) 255-7193 (Fax)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics