The Author Responds: Culpability Theories in Extreme Cases

12 Pages Posted: 23 Jul 2021

See all articles by Darryl Robinson

Darryl Robinson

Queen's University - Faculty of Law

Date Written: January 1, 2021

Abstract

This is the author’s response to the admirable contributions in a symposium on my book, Justice in Extreme Cases: Criminal Law Theory Meets International Criminal Law. The symposium was published in the Temple International & Comparative Law Journal. In response to questions, I clarify some of the arguments in the book.

One area of debate was how we resolve ambiguities in fundamental principles. I argue that we do not mechanically deduce the answers from a master theory; instead we draw on a web of normative clues to flesh out the principles – a “coherentist” method. Recognizing the underlying method allows for more rigour, transparency, and humility about our conclusions. Other questions relate to command responsibility. In my book, I unpack the debate over command responsibility, in order to demonstrate how early ICL failed to engage in deontic reasoning, and how the resulting contradictions generated so much confusion and controversy today. In this response I clarify the scope and purpose of that case study.

Keywords: international criminal law, culpability, fundamental principles, philosophy, theory, deontic, deontological, command responsibility, tribunals

JEL Classification: K14, K33

Suggested Citation

Robinson, Darryl, The Author Responds: Culpability Theories in Extreme Cases (January 1, 2021). Temple International & Comparative Law Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2021, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3878212

Darryl Robinson (Contact Author)

Queen's University - Faculty of Law ( email )

128 Union Street
Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 K7L3N6
Canada

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

Paper statistics

Downloads
46
Abstract Views
411
PlumX Metrics