Global ETD Search

1	LA PERSECUZIONE DEI CRIMINI INTERNAZIONALI TRA MECCANISMI DI IMPUTAZIONE COLLETTIVA E RESPONSABILITÀ PENALE PERSONALE: LO STRANO CASO DELLA ‘JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE’ / PROSECUTING LARGE-SCALE ATROCITIES IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS BETWEEN COLLECTIVE FORMS OF IMPUTATION AND INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY: THE STRANGE CASE OF 'JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE' GASPARINI, IRENE 24 May 2017 (has links) La ricerca affronta una particolare forma di responsabilità concorsuale per crimini internazionali chiamata ‘joint criminal enterprise’ (JCE), creata dal Tribunale Penale Internazionale per l’ex-Yugoslavia. Il perno attorno al quale la ricerca si svolge è la suscettibilità di un tale criterio di imputazione di trasformarsi in un veicolo di responsabilità penale collettiva. Al fine di discutere dei punti di frizione di questo meccanismo ascrittivo con il fondamentale principio di responsabilità penale individuale e colpevole, l’autrice si propone di tracciare innanzitutto una cornice teorica più ampia. Il punto di partenza va individuato nella polarizzazione tra due forze che agiscono in senso opposto: una macro-dimensione, composta da fattori collettivizzanti (fattore storico, sistemico e teleologico), e una micro-dimensione che tenta di comprimere la responsabilità penale nei rigidi confini della colpevolezza. Collocata dunque al centro della “tensione” tra queste due forze opposte, la ‘joint criminal enterprise’ rivela i suoi caratteri più problematici, specialmente con riferimento ai requisiti di un nesso eziologico “indiretto” e a un elemento soggettivo fortemente indebolito. Addentrandosi infine nell’analisi comparata di sistemi di common law e civil law, l’autrice propone all’interprete internazionale diverse argomentazioni e correttivi al fine di un’applicazione della JCE che sia maggiormente conforme al principio di responsabilità penale personale e colpevole. / The thesis discusses a particularly problematic mode of liability for international crimes: the doctrine of ‘joint criminal enterprise’ (JCE) created by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The core issue is the suitability of this mechanism of attribution to turn into a vehicle of collective criminal responsibility. In order to discuss its points of friction with the principle of individual culpability, the author designs a broader theoretical framework. The point of departure is a polarization between two opposing forces: a macro-dimension of collectivizing factors (historical, contextual and teleological) and a micro-dimension that strives to contain liability into the strict boundaries of individual guilt. Placed within the “strain” between these two opposing forces, JCE reveals its highly problematic features, especially in relation to the requirements of an indirect causal nexus and a very weak mens rea. Finally, by venturing into a comparative analysis of common law/civil law domestic systems, the author proposes to the international interpreter several arguments and correctives in order to apply JCE liability in a manner that is more consistent with the fundamental principle of individual culpability. IUS/17: DIRITTO PENALE
2	The United Nations ad hoc Tribunals' effectivenesss in prosecuting international crimes Mutabazi, Etienne 08 1900 (has links) During the 1990s Yugoslavia and Rwanda were swept by wars accompanied by serious violations of international humanitarian law. Grave and severe crimes wiped away lives and destroyed properties. The United Nations Security Council determined that the violations committed constituted threats to international peace and security, declaring itself empowered to take action. It established international ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda with the mandate of prosecuting individuals responsible for those crimes as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Investigating the tribunals’ effectiveness enables one to assess whether they achieved the anticipated outcomes based on the tribunals’ mission, goals, and objectives without creating other problems. The research relies on naturalism and positivism to put the tribunals in a moral and ethical perspective. By examining how the tribunals were established, their objectives, the investigation and prosecution processes, the reliance on guilty plea and judicial notice and the imputation of criminal responsibility by applying joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility doctrines; the study argues that prosecution has not been an effective tool as contemplated by the Security Council. An analytical and comparative review of various domestic and international legal resources helped to provide an insightful approach for an effective prosecution of international crimes. Credible, legitimate and legal judicial institutions in which professional judges and prosecutors discharge their function independently, impartially and are accountable may achieve justice for the victims of international crimes. Ad hoc tribunals failed to thoroughly investigate and assume the dual role of prosecution. They conveniently used legal procedural tools that fit petty domestic crimes; unfortunately demeaning the magnitude of international crimes of concern. Criminal responsibility was mostly imputed without properly scrutinising the legality, extent, actual participation and guilty mind of the alleged perpetrators. Effectiveness should be a value assessment. Imposed and overburdened ad hoc tribunals are inappropriate and should be abandoned. / Public, Constitutional, & International / LLD Command responsibility Effectiveness Ethics Guilty plea International crimes International tribunal Investigations Joint criminal enterprise Judicial notice Prosecution 341.690268 International criminal courts Crimes against humanity Criminal liability (International law) Human rights Effectiveness and validity of law
3	The United Nations ad hoc Tribunals' effectivenesss in prosecuting international crimes Mutabazi, Etienne 08 1900 (has links) During the 1990s Yugoslavia and Rwanda were swept by wars accompanied by serious violations of international humanitarian law. Grave and severe crimes wiped away lives and destroyed properties. The United Nations Security Council determined that the violations committed constituted threats to international peace and security, declaring itself empowered to take action. It established international ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda with the mandate of prosecuting individuals responsible for those crimes as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Investigating the tribunals’ effectiveness enables one to assess whether they achieved the anticipated outcomes based on the tribunals’ mission, goals, and objectives without creating other problems. The research relies on naturalism and positivism to put the tribunals in a moral and ethical perspective. By examining how the tribunals were established, their objectives, the investigation and prosecution processes, the reliance on guilty plea and judicial notice and the imputation of criminal responsibility by applying joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility doctrines; the study argues that prosecution has not been an effective tool as contemplated by the Security Council. An analytical and comparative review of various domestic and international legal resources helped to provide an insightful approach for an effective prosecution of international crimes. Credible, legitimate and legal judicial institutions in which professional judges and prosecutors discharge their function independently, impartially and are accountable may achieve justice for the victims of international crimes. Ad hoc tribunals failed to thoroughly investigate and assume the dual role of prosecution. They conveniently used legal procedural tools that fit petty domestic crimes; unfortunately demeaning the magnitude of international crimes of concern. Criminal responsibility was mostly imputed without properly scrutinising the legality, extent, actual participation and guilty mind of the alleged perpetrators. Effectiveness should be a value assessment. Imposed and overburdened ad hoc tribunals are inappropriate and should be abandoned. / Public, Constitutional, and International / LL. D. Command responsibility Effectiveness Ethics Guilty plea International crimes International tribunal Investigations Joint criminal enterprise Judicial notice Prosecution 341.690268 International criminal courts Crimes against humanity Criminal liability (International law) Human rights Effectiveness and validity of law
4	Les techniques d'imputation devant les juridictions pénales internationales : réflexion sur la responsabilité pénale individuelle / Techniques of imputing liability before international criminal tribunals : rethinking individual criminal responsibility Khalifa, Ahmed Fathy 13 July 2012 (has links) La création de juridictions internationales pour juger les responsables d'un crime international pose la question des techniques d'imputation. Il s'agit de la mise en oeuvre du principe de la responsabilité pénale individuelle (RPI) en droit international. D'une part, le DPI emprunte les techniques traditionnelles aux droits pénaux internes. Il s'agit des techniques dépendantes de la consommation du crime international : les formes différentes de « commission » et de « complicité ». Sont empruntées, aussi, d'autres techniques traditionnelles d'imputation qui sont indépendantes de la consommation du crime : la tentative et l'incrimination de quelques actes de complicité. Ces techniques correspondent aux exigences de la RPI, d'où la confirmation du principe. D'autre part, le DPI adopte des nouvelles techniques d'imputation pour faire face à la nature collective du crime international. Se fondant sur l'idée de « groupe », des techniques associatives sont mises en place : la responsabilité pour l'appartenance à une organisation criminelle ou bien de la responsabilité des actes du groupe à travers l'entreprise criminelle commune ou le contrôle conjoint sur l'action du groupe. En même temps, le fait que les crimes sont souvent commis par des « structures hiérarchiques » est pris en compte pour envisager des techniques structurelles ; à savoir la responsabilité pour commission indirecte par le contrôle d'une organisation ou de la responsabilité du supérieur hiérarchique pour les crimes commis par ses subordonnés. Chacune de ces techniques s'écarte de ce que l'on entend généralement par la RPI, d'où la métamorphose du principe. Une reconstruction de la notion est à l'ordre du jour. / The establishment of International criminal tribunals raises the question of techniques of attributing criminal liability. Having the individual as « subject », the principle of individual criminal responsibility is at issue. On the one hand, International criminal law borrows traditional techniques of imputing liability from national law. Not only those techniques that depend on the completion of an international crime; as forms of perpetration and complicity, but also those that attribute responsibility independently of the completion of international crime; as attempt and specific incrimination of some forms of complicity. Individual criminal responsibility in its traditional connotation is confirmed. On the other hand, International criminal law forges new techniques of imputing liability to accommodate the collective nature of international crimes. Based on the idea of « group » action, associative techniques are introduced. As such, the responsibility for membership in criminal organisation, or even the responsibility for group crimes through notions like « joint criminal enterprise » or « joint control » are applied. In the meanwhile, the structural aspect of entities committing international crimes is taken in consideration. Superiors who manipulate organisations under their control are considered as indirect perpetrators. Also, superiors who fail to stop or to punish crimes committed by their subordinates are held responsible. Each one of these new techniques of imputing responsibility metamorphoses one or more aspects of what is generally intended by the principle of individual criminal responsibility. Reconstructing the notion seems due. Crime international Tribunal militaire international Tribunal pénal international Cour pénale internationale Participation criminelle Entreprise criminelle commune Incitation au génocide International crime International Military Tribunal International Criminal Tribunal International Criminal Court Criminal participation Joint criminal enterprise Incitement to genocide Superior responsibility 340
5	Judicial Creativity or Justice Being Served? A Look at the Use of Joint Criminal Enterprise in the ICTY Prosecution Williams, Meagan 12 1900 (has links) The development of joint criminal enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has been controversial since the doctrine was first created in 1997. For the judgments rendered by the ICTY to be perceived as legitimate, the doctrines used to bring charges against defendants must also be perceived as legitimate. The purpose of my thesis is to study the application of joint criminal enterprise at the ICTY and examine how the doctrine has influenced the length of sentences given. I find that joint criminal enterprise may be influencing longer sentences and the three categories of joint criminal enterprise are being used differently on defendants of different power levels. By empirically analyzing the patterns developing at the ICTY, I can see how joint criminal enterprise is influencing sentencing and the fairness of trials. Joint criminal enterprise war tribunals sentencing justice ICTY International criminal courts. Yugoslav War, 1991-1995 -- Atrocities.
6	La participation a l'infraction internationale. / The participation in the international crime Duffourc, Marie 12 December 2013 (has links) Qu’elle soit extranationale, transnationale ou internationale par nature, l’infraction internationale est toujours construite de la même manière : elle naît de la réunion d’un élément matériel et d’un élément moral, incluant parfois un élément contextuel. Cette constance structurelle dominant la diversité définitionnelle milite en faveur d’une unification des formes de la participation associées à ces infractions internationales : la spécificité de la participation à l’infraction internationale résiderait donc dans la spécificité, non des formes de la première, mais de la définition de la seconde. D’ailleurs, il n’existe que deux grands systèmes de participation applicables à l’infraction internationale : celui des juridictions pénales nationales et celui des juridictions pénales internationales. De leur comparaison, pourrait naître un système unique de participation à l’infraction internationale, permettant de mieux appréhender la criminalité collective en attribuant aux participants intellectuels une place plus juste au sein de la participation. En effet, après quelques adaptations nécessaires, il pourrait être fait appel au critère mixte du contrôle sur l’infraction internationale, développé récemment par la Cour pénale internationale, pour distinguer les formes principales des formes secondaires de la participation à l’infraction internationale. Ainsi, seraient des participants principaux les agents qui, avec l’état d’esprit idoine, prennent le contrôle de l’infraction internationale (coauteurs et auteurs intellectuels), tandis que seraient des participants secondaires les agents qui ne prennent pas un tel contrôle (complices par aide ou assistance et subordonnants). / Can it be extranational, transnational or international by nature, the international crime is always the same : it needs the reunion of a material element and a moral element, sometimes including a contextual element. This structural constancy, which dominates the definitional diversity, inclines us to campaign for the unification of the participation forms associated to the whole international crimes. In other words, the specifity of the participation in the international crime would be less due to the specifity of the first one’s forms than to the specifity of the second one’s definition. Now, there are only two grand systems of participation in the international crime : the one applied by the national criminal jurisdictions and the one applied by the international criminal jurisdictions. From the comparison of these two systems, it is possible to imagine a unique system of participation in the international crime, permitting a better understanding of the collective criminality by attributing a righter role to the intellectual participants within the participation. More precisely, and after a few necessary adaptations, control over the international crime, which is a mixed criterion recently developed by the International Criminal Court, could be used to distinguish the main forms from the secondary forms of participation in the international crime. Thus, main participants might be those who, with the suitable state of mind, take control over the international crime (co-perpetrators and intellectual perpetrators) while secondary participants might be those who don’t take such a control (accomplices by aid and assistance and “subordinators”). Abstention Action intellectuelle Action matérielle Action par un intermédiaire Aide Assistance Autorité Capacité d’influence Causalité Coaction Complicité Contrôle Emprunt de criminalité Entente Entreprise criminelle commune Fait d’autrui Imputation Infraction collective Infraction internationale Instigation Participation principale Participation secondaire Subordination Abstention Aiding and abetting Authority Borrowing of criminality Capacity of influence Causality Collective crime Commission through another person Common plan Complicity Control Co-Perpetration Imputation Instigation Joint criminal enterprise Intellectual perpetration International crime Material perpetration Order Principal participation Secondary participation Subordination 340

1

Page generated in 0.1308 seconds