The Control Theory as Multidimensional Concept

The judgment in Ntaganda constitutes a landmark decision in which the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the first time accepted an accused’s criminal liability based on indirect co-perpetration. And yet, the concept of indirect co-perpetration continues to remain heavily contested. In this article, I use the Ntaganda Trial and Appeals Chamber judgments as a starting point for disentangling the control theory. I argue that the concept of control is a multidimensional theory. It is based on both empirical and normative considerations and constitutes a mixture of individual and collective liability. The meaning of control is not uniform: it varies along several dimensions that are applied depending on the facts of the case. The ICC’s flexible application of the notion of control does not fit well with the uniform framework it has drawn up in establishing the liability of indirect co-perpetrators. There is a gap between the law in the books and the law in action, which triggers questions about the possibilities and limitations of judicial creativity at the ICC. To enable better public accountability, transparency and legal certainty, I propose a model of factor-based reasoning at the ICC that can streamline and better justify what currently is a very fluid liability theory generating problematic case law.