Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:04:05.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Causality, a Separate Element of the Doctrine of Superior Responsibility as Expressed in Article 28 Rome Statute?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2004

Otto Triffterer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The jurisprudence of the ICTY and the ICTR has denied this question, but accepts causality as a basic principle of criminal responsibility. Since the relevant articles in the Statute of the ICTY (Article 7(3)) and the ICTR (Article 6(3)), differ from Article 28 of the Rome Statute, which demands “a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly,” a comparative study is desirable. It has to include the question, whether this failure overlaps with the omission “to take all necessary or reasonable measures within his or her power,” and whether the last alternative “failed […] to submit,” requires at all a causal nexus.

Keywords

causalitycommand responsibilityInternational Criminal Court
Type
ARTICLES
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 179 - 205
Copyright
© 2002 Kluwer Law International

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.)

Footnotes

The character of a separate element was denied with respect to Art. 7(3) of the ICTY Statute in Prosecutor v. Delalić, Mucić, Delić and Landžo (‘Čelebići’), Judgment Case No. IT-96-21-T, T.Ch. II, 16 November 1998, see para. 400.