{"title":"前言","authors":"Elies van Sliedregt, B. Weisser","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Followers of the International Criminal Court (ICC) interested in theories of liability were looking forward to the Appeals Chamber judgment in the Ntaganda case, in which Bosco Ntaganda was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The conviction was based on the theory of indirect co-perpetration through an Organized Structure of Power (OSP). This theory resulted from a specific interpretation of the ICC Statute, based on German legal scholarship. The theory has been criticized for its breadth and lack of legal basis. It has also been embraced as the theory of liability that best captures the liability of those who mastermind crimes. When the judgment was delivered on 30 March 2021, the appellate bench was divided, which arguably leaves the theory still contested. This symposium discusses indirect co-perpetration from perspectives hitherto not discussed. Two articles look at how the German theory of Tatherschaft that lies at the basis of indirect co-perpetration, has been absorbed in some domestic legal systems (Japan and Columbia). One article discusses the multi-layered concept of control that is at the heart of the theory. In another piece, adopting a law and sociology approach, authors explore the creative processes that produced indirect co-perpetration. Lastly, one author discusses the viability of an alternative to indirect co-perpetration: instigation.","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Foreword\",\"authors\":\"Elies van Sliedregt, B. Weisser\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jicj/mqac033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Followers of the International Criminal Court (ICC) interested in theories of liability were looking forward to the Appeals Chamber judgment in the Ntaganda case, in which Bosco Ntaganda was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The conviction was based on the theory of indirect co-perpetration through an Organized Structure of Power (OSP). This theory resulted from a specific interpretation of the ICC Statute, based on German legal scholarship. The theory has been criticized for its breadth and lack of legal basis. It has also been embraced as the theory of liability that best captures the liability of those who mastermind crimes. When the judgment was delivered on 30 March 2021, the appellate bench was divided, which arguably leaves the theory still contested. This symposium discusses indirect co-perpetration from perspectives hitherto not discussed. Two articles look at how the German theory of Tatherschaft that lies at the basis of indirect co-perpetration, has been absorbed in some domestic legal systems (Japan and Columbia). One article discusses the multi-layered concept of control that is at the heart of the theory. In another piece, adopting a law and sociology approach, authors explore the creative processes that produced indirect co-perpetration. Lastly, one author discusses the viability of an alternative to indirect co-perpetration: instigation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Criminal Justice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-24\",\"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/mqac033\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac033","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Followers of the International Criminal Court (ICC) interested in theories of liability were looking forward to the Appeals Chamber judgment in the Ntaganda case, in which Bosco Ntaganda was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The conviction was based on the theory of indirect co-perpetration through an Organized Structure of Power (OSP). This theory resulted from a specific interpretation of the ICC Statute, based on German legal scholarship. The theory has been criticized for its breadth and lack of legal basis. It has also been embraced as the theory of liability that best captures the liability of those who mastermind crimes. When the judgment was delivered on 30 March 2021, the appellate bench was divided, which arguably leaves the theory still contested. This symposium discusses indirect co-perpetration from perspectives hitherto not discussed. Two articles look at how the German theory of Tatherschaft that lies at the basis of indirect co-perpetration, has been absorbed in some domestic legal systems (Japan and Columbia). One article discusses the multi-layered concept of control that is at the heart of the theory. In another piece, adopting a law and sociology approach, authors explore the creative processes that produced indirect co-perpetration. Lastly, one author discusses the viability of an alternative to indirect co-perpetration: instigation.
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.