Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T01:25:17.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assistance, direction and control: Untangling international judicial opinion on individual and State responsibility for war crimes by non-State actors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2015

Shane Darcy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the general consistency in the treatment of international humanitarian law by international courts and tribunals, recent decisions have seen significant disagreement regarding the scope of indirect responsibility for individuals and States for the provision of aid or assistance to non-State actors that perpetrate war crimes. The divisions at the international criminal tribunals with regard to the “specific direction” element of aiding and abetting are reminiscent of the divergence between the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on the question of State responsibility for supporting or assisting non-State actors that engage in violations of international law. This article analyzes this jurisprudence on individual and State responsibility for the provision of support to non-State actors that breach international humanitarian law, and considers the interaction and interrelationship between these related but distinct forms of responsibility.

Keywords

war crimesnon-State actorsindividual responsibilityaiding and abettingspecific directionState responsibilitydirectionoverall controleffective control
Type
Selected articles on IHL and humanitarian action
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 96 , Issue 893: Scope of the law in armed conflict , March 2014 , pp. 243 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © icrc 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Meron, Theodor, “The Hague Tribunal: Working to Clarify International Humanitarian Law”, American University International Law Review, Vol. 13, 1998, p. 1512Google Scholar.

2 See generally Cryer, Robert, The Development of International Humanitarian Law by the International Criminal Tribunals, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015Google Scholar; Darcy, Shane, Judges, Law and War: The Judicial Development of International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jinks, Derek, Maogoto, Jackson Nyamuya and Solomon, Solon (eds), Applying International Humanitarian Law in Judicial and Quasi Judicial Bodies, TMC Asser Press, The Hague, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See, for example, ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges (Pre-Trial Chamber 1), 29 January 2007, paras 210–211 and 277–281; ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Judgment (Trial Chamber 1), 14 March 2012, para. 541.

4 See generally Mettraux, Guénaël, International Crimes and the Ad Hoc Tribunals, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005Google Scholar; Schabas, William A., The UN International Criminal Tribunals, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 See, for example, Buergenthal, Thomas, “Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals: Is It Good or Bad?”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, 2001, p. 267CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Higgins, Rosalyn, “A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations from the Bench”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 55, 2006, p. 791CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pocar, Fausto, “The Proliferation of International Criminal Courts and Tribunals: A Necessity in the Current International Community”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2004, p. 304CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Regarding non-State actors, see generally International Institute of International Humanitarian Law, Non-State Actors and International Humanitarian Law, FrancoAngeli, Milan, 2010; Zegveld, Liesbeth, Accountability and Armed Opposition Groups in International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clapham, Andrew, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006, pp. 271–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See, for example, Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, UN Doc. A/1317 (1950).

8 See e.g., Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950), Art. 50.

9 Fourth report drawn up by the Special Committee of the Joint Committee, Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. 2, Federal Political Department, Berne, 12 July 1949, Section B, p. 115.

10 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP I), Art. 86.

11 Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, UN Doc. S/RES/827, 25 May 1993 (ICTY Statute), Art. 7(1); Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighboring States between January 1, 1994 and December 31 1994, UN Doc. S/RES/955, 8 November 1994 (ICTR Statute), Art. 6(1). See also Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 16 January 2002, 2178 UNTS 138 (entered into force 12 April 2002), UN Doc. S/2002/246 (SCSL Statute), Appendix II, Art. 6(1).

12 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998 (entered into force 1 July 2002), UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9 (Rome Statute).

13 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 15 July 1999, paras 172–233.

14 Ibid., para. 229.

15 Ibid.

16 See, for example, Shahabuddeen, Mohamed, “Judicial Creativity and Joint Criminal Enterprise”, in Darcy, Shane and Powderly, Joseph (eds), Judicial Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, pp. 184–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Danner, Allison Marston and Martinez, Jennifer S., “Guilty Associations: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility, and the Development of International Criminal Law”, California Law Review, Vol. 93, 2005, pp. 75–169Google Scholar.

17 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Perišić, Case No. IT-04-81-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 28 February 2013. Other noteworthy acquittals (where aiding and abetting was not prominent) include ICTY, Prosecutor v. Haradinaj et al., Case No. IT-04-84-T, Retrial Judgment (Trial Chamber), 29 November 2012; ICTY, Prosecutor v. Gotovina and Markač, Case No. IT-06-90-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 16 November 2012.

18 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Šainović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 23 January 2014, para. 1650.

19 Perišić, above note 17, paras 72 and 119.

20 Ibid., paras 50–57.

21 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Perišić, Case No. IT-04-81-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 6 September 2011, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Moloto on Counts 1 to 4 and 9 to 12, paras 3–34.

22 Perišić, above note 17, para. 72.

23 Ibid., paras 60, 68–69.

24 Ibid., para. 65.

25 Ibid., Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Liu, para. 3.

26 Perišić, above note 17, paras 26–36; Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Liu, paras 2–3.

27 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Mrkšić and Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 5 May 2009, para. 159.

28 Perišić, above note 17, paras 26–36.

29 Ibid., para. 48.

30 Ibid., Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Theodor Meron and Carmel Agius, paras 2–3.

31 Ibid., para. 4.

32 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Stanišić and Simatović, Case No. IT-03-69-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 30 May 2013, paras 2359–2360.

33 Ibid., paras 2305–2355.

34 Ibid., para. 1264.

35 Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Michèle Picard, paras 2405–2406.

36 See, for example, Julian Borger, “War Crimes Convictions of Two Croatian Generals Overturned”, The Guardian, 16 November 2012; Marlise Simmons, “U.N. Court Acquits 2 Serbs of War Crimes”, New York Times, 30 May 2013; Thomas Escritt and Fatos Bytici, “Kosovo Ex-Premier Haradinaj Cleared of War Crimes Again”, Reuters, 29 November 2012; Owen Boycott, “Hague War Crimes Ruling Threatens to Undermine Future Prosecutions”, The Guardian, 13 August 2013.

37 Kenneth Roth, “A Tribunal's Legal Stumble”, New York Times, 9 July 2013.

38 E-mail from Judge Harhoff, 6 June 2013, p. 3, available at: www.bt.dk/sites/default/files-dk/node-files/511/6/6511917-letter-english.pdf (all Internet references were accessed in December 2014).

39 Ibid., p. 4.

40 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, Decision on Defence Motion for Disqualification of Judge Frederik Harhoff and Report to the Vice-President (Chamber Convened by the Order of the Vice-President), 28 August 2013, para. 14.

41 SCSL, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-1-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber II), 26 April 2012, paras 6912–6914.

42 SCSL, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-1-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 26 September 2013, paras 368–370.

43 Ibid., para. 391.

44 Ibid., para. 415.

45 Ibid., paras 471–478.

46 Ibid., para. 479.

47 Šainović et al., above note 18, para. 1615.

48 Ibid., para. 1617.

49 Ibid., paras 1621 and 1623.

50 Ibid., paras 1642–1644.

51 Ibid., para. 1649.

52 See, for example, Sluiter, Göran, “Unity and Division in Decision Making – The Law and Practice on Individual Opinions at the ICTY”, in Swart, Bert, Zahar, Alexander and Sluiter, Göran (eds), The Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011, pp. 215–216Google Scholar.

53 Note that Judge Ramaroson sided with the majority in Sainović on the issue of specific direction, as she had done in Perišić, even though both majorities came to different conclusions.

54 See also Šainović et al., above note 18, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tuzmukhamedov, para. 40.

55 See, for example, T. Buergenthal, above note 5, p. 274; R. Higgins, above note 5, p. 791; Shahabuddeen, Mohamed, Precedent in the World Court, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 24 March 2000, para. 113.

57 Ibid., para. 106.

58 Ibid., para. 107.

59 Ibid.

60 Šainović et al., above note 18, para. 1622.

61 Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tuzmukhamedov, paras. 45–46.

62 Jalloh, Charles Chernor, “Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 108, No. 1, 2014Google Scholar, fn. 21.

63 William A. Schabas, “Prosecutor Applies to Reverse Final Acquittal of Perišić”, PhD Studies in Human Rights blog, 7 February 2014, available at: http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/prosecutor-applies-to-reverse-final.html.

64 See Marko Milanovic, “The Self-Fragmentation of the ICTY Appeals Chamber”, EJIL Talk! blog, 23 January 2014; Sergey Vasiliev, “Consistency of Jurisprudence, Finality of Acquittals and Ne Bis In Idem”, Centre for International Criminal Justice, 2014, available at: http://cicj.org/?page_id=1608. See also Jens David Ohlin, “The Specific-Direction Smackdown”, 28 January 2014, Lieber Code, available at: www.liebercode.org/2014/01/the-specific-direction-smackdown.html.

65 Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Case File/Dossier No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC, Case 002/01 Judgment, 7 August 2014, paras 707–710.

66 See Manuel J. Ventura, “Farewell ‘Specific Direction’: Aiding and Abetting War Crimes in Perišić, Taylor and Šainović et al., and US Alien Tort Statute Jurisprudence”, in Stuart Casey-Maslen (ed.), The War Report: Armed Conflict in 2013, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2435515; Sadat, Leila Nadya, “Can the ICTY Šainović and Perišić Cases Be Reconciled?”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 108, No. 3, 2014, pp. 475–485Google Scholar.

67 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Perišić, Case No. IT-04-81-A, Decision on Motion for Reconsideration (Appeals Chamber), 20 March 2014.

68 See generally S. Darcy, above note 2.

69 Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, in Boister, Neil and Cryer, Robert (eds), Documents on the Tokyo International Military Tribunal, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008Google Scholar, p. 81.

70 SCSL Statute, Art. 20(3).

71 Taylor, above note 42, para. 472.

72 Compare International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Prosecutor v. Karemera et al, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR73.8, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Witness Proofing (Appeals Chamber), 11 May 2007; with ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-679, Decision on the Practices of Witness Familiarisation and Witness Proofing (Pre-Trial Chamber 1), 8 November 2006. See, however, ICC, Prosecutor v. Muthaura and Kenyatta, Case No. ICC-01/09-02/11, Decision on Witness Preparation (Trial Chamber V), 2 January 2013; Prosecutor v. Ruto and Sang, Case No. ICC-01/09-01/11, Decision on Witness Preparation (Trial Chamber V), 2 January 2013.

73 Compare Tadić, above note 13, paras 172–233; and Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Case No. STL-11-01/I, Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, Cumulative Charging (Appeals Chamber), 16 February 2011, paras 236–249; with Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Case No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/OCIJ, Decision on the Appeals Against the Co-Investigative Judges Order on Joint Criminal Enterprise (Pre-Trial Chamber), 20 May 2010, and Case No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC, Decision on the Applicability of Joint Criminal Enterprise (Trial Chamber), 12 September 2011.

74 Stuart, Heikelina Verrjin and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Pallas Publications/Amsterdam University Press, 2009, pp. 52–53Google Scholar.

75 Rome Statute, Art. 25(3)(c).

76 Schabas, William A., The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011, pp. 435–436Google Scholar. See, however, Kyriakakis, Joanna, “Developments in International Criminal Law and the Case of Business Involvement in International Crimes”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 94, No. 887, 2012, pp. 998–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clapham, Andrew, “Weapons and Armed Non-State Actors”, in Casey-Maslen, Stuart (ed.), Weapons Under International Human Rights Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014Google Scholar, p. 18, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2156408.

77 W. A. Schabas, above note 76, p. 436.

78 Perišić, above note 17, para. 48.

79 Elies van Sliedregt, in Milestones in International Criminal Justice: Recent Legal Controversies at the UN Yugoslav Tribunal, International Law Summary, Chatham House, 16 October 2013, p. 13.

80 Rome Statute, Art. 25 (3)(e).

81 ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 7 March 2014, Minority Opinion of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert, para. 287.

82 Ibid.

83 “Germain Katanga Found Guilty of Four Counts of War Crimes and One Count of Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Ituri, DRC”, ICC-CPI-20140307-PR986, press release, 7 March 2014. An English version of the trial judgment was not available at the time of writing.

84 See also ICC, “Summary of Trial Chamber II's Judgment of 7 March 2014, Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute in the Case of The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga”, paras 76–84.

85 Kevin Jon Heller, “A Defence of the Specific Direction Requirement”, in Milestones in International Criminal Justice, above note 79, pp. 9–10.

86 See John Ruggie, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issues of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, A/HRC/17/31, 21 March 2011, p. 17.

87 Compare, for example, United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit, John Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Case No. 09-7125, 8 July 2011; with United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, The Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., Case No. 07-0016, 2 October 2009. See further Walker, Angela, “The Hidden Flaw in Kiobel: Under the Alien Tort Statute the Mens Rea Standard for Corporate Aiding and Abetting is Knowledge”, Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, Vol. 10, 2011, pp. 119–145Google Scholar.

88 See Cryer, Robert et al. , An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 374.

89 United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, Doe et al. v. Nestle USA et al., Case No. 10-56739, Order and Opinion, 4 September 2014, p. 27.

90 Tadić, above note 13, para. 192.

91 Rome Statute, Art. 28(a)(i).

92 ICTR, Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber I), 7 June 2001, para. 37.

93 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Simić, Case No. IT-95-9-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 28 November 2006, para. 103.

94 Compare K. J. Heller, above note 85, pp. 5–10, with James G. Stewart, “The ICTY Loses Its Way on Complicity – Part 1”, Opinio Juris, 3 April 2013, available at: http://opiniojuris.org/2013/04/03/guest-post-the-icty-loses-its-way-on-complicity-part-1/.

95 C. C. Jalloh, above note 62, p. 66. See also Coco, Antonio and Gal, Tom, “Losing Direction: The ICTY Appeals Chamber's Controversial Approach to Aiding and Abetting in Perišić”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 12, No. 2, March 2014, pp. 345–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at: http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/2/345.abstract.

96 See generally Blum, Gabriella, “The Crime and Punishment of States”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 38, 2013, pp. 57–122Google Scholar; Jørgensen, Nina H. B., The Responsibility of States for International Crimes, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weiler, Joseph H. H., Cassese, Antonio and Spinedi, Marina, International Crimes of State: A Critical Analysis of the ILC's Article 19 on State Responsibility, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

97 ILC, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN Doc. A/56/83 2001, Arts 8, 11.

98 Ibid., Art. 17.

99 Ibid., Art. 16.

100 ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, para. 109.

101 Ibid., para. 106.

102 Ibid., paras 108–109.

103 Ibid., para. 115.

104 Ibid.

105 Ibid., para. 220. See also Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, para. 259.

106 Tadić, above note 13, para. 120. See also ICTY, Prosecutor v. Rajic, Case No. IT-95-12, Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (Trial Chamber), 13 September 1996, paras 22–26.

107 Tadić, above note 13, para. 123 (emphasis in original).

108 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 7 May 1997, para. 588.

109 Ibid., Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge McDonald Regarding the Applicability of Article 2 of the Statute, p. 288.

110 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 18 November 1998, para. 228–235.

111 Tadić, above note 13, paras 101–104.

112 Ibid., para. 117.

113 Ibid., paras 117 and 120.

114 Ibid., para. 131.

115 See, for example, ibid., Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, para. 5.

116 See, for example, Aleksovski, above note 56, para. 134; ICTY, Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 20 February 2001, para. 26.

117 See, for example, Lubanga, Confirmation of Charges, above note 3, paras 210–211.

118 Lubanga, Trial Chamber Judgment, above note 3, para. 541.

119 ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005, para. 160.

120 ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, para. 403.

121 Ibid.

122 Ibid.

123 Ibid., para. 406.

124 Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Al-Khasawneh, para. 39.

125 Bosnia v. Serbia, above note 120, para. 405.

126 Simma, Bruno, “Universality of International Law from the Perspective of a Practitioner”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 280.

127 Bosnia v. Serbia, above note 120, para. 397.

128 Ibid., para. 400.

129 Ibid., para. 413.

130 Ibid., paras 419.

131 See generally Aust, Helmut Philipp, Complicity and the Law of State Responsibility, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, pp. 358–364Google Scholar.

132 Bosnia v. Serbia, above note 120, para. 420.

133 Ibid., para. 421.

134 Ibid., para. 422.

135 Ibid., para. 423.

136 Ibid.

137 Ibid., para. 432.

138 Cassese, Antonio, “The Nicaragua and Tadić Tests Revisited in Light of the ICJ Judgment on Genocide in Bosnia”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, 2007, pp. 655–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

139 Ventura, Manuel J., “Two Controversies in the Lubanga Trial Judgment of the ICC: The Nature of Co-perpetration's Common Plan and the Classification of the Armed Conflict”, in Casey-Maslen, Stuart (ed.), The War Report 2012, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013Google Scholar, p. 488.

140 Compare Judge Gilbert Guillaume, “The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Outlook for the International Legal Order”, speech to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations, 27 October 2000; with Judge Rosalyn Higgins, speech to the Legal Advisers of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, 20 October 2007, both available at www.icj-cij.org.

141 ILC, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 2, Part 2, 2001 (Draft Articles), pp. 47–48.

142 ILC, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission Finalized by Martii Koskenniemi, UN Doc. A/AC.4/L.682, 13 April 2006, paras 49–52. See also de Frouville, Olivier, “Attribution of Conduct to the State: Private Individuals”, in Crawford, James, Pellet, Alain and Olleson, Simon (eds), The Law of International Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010Google Scholar, p. 266.

143 Katanga, Minority Opinion of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert, above note 81, fn. 382.

144 See generally Bonafè, Beatrice I., The Relationship Between State and Individual Responsibility for International Crimes, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

145 Schabas, William A., “Enforcing International Humanitarian Law: Catching the Accomplices”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 83, No. 842, 2001, p. 441Google Scholar.

146 Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 568.

147 Draft Articles, above note 141, p. 142.

148 Ibid., p. 113.

149 B. I. Bonafè, above note 144, p. 28.

150 See, for example, ICTY Statute, Art. 7(2); ICTR Statute, Art. 6(2); SCSL Statute, Art. 6(2); Rome Statute, Art. 27(1).

151 International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment and Sentences, 1 October 1946, reprinted in American Journal of International Law, Vol. 41, No. 1, 1947, p. 221.

152 Tadić, Trial Chamber Judgment, above note 108, para. 573.

153 See, for example, Rome Statute, Art. 32(1).

154 Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 2000, paras 80–85. See, however, Benvenuti, Paolo, “The ICTY Prosecutor and the Review of the NATO Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, 2001, p. 525CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

155 Ibid., pp. 525–526.

156 Final Report to the Prosecutor, above note 154, para. 85.

157 Lubanga, Trial Chamber Judgment, above note 3; Katanga, Trial Chamber Judgment, above note 81.

158 See Ruys, Tom, “Of Arms, Funding and ‘Non-Lethal Assistance’: Issues Surrounding Third-State Intervention in the Syrian Civil War”, Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 13, 2014, pp. 13–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

159 Patricia Zengerle and Richard Cowan, “U.S House Votes to Arm Syrian rebels, but Questions Remain”, Reuters, 17 September 2014, available at: www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/17/us-iraq-crisis-congress-idUSKBN0HC28120140917.

160 See, for example, Human Rights Watch, “You Can Still See Their Blood”: Executions, Indiscriminate Shootings, and Hostage Taking by Opposition Forces in Lakatia Countryside, 11 October 2013.

161 Draft Articles, above note 141, p. 66. On military support to other States, see H.P. Aust, above note 131, pp. 129–145.

162 Draft Articles, above note 141, Art. 8.

163 Ibid., p. 47.

164 T. Ruys, above note 158, pp. 20–22.

165 Ibid.

166 Ibid., pp. 22–26.

167 B. I. Bonafè, above note 144, p. 138.

168 Ibid., p. 189.

169 Ibid.

170 Taylor, above note 42, para. 453.

171 Ibid., para. 459.

172 Ibid., para. 464.

173 Ibid., paras 464–465.

174 Common Art. 1 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions; AP I, Article 1(1).

175 ICJ, Legality of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004, paras 157–158.

176 Ibid., para. 159.

177 See, for example, Pictet, Jean (ed.), Commentary: IV Geneva Convention, Relative to the Protection of Civilian Person in Times of War, ICRC, Geneva, 1958Google Scholar, p. 16; UN Security Council Res. 681, 20 December 1990, para. 5 (SC/RES/681); UN General Assembly Res. 57/125, 24 February 2003 (A/RES/57/125).

178 See, for example, T. Ruys, above note 158, pp. 26–31.

179 Arms Trade Treaty, 27 March 2013, UN Doc. A/CONF.217/2013/L.3 (entered into force 24 December 2014), Art. 1.

180 Ibid., Art. 6(3).

181 Ibid., Art. 7.

182 T. Ruys, above note 158, p. 29.

183 Taylor, above note 42, para. 462.

184 “To Be an International Criminal Court Judge: Conversation with Antonio Cassese”, Distinguished Fellows Lecture Series, 4 September 2003, Hauser Global Law School Program, NYU School of Law, p. 15, reprinted in European Journal of International Law, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2011, p. 942.

185 McDonald, Gabrielle Kirk, “The Changing Nature of the Laws of War”, Military Law Review, Vol. 156, 1998, p. 51Google Scholar.

186 ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, para. 18.

187 Jennings, Robert Y., “The Role of the International Court of Justice”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 68, No. 1, 1997, p. 43Google Scholar.

188 Representative of Brazil, Provisional Verbatim Record, S/PV.3453, 8 November 1994, reprinted in Morris, Virginia and Scharf, Michael P., An Insider's Guide to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Vol. 2, Transnational Publishers, New York, 1998Google Scholar, p. 303.

189 B. Simma, above note 126, p. 289.

190 Pocar, Fausto, “The International Proliferation of Criminal Jurisdictions Revisited: Uniting or Fragmenting International Law”, in Hestermeyer, Holger P. et al. (eds), Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity; Libor Amicorum Rüdiger Woflrum, Vol. 2, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 2012Google Scholar, p. 1724.