Individual criminal responsibility in article 25 ICC Statute

The collective nature of crimes under international law does not absolve us of the need to determine individual responsibility. Article 25 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) now contains a detailed regulation of individual criminal responsibility. While discussing the elements...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Werle, Gerhard (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Published: [S.l.] SSRN [2010]
In: Journal of international criminal justice
Online Access: Volltext (Resolving-System)
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Check availability: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1526131439
003 DE-627
005 20220604105457.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 160223s2007 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1526131439 
035 |a (DE-576)456131434 
035 |a (DE-599)BSZ456131434 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Werle, Gerhard  |d 1952-  |0 (DE-588)115504494  |0 (DE-627)077293878  |0 (DE-576)289919479  |4 aut 
109 |a Werle, Gerhard 1952-  |a Werle, Gerchard 1952- 
245 1 0 |a Individual criminal responsibility in article 25 ICC Statute  |c Gerhard Werle 
264 1 |a [S.l.]  |b SSRN  |c [2010] 
300 |a Online-Ressource 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a The collective nature of crimes under international law does not absolve us of the need to determine individual responsibility. Article 25 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) now contains a detailed regulation of individual criminal responsibility. While discussing the elements of various modes of individual criminal responsibility, this essay shows that the most important difference between prior legal frameworks and Article 25(3) ICC Statute lies not in the redefinition of the scope of individual responsibility in international criminal law, but in the systematization of modes of participation. The case is made that Article 25(3) is best construed as a differentiation model with four levels of participation. In this model, modes of participation should be understood as indicative of the degree of individual guilt, and thus as helpful guidelines in sentencing matters. With particular reference to joint commission, the author shows that this concept also leads to a coherent interpretation of the various modes of participation 
773 0 8 |i In  |t Journal of international criminal justice  |d Oxford : Oxford Univ. Press, 2003  |g 5(2007), 4, Seite 953-975  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)363757368  |w (DE-600)2106537-8  |w (DE-576)110736575  |x 1478-1395  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:5  |g year:2007  |g number:4  |g pages:953-975 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqm059  |x Resolving-System  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
936 u w |d 5  |j 2007  |e 4  |h 953-975 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 2899644815 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1526131439 
LOK |0 005 20160223101752 
LOK |0 008 160208||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-21-110  |c DE-627  |d DE-21-110 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-21-110 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a k110 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw