Vado atsakomybė yra tarptautinėje paprotinėje teisėje nusistovėjęs principas. Vadai, pagal šią doktriną, atsako ne už savo pačių įvykdytus nusikaltimus, o už pavaldinių, kuriems nesugebėjo užkirsti kelio ar bausti. Ši atsakomybė kyla dėl neveikimo. Mokslininkų bendruomenėje iki šių dienų nėra aišku, ar vadai atsako už pavaldinių nusikaltimus, ar už savo paties pareigos nevykdymą. Vadai atsako už atskirą nusikaltimą, kuriam neužkirto kelio ar už kurį nebaudė, kuomet tarptautinė teisė jį buvo įpareigojus tą daryti. Vado atsakomybė yra sui generis atsakomybės už neveikimą forma. Pagal ad hoc tribunolų jurisprudenciją, vado atsakomybė susideda iš trijų elementų: vado-pavaldinių santykių, vado mens rea ir būtinų ir tinkamų priemonių užkirsti kelią nusikaltimui ar bausti nesiėmimo. Visi šie elementai turi būti įrodyti ir bet kokios abejonės kilimas turi būti sprendžiamas kaltinamojo naudai. Vado-pavaldinių santykiai galimi tik esant efektyviai vado kontrolei. Efektyvumas reiškia, kad vadas gali ne tik vienaip ar kitaip daryti įtaką pavaldinių veiksmams, tačiau ir priversti paklusti, materialiai sugebėti užkirsti kelią nusikaltimams ar bausti. Romos statute karo vadų ir asmenų, efektyviai vykdančių karo vado funkcijas, mens rea skiriasi nuo civilių vadų. Romos statuto travaux préparatoires pasufleruoja, kad civiliai vadai, skirtingai nei karo, neturi tokių pačių galimybių vykdyti savo pareigas. Dėl šios priežasties jų žinojimo standartas yra švelnesnis nei karo vadų. Romos statutas... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Superior responsibility, otherwise known as command responsibility, is a well established doctrine in both treaty and customary international law. Superiors are held criminally responsible for breaches of international humanitaran law committed by their subordinates. Responsibility arises only after superior fails to take any preventive or punitive action when he was under a duty to do so. There is no common opinion of what that doctrine should stand for, is it a mode of liability for subordinates crimes or a separate offence of superior. It is a crime of omission which has no or little support in national legislation systems. Superior responsibility is a sui generis form of responsibility for omission. Superior responsibility, according to ad hoc tribunals jurisprudence, is constructed of three elements which are superior-subordinate relationship, superior’s mens rea and ability to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent subordinate’s crime and punish. All these elements must be proofed beyond reasonable doubt. Superior-subordinate relationship can only be established if there existed effective command and control between those two. Effectiveness is a material ability to influence subordinates actions in a way of either stopping them from committing a crime or being able to punish. Superiors mens rea in Rome Statute for military commander and a person, effectively acting as such is more strict than for other superiors, described in art. 28(b). Travaux... [to full text]

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.