Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), International criminal law, Complicity, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Conspiracy, JCE
Criminal Law | International Law
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.
Ohlin, Jens David, "Joint Criminal Confusion" (2009). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. 211.
Published in: New Criminal Law Review, vol. 12, no. 3 (Summer 2009).