Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evolution of the Mens Rea Doctrine in International Criminal Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Fundamental Concept of Crime in International Criminal Law

  • 1633 Accesses

Abstract

The first pivotal legal instruments of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals did not elaborate on the mens rea attributable to the crimes within their jurisdiction. The victorious Allied powers had appointed justices, who were entrusted with broad judicial discretionary powers, to settle the nature of mens rea in relation to the crimes charged. A number of thorny issues on the interpretation of the mens rea concept emerged during trial proceedings at Nuremberg, among others, the interpretation of knowledge as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of conduct, the inference of intent, the interrelation between mens rea and defences etc. Defendants in Nuremberg were particularly keen on denying knowledge of the widespread scale of crimes, and invoking defences of superior orders and duress. The judges made it clear that the fact that defendants were assigned to their tasks by Hitler did not absolve them from criminal responsibility. By cooperating with Hitler, with knowledge of his criminal aims, they made themselves parties to the plan that he had initiated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Nuremberg Judgement, pp. 448–449.

  2. 2.

    Clark (2008) at 552.

  3. 3.

    Schabas and Badar provide an overview of mens rea standards employed with respect to particular crimes in the ICTY jurisprudence in Schabas (2002) at 1015–1036; Badar (2006) at 313–348.

  4. 4.

    Blaškić Trial Judgement, para. 152.

  5. 5.

    Čelebići Trial Judgement, para. 513 (original footnote omitted).

  6. 6.

    Čelebići Trial Judgement, para. 543 (emphasis added).

  7. 7.

    Chapter 2.1.2.2 (Intention in English Criminal Law).

  8. 8.

    Blaškić Trial Judgement, para. 153.

  9. 9.

    Čelebići Trial Judgement, paras 437, 439; Kordić and Čerkez Trial Judgement, para. 229.

  10. 10.

    Akayesu Trial Judgement, para. 589; Jelisić Trial Judgement, para. 35.

  11. 11.

    Ashworth (2009), p. 190.

  12. 12.

    Kayishema Appeal Judgement, para. 151; Brđanin Trial Judgement, para. 386.

  13. 13.

    Stakić Trial Judgement, paras 587, 631.

  14. 14.

    Chapters 3.1.3.1 (German Criminal Law) and 3.4.1.3 (Danish Criminal Law). See also: Badar and Marchuk (2013), § 3.6.3 (Dolus Eventualis as the Lowest Threshold for Intentional Crimes).

  15. 15.

    Brđanin Trial Judgement, para. 386; Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 587.

  16. 16.

    Cassese (2008), p. 58. In the same vein, Hamdorf erroneously admits that the notion of recklessness implies a state of mind that would be treated as dolus eventualis, i.e. as intent, under German law. See: Hamdorf (2007), p. 224.

  17. 17.

    Van Sliedregt (2003a), p. 46. Sliedregt observes that dolus eventualis is part of the definition of intention in Dutch and German law, while noting the unique nature of French law that rejects dolus eventualis as a degree of intention. See also: Badar and Marchuk (2013), § 3.6.3 (Dolus Eventualis as the Lowest Threshold for Intentional Crimes).

  18. 18.

    Ambos in Cryer and Bekou (2004), p.167.

  19. 19.

    Limaj Trial Chamber, para. 241.

  20. 20.

    Aleksovski Trial Judgement, para. 56.

  21. 21.

    Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 27.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., paras 13–14 (original footnotes omitted).

  23. 23.

    Ibid., para. 20.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., para. 22.

  25. 25.

    Kunarac Trial Judgement, para. 512.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., para. 514.

  27. 27.

    Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 185.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., para. 232.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., para. 220.

  31. 31.

    Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, 26 June 2001, para. 29. In the accompanying footnote 112, the Chamber defined dolus eventualis as “a subtle civil law concept […] which requires an advertence to the possibility that a particular consequence will follow, and acting with either indifference or being reconciled to that possibility (in the sense of being prepared to take that risk)”. In the Chamber’s opinion, “the extent to which the possibility must be perceived differs according to the particular country in which the civil law is adopted, but the highest would appear to be that there must be a “concrete” basis for supposing that the particular consequence will follow”.

  32. 32.

    Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Decision on Prosecution’s Motion Appealing Trial Chamber’s Decision on JCE III Foreseeability, Case No. IT-95-5/18-AR72.4, 25 June 2009, paras 18–19.

  33. 33.

    Van Sliedregt (2003a), pp. 49–50.

  34. 34.

    Schabas (2009), pp. 243–256.

  35. 35.

    Chapters 4.3.1.1.4 (War Crimes) and 4.3.1.2.6 (Crimes Against Humanity).

  36. 36.

    Simester and Sullivan (2007), p. 143.

  37. 37.

    Ashworth (2009), p. 185.

  38. 38.

    Model Penal Code (MPC), § 2.02(7).

  39. 39.

    US v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (1976) at 700.

  40. 40.

    Van der Vyver (2004) at 75.

  41. 41.

    Badar (2008) at 497–498; Badar and Marchuk (2013), § 2.1.3 (Degrees of Knowledge: Actual Knowledge v. Wilful Blindness in English and Canadian Criminal Law).

  42. 42.

    Sansregnet v. The Queen [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570, 584.

  43. 43.

    Actual knowledge is awareness that the crime(s) in question were committed or were about to be committed by subordinates. See: Kordić and Čerkez Trial Judgement, paras 427–428; Čelebići Trial Judgement, paras 383, 386. Chapter 6.5.3.2 (Mens Rea Standard for Command Responsibility in the Jurisprudence of the Ad Hoc Tribunals) and Chapter 6.5.3.3 (Mens Rea Standard for Command Responsibility in the ICC).

  44. 44.

    Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 587; Brđanin Trial Judgement, para. 386.

  45. 45.

    Simester and Sullivan (2007), p. 343. Murder is distinct from manslaughter that may be committed recklessly. However, as it was noted by Rose LJ, “there is a little scope for a species of manslaughter based exclusively on recklessness” given that “recklessness in the form of advertence to risk or indifference to risk might lead to a finding of gross negligence in criminal law”. See: A-G’s Reference (No 2 of 1999) [2000] 3 All ER 182.

  46. 46.

    Brđanin Trial Judgement, para. 589; Kordić and Čerkez Trial Judgement, para. 341; Naletilić and Martinović Trial Judgement, para. 577.

  47. 47.

    Kordić and Čerkez Trial Judgement, para. 341; Naletilić and Martinović Trial Judgement, para. 579.

  48. 48.

    Blaškić Trial Judgement para. 182; Kordić and Čerkez Trial Judgement, para. 260; Vasiljević Trial Judgement, paras 194, 203.

  49. 49.

    Cassese (2008), p. 60.

  50. 50.

    Chapters 7.6 (Mistake of Fact) and 7.7 (Mistake of Law).

  51. 51.

    Saland (1999), p. 205.

  52. 52.

    Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, U.N. GAOR, 51st Session, Supp. No. 22, U.N. Doc. A/51/22 (1996) (Vol. I); Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, U.N. GAOR, 51st Sess., Supp. No. 22A, U.N. Doc. A/51/22 (1996) (Vol. II).

  53. 53.

    Decisions Taken by the Preparatory Committee at its Session Held from 11 to 21 February 1997 (A/AC.249/1997/L.5).

  54. 54.

    Report of the Inter-Sessional Meeting from 19 to 30 January in Zutphen, The Netherlands, U.N. Doc.A/AC.249/1998/L.13 (1998).

  55. 55.

    Draft Statute for the International Criminal Court, Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/2/Add.1 and Corr. 1 (1998) reprinted in Official Records from the U.N. Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, at 13–82), U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/13 (Vol. III) (1998).

  56. 56.

    Report of the Drafting Committee, Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court, reprinted in Official Records from the U.N. Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, at 149–180, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/13 (Vol. III) (1998). The text of the draft statute approved by the Committee of the Whole on July 17, 1998 transmitted to the Plenary of the Diplomatic Conference is identical to that of the approved Rome Statute.

  57. 57.

    For the article-by-article drafting history of Article 30 of the Rome Statute, see: Bassiouni (2005b).

  58. 58.

    Kelt and von Hebel (2001), p. 28.

  59. 59.

    Ambos in Cryer and Bekou (2004), p. 22.

  60. 60.

    Chapters 3.1.3.1 (Intent (Vorsatz)); 3.2.1 (Intention (Le Dol)); 3.3.1.4.1 (Intent (Умысел)); 3.4.1.1 (The Highest Degree of Intent (Forsæt)). Badar and Marchuk (2013), § 3.6 (Intent).

  61. 61.

    Schabas (2010), p. 477. Chapter 7.2 (Insanity, Automatism and Burden of Proof).

  62. 62.

    Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 29 January 2007, para. 351.

  63. 63.

    Eser in Cassese et al. (2002), p. 912.

  64. 64.

    Werle (2005), p. 104.

  65. 65.

    Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 29 January 2007, para. 351. See also: Bemba (ICC-01/05-01/08), Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 15 June 2009, para. 357.

  66. 66.

    Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 29 January 2007, paras 351–352; Bemba (ICC-01/05-01/08), Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 15 June 2009, para. 357 (original footnotes omitted).

  67. 67.

    Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 29 January 2007, para. 351 citing in support Eser in Cassese et al. (2002), pp. 899–900. In the same vein, see also: Katanga et al. (ICC-01/04-01/07), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 30 September 2008, para. 529; Bemba (ICC-01/05-01/08), Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 15 June 2009, para. 358.

  68. 68.

    Schönke and Schröder (2006), p. 260.

  69. 69.

    Greve et al. (2009), p. 223.

  70. 70.

    Russian Criminal Code, Article 25(2). See also: Garbatobich (2009), pp. 8–20.

  71. 71.

    Stefani et al. (2003), p. 230; Elliot (2000) at 38.

  72. 72.

    Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 29 January 2007, para. 352 citing in support Eser in Cassese et al. (2002), pp. 898–899. In the same vein, see also: Katanga et al. (ICC-01/04-01/07), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 30 September 2008, para. 530; Bemba (ICC-01/05-01/08), Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 15 June 2009, para. 359.

  73. 73.

    Schönke and Schröder (2006), p. 261.

  74. 74.

    Greve et al. (2009), p. 224.

  75. 75.

    Elliot (2001), p. 67.

  76. 76.

    Russian Criminal Code, Article 25(3). See: Chap. 3.5 (Interim Conclusions).

  77. 77.

    Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 29 January 2007, para. 352.

  78. 78.

    Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 587.

  79. 79.

    Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 29 January 2007, para. 353 (original footnote omitted).

  80. 80.

    Ibid., 354 (original footnote omitted).

  81. 81.

    Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 29 January 2007, para. 355.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., para. 355, fn 437.

  83. 83.

    Badar and Marchuk (2013), § 2.1.2 (Recklessness in English Criminal Law); 2.2.2 (Recklessness in American Criminal Law); § 3.7 (Negligence in Continental Law Jurisdictions).

  84. 84.

    Ibid., § 3.6.3 (Dolus Eventualis as the Lowest Threshold for Intentional Crimes).

  85. 85.

    Katanga et al. (ICC-01/04-01/07), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 30 September 2008, fn 329.

  86. 86.

    Katanga et al. (ICC-01/04-01/07), Defence Application for Leave to Appeal the Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 6 October 2008, para. 10.

  87. 87.

    Katanga et al. (ICC-01/04-01/07), Prosecution’s Response to Application by the Defence of Katanga for Leave to Appeal the Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 10 October 2008.

  88. 88.

    Katanga et al. (ICC-01/04-01/07), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Applications for Leave to Appeal the Decision on the Admission of the Evidence of Witnesses 132 and 287 and on the Leave to Appeal the Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 24 October 2008.

  89. 89.

    Bemba (ICC-01/05-01/08), Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 15 June 2009, para. 360.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., para. 361, fn 451. The literal (textual) analysis was conducted in conformity with the principles of treaty interpretation laid down in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). UNTS, vol. 1155, p. 331. The same approach was confirmed by the Appeals Chamber in its “Judgment on Prosecutor’s Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I’s 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal”, ICC-01/04-168, para. 33.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., para. 362 (original footnote omitted).

  92. 92.

    Ibid. (original footnotes omitted).

  93. 93.

    Ibid., para. 363 (original footnote omitted).

  94. 94.

    Ibid., para. 369.

  95. 95.

    Ambos in Cryer and Bekou (2004), p. 22. See also: Weigend (2008) at 484.

  96. 96.

    Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Trial Chamber I, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 14 March 2012, para. 1011.

  97. 97.

    Ibid., Separate Opinion of Judge Adrian Fulford, para. 15.

  98. 98.

    ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 7 (1) (a)-Article 7 (1) (k).

  99. 99.

    ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 7, Crimes against Humanity (Introduction), para. 2.

  100. 100.

    ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 8, War Crimes (Introduction) reads: “There is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the conflict as international or non-international; but there is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict that is implicit in the terms “took place in the context of and was associated with”.

  101. 101.

    ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 6 (Introduction) provides: “Notwithstanding the normal requirement for a mental element provided for in Article 30, and recognizing that knowledge of the circumstances will usually be addressed in proving genocidal intent, the appropriate requirement, if any, for a mental element regarding this circumstance will need to be decided by the Court on a case-by-case basis”.

  102. 102.

    Chapters 4.3.1.1 (Contextual Elements of War Crimes) and 4.3.1.3 (Contextual Elements of Genocide).

  103. 103.

    Chapters 7.7 (Mistake of Fact) and 7.8 (Mistake of Law).

  104. 104.

    Kelt and von Hebel (2001), p. 30.

  105. 105.

    The mens rea standard of constructive knowledge means that a superior had in his possession information, which at least would put him on notice of the risk of crimes committed or about to be committed. See: Čelebići Appeal Judgement, para. 222.

  106. 106.

    Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Trial Chamber I, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 14 March 2012, paras 1015.

  107. 107.

    Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Trial Chamber I, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 14 March 2012, paras 1015, 1278. The Lubanga Trial Chamber departed from the finding of the Pre-Trial Chamber that upheld the negligence standard with respect to the age of children. See: Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 29 January 2007, paras 357–359.

  108. 108.

    Eser in Cassese et al. (2002), p. 900.

  109. 109.

    Akayesu Trial Judgment, para. 518 citing Merle and Vitu (1973), p. 723 et seq.

  110. 110.

    Schabas (2001) at 129. The author warns against the importation of enigmatic concept like “dolus specialis” or “specific intent” from domestic criminal law.

  111. 111.

    Werle (2005), pp. 101–102.

  112. 112.

    Kelt and von Hebel (2001), p. 31.

  113. 113.

    Rome Statute, Article 7 (2) (b).

  114. 114.

    Ibid., Article 7 (2) (e). It is understood that no specific intent is connected to the crime of torture in the Rome Statute (footnote 14 to Article 7(2)(e), ICC Elements of Crimes). This runs contrary to the practices of the ad hoc tribunals that have consistently construed the crime of torture as the specific intent crime. See below: Chap. 4.3.2.5.2 (Dolus Specialis in the Crime of Torture).

  115. 115.

    Ibid., Article 7 (2) (f).

  116. 116.

    Ibid., Article 7 (2) (g).

  117. 117.

    Ibid., Article 7 (2) (h).

  118. 118.

    Ibid., Article 7 (2) (i).

  119. 119.

    Vest (2007) at 785–786.

  120. 120.

    Akayesu Trial Judgement, para. 518 citing in support Merle and Vitu (1973), p. 723. For more, see: Chap. 3.2.1 (Intention (Le Dol)).

  121. 121.

    Kress (2005) at 567.

  122. 122.

    Cassese (2008), p. 65.

  123. 123.

    Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General, pursuant to Security Council resolution 1564 (2004) of 18 September 2004, 25 January 2005 (hereinafter—UN Darfur Report), para. 491.

  124. 124.

    Ibid.

  125. 125.

    Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 4 March 2009, para. 139.

  126. 126.

    Greenwalt (1999) at 2288.

  127. 127.

    Kress (2005) at 566.

  128. 128.

    Van Sliedregt (2007) at 193.

  129. 129.

    Krstić Trial Judgment, para. 571 (emphasis added).

  130. 130.

    Ibid., para. 572.

  131. 131.

    Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, Krstić Appeal Judgment, paras 49–50 (citation omitted).

  132. 132.

    Ibid., para. 53.

  133. 133.

    For more on the preparatory work on the Genocide Convention in relation to the protected group element, see: Fanny in Gaeta (2009a).

  134. 134.

    Krstić Trial Judgment, para. 552.

  135. 135.

    Akayesu Trial Judgment, para. 521.

  136. 136.

    Kayishema Trial Judgment, para. 99.

  137. 137.

    1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes, Article 17 (Commentary), paras 6–7.

  138. 138.

    Akayesu Trial Judgment, para. 512.

  139. 139.

    Ibid., para. 513.

  140. 140.

    Ibid., para. 514.

  141. 141.

    Ibid., para. 515.

  142. 142.

    Ibid., para. 511.

  143. 143.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 2007, ICJ Reports 140, paras 191–192.

  144. 144.

    Ibid., para. 196. The same approach was re-affirmed in the Popović Trial Judgement, para. 809.

  145. 145.

    Ibid., para. 194.

  146. 146.

    Lippman in Lattimer (2007), pp. 507–509.

  147. 147.

    Van Schaack in Lattimer (2007), pp. 2261.

  148. 148.

    Akayesu Trial Chamber, para. 702.

  149. 149.

    Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 4 March 2009, para. 136 referring to the UN Darfur Report, paras 41, 52–53, 60.

  150. 150.

    Ibid., para. 137 referring to UN Darfur Report, para. 52.

  151. 151.

    Ibid., footnote 152.

  152. 152.

    Ibid., Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Ušacka, para. 26.

  153. 153.

    UN Darfur Report, paras 510–511.

  154. 154.

    UN Darfur Report, para. 497.

  155. 155.

    Ibid.

  156. 156.

    Kayishema Trial Judgement, para. 98; Musema Trial Chamber, paras 161–163; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, para. 56; Jelisić Trial Chamber, paras 70–71; Krstić Trial Chamber, paras 556–557, 559–560.

  157. 157.

    Verdirame in Lattimer (2007), p. 594.

  158. 158.

    Kress (2006) at 474.

  159. 159.

    UN Darfur Report, para. 500.

  160. 160.

    Krstić Trial Judgment, para. 553.

  161. 161.

    Jelisić Trial Judgment, para. 79.

  162. 162.

    Stakić Appeal Judgment, para. 20; Popović Trial Judgement, para. 821; Blagojević Trial Judgement, paras 656, 665.

  163. 163.

    Krstić Trial Judgment, para. 590; Jelisić Trial Judgment, para. 83.

  164. 164.

    Krstić Trial Judgment, para. 590.

  165. 165.

    Ibid., para. 595.

  166. 166.

    Ibid.

  167. 167.

    Jelisić Trial Judgement, para. 82.

  168. 168.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 2007, ICJ Reports 140, para. 198 (emphasis added). The requirement of substantiality was supported by references to the jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals and the 1996 ILC Draft Code.

  169. 169.

    Ibid., para. 199 citing in support Stakić Trial Judgment, para. 523.

  170. 170.

    Ibid., para. 200 citing in support Krstić Appeal Judgement, para. 12.

  171. 171.

    Ibid., para. 201.

  172. 172.

    Akayesu Trial Judgment, para. 523.

  173. 173.

    Kayishema Trial Judgement, para. 93.

  174. 174.

    Kayishema Appeal Judgement, para.159.

  175. 175.

    Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 935 (1994), Annex to the Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council transmitting the final report of the Commission of Experts, UN Doc.S/1994/1405, 9 December 1994, paras 160–168.

  176. 176.

    Karera Appeals Judgment, para. 34.

  177. 177.

    Nikolić Rule 61 Decision, para. 34.

  178. 178.

    Karadžić and Mladić Rule 61 Decision, para. 94.

  179. 179.

    Karadžić and Mladić Rule 61 Decision, para. 94; Sikirica Trial Judgement, para. 46.

  180. 180.

    Karadžić and Mladić Rule 61 Decision, para. 94.

  181. 181.

    Krstić Trial Judgment, paras 580 and 595.

  182. 182.

    Krstić Trial Judgement, para. 595.

  183. 183.

    Jelisić Trial Judgement, para. 82.

  184. 184.

    Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 47; Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 519, 523, 726.

  185. 185.

    Akayesu Trial Judgement, para. 523; Musema Trial Judgement, para.166; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, paras 61 and 398; Bagilishema Trial Judgement, para. 62; Sikirica Trial Judgement, para. 61.

  186. 186.

    Akayesu Trial Judgement, para. 523; Musema Trial Judgement, para.166; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, paras 61 and 398; Bagilishema Trial Judgement, para. 62.

  187. 187.

    Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 47.

  188. 188.

    Ibid., para. 48.

  189. 189.

    Ibid., para. 47.

  190. 190.

    Sikirica Trial Judgement, para. 46; Kayishema Trial Judgement, para. 93.

  191. 191.

    Sikirica Trial Judgement, para. 46.

  192. 192.

    Ibid.

  193. 193.

    Ibid.

  194. 194.

    Sikirica Trial Judgement, para. 46.

  195. 195.

    Kayishema Trial Judgement, paras 93 and 527; Bagilishema Trial Judgement, para. 63.

  196. 196.

    Kayishema Trial Judgement, para. 93.

  197. 197.

    Bagilishema Trial Judgement, para. 63.

  198. 198.

    Kayishema Trial Judgement, para. 93.

  199. 199.

    Krstić Appeal Judgement, para. 20; Popović Trial Judgement, para. 823.

  200. 200.

    Blagojević Appeal Judgement, para. 123; Krstić Appeal Judgement, para. 33; Popović Trial Judgement, para. 862. In the Popović case, the Trial Chamber considered the frenzied efforts to forcibly remove the remainder of the population in Potočari, while the male members of the community were targeted for murder, as providing further evidence on the existence of the genocidal intent.

  201. 201.

    Popović Trial Judgement, para. 861.

  202. 202.

    UN Darfur Report, para. 513.

  203. 203.

    UN Darfur Report, paras 513–519.

  204. 204.

    Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 4 March 2009, para. 111 (original footnote omitted).

  205. 205.

    Ibid., paras 165–176.

  206. 206.

    Ibid., paras 178–180.

  207. 207.

    Ibid., paras 178, 181–189.

  208. 208.

    Ibid., paras 190–201.

  209. 209.

    Ibid., para. 206.

  210. 210.

    Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Second Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 12 July 2010, p. 8.

  211. 211.

    Shaw (2008), p. 783.

  212. 212.

    Schabas (2007b) at 183.

  213. 213.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 2007, ICJ Reports 140, para. 379.

  214. 214.

    Ohlin in Gaeta (2009a), p. 380.

  215. 215.

    UN Darfur Report, para. 518.

  216. 216.

    Ibid., paras 513–520.

  217. 217.

    Loewestein and Kostas (2007) at 856.

  218. 218.

    Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 4 March 2009, para. 205.

  219. 219.

    Ibid., para. 206.

  220. 220.

    Ibid., Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Ušacka, paras 7–8.

  221. 221.

    Ibid., para. 9.

  222. 222.

    Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Prosecution Document in Support of Appeal against the “Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir”, 6 July 2009, para. 27.

  223. 223.

    Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the “Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir”, 3 February 2010, para. 31.

  224. 224.

    Ibid., para. 33 (original emphasis).

  225. 225.

    Ibid., para. 39.

  226. 226.

    Ibid., para. 41.

  227. 227.

    Ibid., para. 42.

  228. 228.

    Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Second Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 12 July 2010, p. 8.

  229. 229.

    Gaeta (2009b) at 332.

  230. 230.

    Kupreskić Trial Judgement, para. 636.

  231. 231.

    Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 4 March 2009, para. 143 (original footnote omitted).

  232. 232.

    Ibid.

  233. 233.

    Stakić Trial Judgment, para. 519.

  234. 234.

    Kupreskić Trial Judgement, para. 636; Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 4 March 2009, para. 145. See also: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 2007, ICJ Reports 140, para. 190.

  235. 235.

    Common Article 3 to Geneva Conventions; Articles 12 and 50, Geneva Convention I; Articles 12 and 51, Geneva Convention II; Articles 13, 14 and 130, Geneva Convention III; Articles 27, 32 and 147, Geneva Convention IV; Article 75 of Additional Protocol I; Article 4 of Additional Protocol II. For a more comprehensive list of instruments on the prohibition of torture, see: Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck (2005b), paras 980–1009.

  236. 236.

    Furundžija Trial Judgement, para. 139.

  237. 237.

    Ibid., para. 162.

  238. 238.

    Kunarac Trial Judgement, para. 471.

  239. 239.

    Kunarac Trial Judgement, para. 497; Furundžija Trial Judgement, para. 162; Čelebići Trial Judgement, para. 468.

  240. 240.

    Dörmann (2003), pp. 45–46.

  241. 241.

    Furundžija Trial Judgement, para. 162.

  242. 242.

    Ibid.

  243. 243.

    Kunarac Trial Judgement, para. 485.

  244. 244.

    Ibid., para. 486; Čelebići Trial Judgement, para. 470.

  245. 245.

    Dörmann (2003), pp. 44–47.

  246. 246.

    Burchard (2008) at 180–182.

  247. 247.

    Bemba (ICC-01/05-01/08), Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 15 June 2009, para. 293.

  248. 248.

    Ibid., paras 297–300.

  249. 249.

    Pictet (1958), pp. 300–301 (commentary of Article 53).

  250. 250.

    The official English version of the ICTY and ICTR Statutes uses synonymous terms “plunder” and “pillage”. The official French version of both statutes employs the same general term “le pillage”. See also: Naletilić and Martinović Trial Judgement, paras 611–617; Čelebići Trial Judgement, paras 584–592; Blaškić Trial Judgement, para. 184; Jelisić Trial Judgement, paras 46–49; Kordić and Čerkez Trial Judgement, paras 349–353.

  251. 251.

    On 8 February 2010, Pre-Trial Chamber I refused to confirm the charges against Abu Garda. On 23 April 2010, the same Chamber issued a decision rejecting the Prosecutor’s application to appeal the decision declining to confirm the charges.

  252. 252.

    Katanga et al. (ICC-01/04-01/07), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 30 September 2008, para. 327.

  253. 253.

    Katanga et al. (ICC-01/04-01/07), Decision on the Implementation of Regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and Severing the Charges Against the Accused Persons, 21 November 2012, paras 61–63.

  254. 254.

    Ngudjolo (ICC-01/04-02/12), Judgement pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 18 December 2012.

  255. 255.

    AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 754.

  256. 256.

    Katanga et al. (ICC-01/04-01/07), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 30 September 2008, para. 330 (original footnote omitted).

  257. 257.

    Ibid.

  258. 258.

    Čelebići Trial Judgement, paras 587–592.

  259. 259.

    Blaškić Trial Judgement, para. 184.

  260. 260.

    Kordić and Čerkez Trial Judgement, para. 349.

  261. 261.

    Jelisić Trial Judgement, para. 48.

  262. 262.

    Naletilić and Martinović Trial Judgement, para. 617.

  263. 263.

    RUF Trial Judgement, para. 211 citing in support Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 84; Naletilić and Martinović Trial Judgement, para. 612, fn.1498; Čelebići Trial Judgement, para. 590.

  264. 264.

    Katanga et al. (ICC-01/04-01/07), Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 30 September 2008, para. 331.

  265. 265.

    Ibid., para. 332 (original footnote omitted).

  266. 266.

    The same argument was advanced by the author of this book in Badar and Marchuk (2013), § Introduction.

References

  • Ashworth A (2009) Principles of criminal law, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Badar ME (2006) Drawing the boundaries of mens rea in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Int Crim Law Rev 6(3):313–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badar ME (2008) The mental element in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary from a comparative criminal law perspective. Crim Law Forum 19(3):473–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badar ME, Marchuk I (2013) A comparative study of the principles governing criminal responsibility in the major legal systems of the world (England, United States, Germany, France, Denmark, Russia, China, and Islamic Legal Tradition). Crim Law Forum 24(1). doi:10.1007/s10609-012-9187-z (available online first)

  • Bassiouni CM (2005b) The legislative history of the International Criminal Court: an article-by-article evolution of the Statute from 1994-1998, vol II. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchard C (2008) Torture in the jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals: a critical assessment. J Int Crim Justice 6(2):159–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2008) International criminal law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD (2002) The Rome statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary, vol I. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark RS (2008) Drafting a general part to a penal code: some thoughts inspired by the negotiations on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and by the court’s first substantive law discussion in the Lubanga Dyilo confirmation proceedings. Crim Law Forum 19(3–4):519–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R, Bekou O (eds) (2004) The International Criminal Court: the library of essays in international law. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörmann K (2003) Elements of war crimes under the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court: sources and commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot C (2000) The French law of intent and its influence on the development of international criminal law. Crim Law Forum 11:35–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot C (2001) French criminal law. Willan Publishing, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta P (ed) (2009a) The UN Genocide Convention – a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta P (2009b) Does President Al Bashir enjoy immunity form arrest? J Int Crim Justice 7(2):315–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbatobich DA (2009) Qualification of criminal offences by the subjective element. Yurlitinform, Moscow (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwalt AKA (1999) Rethinking genocidal intent: the case for a knowledge-based interpretation. Columbia Law Rev 99:2259–2295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve V, Jensen A, Jensen PD, Nielsen GT (2009) Kommenteret straffelov: almindelig del, 9. omarbejdede udgave. Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamdorf K (2007) The concept of a joint criminal enterprise and domestic modes of liability for parties to a crime: a comparison of German and English law. J Int Crim Justice 5(1):208–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (2005a) Customary international humanitarian law, Volume I: Rules. ICRC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (2005b) Customary international humanitarian law, Volume II: practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kelt M, von Hebel H (2001) General principles of criminal law and elements of crimes. In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court: elements of crimes and rules of evidence. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress C (2005) The Darfur Report and genocidal intent. J Int Crim Justice 3(3):562–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress C (2006) The crime of genocide under international law. Int Law Rev 6(4):461–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattimer M (ed) (2007) Genocide and human rights: the international library of essays on rights. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewestein AB, Kostas SA (2007) Divergent approaches to determining responsibility for genocide: the Darfur Commission of Inquiry and the ICJ’s Judgment in the Genocide Case. J Int Crim Justice 5(4):839–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merle R, Vitu A (1973) Traité de droit criminel: problèmes généraux de la science criminelle, droit penal general, procedure pénale, deuxième edition. éditions Cujas

    Google Scholar 

  • Pictet JS (ed) (1958) IV Geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war (commentary). ICRC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Saland P (1999) International criminal law principles. In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court: the making of the Rome Statute: issues, negotiations, results. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (2001) The Jelisić case and the mens rea of the crime of genocide. Leiden J Int Law 14:125–140. Also reprinted in Cryer R, Bekou O (eds) (2004) The International Criminal Court: the library of essays in international law. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (2002–2003) Mens rea and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. New England Law Rev 37:1015–1036

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (2007b) Whither genocide? The International Court of Justice finally pronounces. J Genocide Res 9:183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (2009) Genocide in international law: the crime of crimes, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schabas W (2010) The International Criminal Court: a commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönke A, Schröder H (2006) Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 27th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2008) International law, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Simester AP, Sullivan GR (2007) Criminal law theory and doctrine, 3rd edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vyver JD (2004) The International Criminal Court and the concept of mens rea in international criminal law. University of Miami Int Comparative Law Rev 12:57–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Sliedregt E (2003a) The criminal responsibility of individuals for violations of international humanitarian law. T M C Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Sliedregt E (2007) Joint criminal enterprise as a pathway to convicting individuals for genocide. J Int Crim Justice 5(1):184–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vest H (2007) A structure-based concept of genocidal intent. J Int Crim Justice 5(4):781–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigend T (2008) Intent, mistake of law, and co-perpetration in the Lubanga decision on confirmation of charges. J Int Crim Justice 6(3):471–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werle G (2005) Principles of international criminal law. T M C Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Iryna Marchuk

Authors
  1. Iryna Marchuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Marchuk, I. (2014). Evolution of the Mens Rea Doctrine in International Criminal Law. In: The Fundamental Concept of Crime in International Criminal Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28246-1_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation