Accessory After the Fact at the International Criminal Court?

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
M. J. Ventura
{"title":"Accessory After the Fact at the International Criminal Court?","authors":"M. J. Ventura","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqad003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n It has generally been understood that international criminal law recognizes ex post facto aiding and abetting as a mode of liability but not the standalone offence commonly known, in many states, as accessory after the fact. However, as this article reveals, the authentic Spanish text of Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (‘ICC Statute’) includes the word ‘encubridor’ which — as a comparative analysis of the Criminal Codes of Spanish-speaking countries confirms — is the Spanish language legal equivalent of a person that is an accessory after the fact. Yet, nothing in the authentic English text of Article 25(3)(c) — the version that most of the international criminal law scholarship and the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) have focused on — alludes to this. To resolve this substantive discrepancy, Article 25(3)(c) is considered across all authentic languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish) and in light of Articles 31–33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in a manner consistent with the rights of the accused. This article concludes that the mentioned discrepancy is unique to Article 25(3)(c) in the authentic Spanish language, most likely the result of an error, and that the concept of ‘accessory after the fact’ should not be applied at the ICC. That Article 25(3), a provision that has featured in so many ICC decisions and judgments and spawned so much academic writing, has contained such a glaring and seemingly undetected error for over 24 years ought to compel commentators, academics, and practitioners to look beyond the working languages of the ICC — English and French — when analysing, interpreting, and applying the ICC Statute.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad003","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It has generally been understood that international criminal law recognizes ex post facto aiding and abetting as a mode of liability but not the standalone offence commonly known, in many states, as accessory after the fact. However, as this article reveals, the authentic Spanish text of Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (‘ICC Statute’) includes the word ‘encubridor’ which — as a comparative analysis of the Criminal Codes of Spanish-speaking countries confirms — is the Spanish language legal equivalent of a person that is an accessory after the fact. Yet, nothing in the authentic English text of Article 25(3)(c) — the version that most of the international criminal law scholarship and the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) have focused on — alludes to this. To resolve this substantive discrepancy, Article 25(3)(c) is considered across all authentic languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish) and in light of Articles 31–33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in a manner consistent with the rights of the accused. This article concludes that the mentioned discrepancy is unique to Article 25(3)(c) in the authentic Spanish language, most likely the result of an error, and that the concept of ‘accessory after the fact’ should not be applied at the ICC. That Article 25(3), a provision that has featured in so many ICC decisions and judgments and spawned so much academic writing, has contained such a glaring and seemingly undetected error for over 24 years ought to compel commentators, academics, and practitioners to look beyond the working languages of the ICC — English and French — when analysing, interpreting, and applying the ICC Statute.
国际刑事法院的事后从犯?
人们普遍认为,国际刑法承认事后协助和教唆是一种责任模式,但不承认在许多国家通常被称为事后从犯的独立罪行。然而,正如这篇文章所揭示的,《国际刑事法院罗马规约》(《罗马规约》)第25条第3款(c)项的西班牙语真确文本包括“encubridor”一词,正如对西班牙语国家刑法的比较分析所证实的那样,该词在西班牙语中在法律上等同于事后从犯。然而,第25条第(3)款(c)项的英文真确文本——大多数国际刑法学术界和国际刑事法院都关注的版本——中没有任何内容暗示这一点。为了解决这一实质性差异,第25条第3款(c)项适用于所有正式语文(阿拉伯文、中文、英文、法文、俄文和西班牙文),并参照1969年《维也纳条约法公约》第31-33条,以符合被告权利的方式审议。本条的结论是,上述差异是西班牙语第25条第3款(c)项所特有的,很可能是错误造成的,“事后从犯”的概念不应适用于国际刑事法院。《国际刑事法院规约》第25条第(3)款是国际刑事法院众多裁决和判决中的一项条款,并引发了大量学术写作,24年来,该条款包含了如此明显且似乎未被发现的错误,这应该迫使评论员、学者和从业者在分析、解释和适用《国际刑事法庭规约》时,超越国际刑事法院的工作语言——英语和法语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
22.20%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Journal of International Criminal Justice aims to promote a profound collective reflection on the new problems facing international law. Established by a group of distinguished criminal lawyers and international lawyers, the Journal addresses the major problems of justice from the angle of law, jurisprudence, criminology, penal philosophy, and the history of international judicial institutions. It is intended for graduate and post-graduate students, practitioners, academics, government officials, as well as the hundreds of people working for international criminal courts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信