Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Mistake of Law pp 101–132Cite as

Applying the Theory of Mistake of Law: An Analysis of (Inter)national Case Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 634 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter is dedicated to an analysis of selected case law concerning defendants who pleaded mistake of law before national and international courts in cases concerning international crimes. The main focus is on proceedings that followed the Second World War. It covers other criminal proceedings in the decades thereafter as well, such as some cases related to the wars in Korea and Vietnam and a few more recent cases before the ICTY, the SCSL and the ICC. In most cases, where the defence of mistake of law has been raised in order to avert criminal liability for international crimes, knowledge of wrongdoing was inferred from the facts; the defendant must have known about the wrongfulness of his acts, the superior orders were manifestly unlawful. In exceptional cases, the defence was successful because the legal rule concerned was uncertain. The selected case law shows only a few examples of cases where mistake of law is invoked as a defence on itself.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See for other sources on the history of the defense of mistake of law and/or superior orders: Ambos 2004; Cassese 2003, 2009; Dinstein 1965; Osiel 1999; Vogeley 2003; Lippman 2001. For an overview of the history of the defence of superior orders in the United States see Solis 1999.

  2. 2.

    If there is a conviction one, perhaps, can assume that the judges followed the view of the Judge Advocate. See also Green 2003, pp. 319–320.

  3. 3.

    As seen earlier, the fact that many international crimes are committed within the context of the military organisation makes the defence of superior orders of particular relevance to the determination of the scope of the defence of mistake of law.

  4. 4.

    Swart describes how this case law has been a valuable source for the ad-hoc tribunals in establishing customary rules, Swart 2002.

  5. 5.

    Röling 1961, p. 370.

  6. 6.

    Röling 1961, p. 370; I.G. Farben Trial 1948.

  7. 7.

    Röling 1961, p. 371.

  8. 8.

    Röling 1961, p. 371.

  9. 9.

    Kalshoven 2005 and Kalshoven and Zegveld 2001. See for a further discussion of the uncertainty of the law relating to reprisal Sect. 6.3 infra.

  10. 10.

    See amongst others Nill-Theobald 1998, pp. 82–88; Green 2003, pp. 322–324; Lippman 2001; and Sliedregt 2003, p. 318.

  11. 11.

    Dover Castle case 1921.

  12. 12.

    Dover Castle case 1921, pp. 706–707.

  13. 13.

    Dover Castle case 1921, pp. 707–708.

  14. 14.

    Llandovery Castle case 1921.

  15. 15.

    Llandovery Castle case 1921, p. 710.

  16. 16.

    Llandovery Castle case 1921, p. 710.

  17. 17.

    Llandovery Castle case 1921, p. 721; Lippman 2001, p. 168.

  18. 18.

    Llandovery Castle case 1921, p. 722.

  19. 19.

    Lippman 2001, p. 170.

  20. 20.

    Llandovery Castle case 1921, p. 722.

  21. 21.

    Llandovery Castle case 1921, p. 721.

  22. 22.

    Llandovery Castle case 1921, p. 723.

  23. 23.

    Article 8 IMT Nuremberg; and Article 6 IMTFE.

  24. 24.

    See also Bantekas and Nash 2007, pp. 58–59 and Garraway 1999.

  25. 25.

    Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) (1948), UNWCC, vol. XII, pp. 88–89. See also Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, rule 155, § 969, p. 3839.

  26. 26.

    Dinstein 1965, p. 187; Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) 1948, UNWCC, vol. XII, pp. 88–89.

  27. 27.

    Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) 1948, UNWCC, vol. XII, p. 1.

  28. 28.

    Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) 1948 UNWCC, vol. XII, pp. 73–74 and Friedman, vol. II, p. 1433.

  29. 29.

    Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) 1948 UNWCC, vol. XII, p. 74, footnote 1.

  30. 30.

    Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) 1948 UNWCC, vol. XII, p. 98.

  31. 31.

    List (The Hostages Case) 1948, UNWCC, vol. VIII, p. 50.

  32. 32.

    The Tribunal referred to the Llandovery Castle case, List (The Hostages case) (1948), UNWCC, vol. VIII, p. 50; see also Dinstein 1965, p. 185.

  33. 33.

    List (The Hostages Case) (1948), UNWCC, vol. VIII, p. 50.

  34. 34.

    List (The Hostages Case) 1948, UNWCC, vol. VIII, p. 52.

  35. 35.

    List (The Hostages Case) 1948, UNWCC, vol. VIII, p. 52.

  36. 36.

    US v. Otto Ohlendorf et al. (Einsatzgruppen case) 1948, pp. 473–480 (under the heading “Superior Orders Defence Must Establish Ignorance of Illegality”).

  37. 37.

    US v. Otto Ohlendorf et al. (Einsatzgruppen case) 1948 pp. 480–483 (under the heading “Duress Needed for Plea of Superior Orders”).

  38. 38.

    US v. Otto Ohlendorf et al. (Einsatzgruppen case) 1948, p. 473 and p. 480 respectively.

  39. 39.

    Dostler trial 1945, pp. 22 and 25–26.

  40. 40.

    Dostler trial 1945, pp. 26–28.

  41. 41.

    Dostler trial 1945, pp. 26–27.

  42. 42.

    Dostler trial 1945, p. 33.

  43. 43.

    Dostler trial 1945, p. 31.

  44. 44.

    See also the Almelo trial, Sect. 5.2.2.2 infra.

  45. 45.

    Trial of Sawada 1946, p. 7.

  46. 46.

    Trial of Sawada 1946, p. 13.

  47. 47.

    Trial of Sawada 1946, pp. 14–19.

  48. 48.

    This is confusing because in case of duress, a mistake of law is no requirement.

  49. 49.

    Trial of Sawada 1946, p. 19.

  50. 50.

    Trial of Sawada 1946, p. 16.

  51. 51.

    Trial of Sawada 1946 UNWCC, vol. V, p. 19.

  52. 52.

    The Commission refers to Article 8 of the Nuremberg Charter, Article 6 of the Tokyo Charter, Article II(4)(b) of the Allied Control Council Law No. 10, “Regulation 9 of the US Mediterranean regulations, Regulation 16(f) of the Pacific regulations, September 1945, regulation 5 (d), (6) of the Pacific regulations, December 1945, and Regulation 16(f) of the China Regulations”, the ‘Norwegian Law of 13th December, 1946, on the Punishment of Foreign War Criminals’ and other domestic regulations. Trial of Sawada 1946, pp. 19–20.

  53. 53.

    The Commission refers to e.g. Article 15 of the Canadian War Crimes Act of 31st August, 1946; Article 43 Dutch Criminal Code; The United States Basic Field Manual F.M. 27-10 (Rules of Land Warfare), para 345. Trial of Sawada 1946, pp. 20–22.

  54. 54.

    Peleus Trial 1945, p. 2.

  55. 55.

    Peleus Trial 1945, p. 9.

  56. 56.

    Peleus Trial 1945, p. 4.

  57. 57.

    See also Peleus Trial 1945, p. 19 (the motive of both commanders (Patzig and Eck) was different. Patzig's motive was concealment of criminal acts and Eck's was operational necessity (UNWCC, p. 19), the latter is arguably a justification. The prosecutor based its case on this case (Llandovery Castle) (UNWCC, pp. 10–11).

  58. 58.

    See also Vogeley 2003, p. 80.

  59. 59.

    Peleus Trial 1945, p. 12.

  60. 60.

    Peleus Trial 1945, p. 12.

  61. 61.

    Buck Trial 1946, p. 39.

  62. 62.

    Buck Trial 1946, p. 42.

  63. 63.

    Buck Trial 1946, p. 43.

  64. 64.

    Buck Trial 1946, p. 43.

  65. 65.

    Buck Trial 1946, p. 43.

  66. 66.

    Buck Trial 1946, p. 44.

  67. 67.

    Buck Trial 1946, p. 44.

  68. 68.

    Trial of Sandrock (Almelo Trial) 1945, p. 40.

  69. 69.

    Trial of Sandrock (Almelo Trial) 1945, p. 41.

  70. 70.

    Falkenhorst trial 1946, p. 26.

  71. 71.

    Falkenhorst trial 1946, p. 27.

  72. 72.

    Falkenhorst trial 1946, p. 26.

  73. 73.

    Falkenhorst trial 1946, p. 27.

  74. 74.

    See also Green 2003, p. 350.

  75. 75.

    Best 1994, p. 313.

  76. 76.

    See alsoSect. 6.3infra.

  77. 77.

    Helmuth Latza and 2 others 1948.

  78. 78.

    Helmuth Latza and 2 others 1948, p. 49.

  79. 79.

    Helmuth Latza and 2 others 1948, p. 83.

  80. 80.

    Helmuth Latza and 2 others 1948, pp. 69–70.

  81. 81.

    Helmuth Latza and 2 others 1948, pp. 82–83.

  82. 82.

    Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, selected and prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission 1949, p. 184; Helmuth Latza and 2 others 1948, pp. 60, 69 and 82–83.

  83. 83.

    Wintgen 1949.

  84. 84.

    Rauter 1949, NJ 1949, 87, pp. 144–166.

  85. 85.

    Rauter 1949 NJ 1949, 87, p. 158. See also Röling 1961, pp. 373–374.

  86. 86.

    Translation (AvV):

    1. (1)

      If the execution of a military order leads to the commission of a crime, the superior who issued the order is responsible for this crime. The executing subordinate is however criminally responsible as accomplice:

      1. 1.

        if he went beyond the scope of the order; or

      2. 2.

        if he knew of the fact that the order of his superior required an act which constituted a (military) crime.

    2. (2)

      Is the culpability of the defendant remote, it can be decided not to punish him.

  87. 87.

    Wintgen 1949, p. 984.

  88. 88.

    Wintgen 1949, NJ 1949, 540, p. 985; see also Cassese 2008, pp. 296–297.

  89. 89.

    Wintgen 1949, NJ 1949, 540, p. 985 (translation AvV).

  90. 90.

    Wintgen 1949 NJ, 1949, 540, p. 985 (translation AvV).

  91. 91.

    See also § 5 WStG which uses the term 'rechtswidrige Tat', and § 3 VStGB, see also Sect. 2.4.2 supra.

  92. 92.

    Zühlke Trial 1948, NJ 1949, No. 85, pp. 129–138.

  93. 93.

    Zühlke Trial 1948 Friedman, pp. 1549–1551, NJ 1949, No. 85, p. 134. See also Wilt 2009b. This is a debatable position, see Sect. 4.3.3 supra.

  94. 94.

    Zühlke Trial 1948, NJ 1949, No. 85, pp. 134–135. I do not fully support the account of the reasoning of the Court given by the UNWCC in Friedman, p. 1551, where it is stated that Zülke, "who was not only a prison warder by occupation but had also been trained as a non-commissioned officer, must have known" that the detention and the ill-treatment and humiliation of the prisoners was illegal.

  95. 95.

    Zühlke Trial 1948 NJ 1949, No. 85, pp. 134–135.

  96. 96.

    Zimmermann 1949.

  97. 97.

    See also Röling 1961, p. 375.

  98. 98.

    Zimmermann 1949, NJ 1950, No. 9, p. 31.

  99. 99.

    Sluiter 2009b, p. 982.

  100. 100.

    Lages case 1950, p. 1206.

  101. 101.

    Arlt 1949. See also Cassese 2008, p. 298, footnote 60.

  102. 102.

    Arlt 1949, NJ 1950, no. 8, p. 29.

  103. 103.

    Sluiter 2009a, p. 585.

  104. 104.

    E. van E. case 1951; B. case 1951.

  105. 105.

    B. case 1951, p. 522. See also Cassese 2008, p. 297.

  106. 106.

    B. case 1951, pp. 524–525. In several cases, the courts decided obiter dicta that unlawful orders may relieve of responsibility if given on the battlefield, Cassese 2003, p. 239.

  107. 107.

    B. case 1951, pp. 524–525.

  108. 108.

    Cassese 2003, p. 235, note 15; E. van E. case 1951, p. 516.

  109. 109.

    See also supra Trial of Sandrock (Almelo Trial) 1945.

  110. 110.

    See Notes on the B. case by Röling, B. case 1951, pp. 525–526.

  111. 111.

    R. v. SAH Alsagoff 1946, available at http://www.icrc.org/ihl-nat.nsf/WebALL!OpenView.

  112. 112.

    R. v. SAH Alsagoff 1946.

  113. 113.

    Werner case 1947, also available at: http://www.icrc.org/ihl-nat.nsf/WebALL!OpenView.

  114. 114.

    Reg. v. Smith (17, S.C. 561).

  115. 115.

    Werner case 1947.

  116. 116.

    See M. Scharf at http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html.

  117. 117.

    Gaeta 2001, p. 759; Kappler and others 1948; Hass and Priebke case 1998.

  118. 118.

    Trial Watch: http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/spotlight/erich_priebke_579.html.

  119. 119.

    ICRC: http://www.icrc.org/IHL-NAT.NSF/39a82e2ca42b52974125673e00508144/0370fc27370b3776c1256c8c0055e44d!OpenDocument.

  120. 120.

    Gaeta 2001, p. 759.

  121. 121.

    Gaeta 2001, pp. 759–760.

  122. 122.

    Gaeta 2001, p. 761; see also Gaeta 1999, p. 172.

  123. 123.

    Gaeta 2001, p. 759.

  124. 124.

    See also Zühlke Trial 1948, NJ 1949, No. 85, p. 134 and approvingly annotator Röling (at p. 138); McCoubrey 2001, pp. 386 + 389–390 + 393–394; Sliedregt 2003, p. 318; and Garraway 1999, p. 788. Again, this is a debatable position, see Sect. 4.3.3 supra.

  125. 125.

    U.S. v. Kinder 1954.

  126. 126.

    U.S. v. Kinder 1954, 14 CMR 769–770.

  127. 127.

    U.S. v. Kinder 1954, 14 CMR 770.

  128. 128.

    U.S. v. Kinder 1954, 14 CMR 771.

  129. 129.

    Osiel 1999, p. 68.

  130. 130.

    SeeChap. 4supra.

  131. 131.

    U.S. v. Kinder 1954, 14 CMR 773–774.

  132. 132.

    U.S. v. Kinder 1954, 14 C.M.R. 775, see Cassese 2008, pp. 300–301.

  133. 133.

    U.S. v. Kinder 1954, 14 CMR 770, pp. 773–775.

  134. 134.

    Sergeant 1966, also available at: http://www.icrc.org/IHL-NAT.NSF/WebALL?openview.

  135. 135.

    Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, vol. III, p. 3808, § 820.

  136. 136.

    Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, vol. III, p. 3808, § 820.

  137. 137.

    Sergeant W. 1966, see at: http://www.icrc.org/IHL-NAT.NSF/WebALL?openview.

  138. 138.

    BBC news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia–pacific/64344.stm.

  139. 139.

    BBC news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia–pacific/64344.stm.

  140. 140.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1165.

  141. 141.

    BBC news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia–pacific/64344.stm.

  142. 142.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1178.

  143. 143.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1174.

  144. 144.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1179, see also 1174.

  145. 145.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1179.

  146. 146.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1179–1180.

  147. 147.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1180.

  148. 148.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1180.

  149. 149.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1181–1182.

  150. 150.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1180.

  151. 151.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1180.

  152. 152.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1182–1183.

  153. 153.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1183.

  154. 154.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1183; Friedman, p. 1722.

  155. 155.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1183 and Friedman, p. 1723.

  156. 156.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973b, 46 C.M.R. 1184.

  157. 157.

    U.S. v. Calley 1973a, 48 C.M.R. 29.

  158. 158.

    Prosecutor v. Mucić et al. 2001, § 372.

  159. 159.

    Prosecutor v. Mucić et al. 2001, § 330.

  160. 160.

    Prosecutor v. Mucić et al. 2001, § 373.

  161. 161.

    Prosecutor v. Mucić et al. 2001, § 374.

  162. 162.

    Prosecutor v. Mucić et al. 2001, § 374.

  163. 163.

    Prosecutor v. Mucić et al. 2001, §§ 380–386.

  164. 164.

    See alsoChap. 3supra.

  165. 165.

    Prosecutor v. Kanu 2007.

  166. 166.

    Prosecutor v. Norman 2004a.

  167. 167.

    Prosecutor v. Kanu 2007, § 728.

  168. 168.

    Prosecutor v. Kanu 2007, § 728, footnote 1417.

  169. 169.

    Prosecutor v. Norman 2004b, § 6.

  170. 170.

    Prosecutor v. Norman 2004b, § 9.

  171. 171.

    Prosecutor v. Norman 2004b, § 10.

  172. 172.

    Prosecutor v. Norman 2004b, § 10.

  173. 173.

    Prosecutor v. Norman 2004b, § 12. See also the discussion of the GBG cases in Sect. 2.3.2.4.1 supra and the reference there to comments by Ferdinandusse in the same vein.

  174. 174.

    Prosecutor v. Kanu 2007, § 729.

  175. 175.

    Prosecutor v. Kanu 2007, § 730.

  176. 176.

    Prosecutor v. Kanu 2007, § 732. On how this principle was established in the WWII case law, see Vogeley 2003, pp. 84–86.

  177. 177.

    Prosecutor v. Kanu 2008, § 293.

  178. 178.

    Prosecutor v. Kanu 2008, § 296.

  179. 179.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga 2007, §§ 304–316.

  180. 180.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga 2007, § 296.

  181. 181.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga 2007, §316. The Court, thus, adopts the reading proposed by Eser, that as to legal elements the required knowledge is knowledge of the social meaning for the average person or soldier. Eser 2002, pp. 924–925. See also Olásolo 2008, pp. 243–244 and critical Weigend 2008, p. 476.

  182. 182.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga 2007, §§ 306–314 (The evidence the Court refers to is the ratification of the ICC statute (11 April 2002) before the relevant period; Geneva Conventions and two Additional Protocols (protected persons); 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; Appeals Chamber decision SCSL (31 May 2004); already before July 2002 awareness about the statute; testimony of Kristine Peduto that on 30 May 2003 she discussed this issue in relation to ratification of the statute with Lubanga).

  183. 183.

    Prosecutor v. Lubanga 2007, § 306.

  184. 184.

    See e.g. Zimmermann 1949; Lages case 1950; U.S. v. Kinder 1954; and Prosecutor v. Lubanga 2007.

  185. 185.

    See e.g. Von Leeb (The High Command Trial)1948; Helmuth Latza and 2 others 1948; and Arlt 1949.

  186. 186.

    See e.g. Wintgen 1949; and Falkenhorst trial 1946.

  187. 187.

    See e.g. Buck Trial 1946; Trial of Sandrock (Almelo Trial) 1945; B. case 1951; and E. van E. case 1951.

  188. 188.

    See e.g. Llandovery Castle case 1921; Peleus Trial 1945; Trial of Sawada 1946; List (The Hostages Case) 1948; R. v. SAH Alsagoff 1946; Zühlke Trial 1948; Kappler and others 1948; and Hass and Priebke case 1998.

  189. 189.

    Röling 1961, p. 372.

  190. 190.

    Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) 1948, UNWCC vol. XII, p. 98.

  191. 191.

    Röling 1961, p. 373.

  192. 192.

    Zühlke Trial 1948, NJ 1949, No. 85, p. 134; see also Röling 1961, p. 373. For an interesting perspective on the actual scope/meaning of the Charter and CCL No. 10 provisions see McCoubrey 2001, p. 386 + 389–390 + 393–394 (holding that the “ought to have known” test also underlied these WWII provisions and the Rome Statute did, thus, not radically change the rule governing superior orders as some argue).

  193. 193.

    See also Osiel 1999, p. 42.

  194. 194.

    See e.g. Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) 1948; Peleus Trial 1945; and U.S. v. Kinder 1954.

  195. 195.

    See e.g. Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) 1948.

  196. 196.

    See e.g. Llandovery Castle case 1921; Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) 1948; U.S. v. Kinder 1954; and Buck Trial 1946.

  197. 197.

    See Dinstein 1965, p. 200.

  198. 198.

    I find it remarkable that in most cases concerning superior orders the requirement was that the defendant acted under mistake of law, while this did not imply that the particular case actually concerned a situation of superior orders—mistake of law. The requirement of mistake of law also seem to apply in case of superior orders—duress. This is remarkable, because the two defences, mistake of law and duress, although they arguably are based on the same rationale, namely that no moral choice was possible, are separate defences. Mistake of law is not a requirement of the defence of duress.

  199. 199.

    See also Lippman 1996, p. 55.

References

  • Ambos K (2004) Der Allgemeine Teil des Völkerstrafrechts. Ansätze einer Dogmatisierung, 2nd edn. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bantekas I, Nash S (2007) International criminal law, 3rd edn. Routledge-Cavendish, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Best G (1994) War & Law since 1945. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2003) International criminal law. Oxford University Press Inc, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (ed) (2009) The Oxford companion to international criminal justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (1965) The defence of ‘obedience to superior orders’ in international law. A.W. Sijthoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Eser A (2002) Mental elements—mistake of fact and mistake of law. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary, vol I. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 889–948

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta P (1999) The defence of superior orders: the statute of the International Criminal Court versus customary international law. Eur J Int Law 10:172–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta P (2001) War crimes trials before Italian criminal courts: new trends. In: Fischer H (ed) International and national prosecutions of crimes under international law, current developments. Spitz, Berlin, pp 751–768

    Google Scholar 

  • Garraway CHB (1999) Superior orders and the International Criminal Court: justice delivered or justice denied. Int Rev Red Cross 81(836):785–794

    Google Scholar 

  • Green LC (2003) Fifteenth Waldemar A. Solf Lecture in international law, superior orders and command responsibility. Mil Law Rev 175:309–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts JM, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary international humanitarian law, vol 3. International Committee of the Red Cross, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kalshoven F (2005) Belligerent reprisals, vol 11. International humanitarian law series, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalshoven F, Zegveld L (2001) Constraints on the waging of war: an introduction to international humanitarian law, 3rd edn. International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippman MR (1996) Conundrums of armed conflict: criminal defenses to violations of the humanitarian law of war. Dickinson J Int Law 15:1–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippman MR (2001) Humanitarian law: the development and scope of the superior orders defense. Penn State Int Law Rev 20:153–251

    Google Scholar 

  • McCoubrey H (2001) From Nuremberg to Rome: restoring the defence of superior orders. Int Comp Law Q 50:386–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nill-Theobald C (1998) “Defences” bei Kriegsverbrechen am Beispiel Deutschlands und der USA: zugleich ein Beitrag zu einem Allgemeinen Teil des Völkerstrafrechts, vol Band S 72. Beiträge und Materialien aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Freiburg i.Br., iuscrim edn. Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Freiburg im Breisgau

    Google Scholar 

  • Olásolo H (2008) Unlawful attacks in Combat situations; from the ICTY’s case law to the Rome Statute. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Osiel MJ (1999) Obeying orders. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling BVA (1961) The law of war and the national jurisdiction since 1945. A. W. Sythoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sluiter GK (2009a) Arlt. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford companion to international criminal justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 585–586

    Google Scholar 

  • Sluiter GK (2009b) Zimmermann. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford companion to international criminal justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 981–982

    Google Scholar 

  • Solis GD (1999) Obedience of orders and the law of war: judicial application in American forums. Am Univ Int Law Rev 15:481–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Swart AHJ (2002) Algemene leerstukken van materieel strafrecht in de rechtspraak van de ad hoc-tribunalen. In: Joegoslavië- en Rwanda-tribunalen: impact op het Nederlandse strafrecht. Cahiers ‘Van Hamel’. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogeley S (2003) The mistake of law defense in international criminal law. In: Yee S (ed) International crime and punishment. University Press of America, Inc, Oxford, pp 59–99

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilt HG van der (2009b) Zühlke. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford companion to international criminal justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 982

    Google Scholar 

Supreme Court of Leipzig

  • Dover Castle case (1921), German Reichsgericht, Supreme Court of Leipzig, 16 Am. J. Int’l L. 704 (1922)

    Google Scholar 

  • Llandovery Castle case (1921), German Reichsgericht, Supreme Court of Leipzig, 16 Am. J. Int’l L. 708 (1922)

    Google Scholar 

US Military Tribunals at Nuremberg

  • I.G. Farben Trial (1948), US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Judgement, 14 August 1947–29 July 1948

    Google Scholar 

  • US Military Tribunals at Nuremberg, Case No. 6, Military Tribunal VI, N.M.T., vols. 7–8

    Google Scholar 

  • List (The Hostages Case) (1948), US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, UNWCC, vol. VIII; TWC vol. XI

    Google Scholar 

  • US v. Otto Ohlendorf et al. (Einsatzgruppen case) (1948), United States Military Tribunals at Nuremberg, Case No. 9, TWC, vol. IV, pp. 1–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) (1948), US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Friedman, The Law of War, vol. II, pp. 1421–1470; UNWCC, vol XII, pp. 1–127

    Google Scholar 

  • The UNWCC Trials - Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, selected and prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission (1949). vol. XV, Digest of Laws and Cases. London: His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1949

    Google Scholar 

  • Dostler trial (1945), United States Military Commission, Rome, UNWCC, vol. I, pp. 28–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Peleus Trial (1945), British Military Court, Hamburg, UNWCC, vol. I, pp. 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Trial of Sandrock (Almelo Trial) (1945), British Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals, held at the Court House, Almelo, Holland, UNWCC, vol. I, pp. 35–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck Trial (1946), British Military Court, Wuppertal, Germany, UNWCC, vol. V, pp. 39–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkenhorst trial (1946), British Military Court, Brunswick, Norway, UNWCC, vol. XI, pp. 18–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Trial of Sawada (1946), United States Military Commission, Shanghai, UNWCC, vol. V, pp. 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmuth Latza and 2 others (1948), Eidsivating Lagmannsrett (Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court of Norway, UNWCC, vol. XIV, pp. 49–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Zühlke Trial (1948), Special Court in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, NJ 1949, No. 85; UNWCC, vol. XIV; Friedman, The Law of War (1972), vol. II, pp. 1543–1554

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauter (1949), Special Court of Cassation, The Netherlands, NJ 1949, No. 87, at 144–61; UNWCC, vol. XIV; Annual Digest 1949, 526–45

    Google Scholar 

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

  • Prosecutor v. Mucić et al. (2001), ICTY Appeals Chamber, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 February 2001

    Google Scholar 

Special Court for Sierra Leone

  • Prosecutor v. Norman (2004a), SCSL Appeals Chamber, Case No SCSL-2004-14-AR72(E), Decision on Preliminary Motion Based on Lack of Jurisdiction (Child Recruitment), 31 May 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Norman (2004b), SCSL Appeals Chamber, Case No SCSL-2004-14-AR72(E), Decision on Preliminary Motion Based on Lack of Jurisdiction (Child Recruitment), 31 May 2004, Dissenting Opinion of Justice Robertson

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Kanu (2007), SCSL Trial Chamber, Case No. SCSL-04-16-T, Judgement, 20 June 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Kanu (2008), SCSL Appeals Chamber, Case No. SCSL-2004-16-A, Judgement, 22 February 2008

    Google Scholar 

International Criminal Court

  • Prosecutor v. Lubanga (2007), ICC Pre-Trial Chamber, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 29 January 2007

    Google Scholar 

National Case Law

United States

  • U.S. v. Kinder (1954), 14 C.M.R. 742 (1954)

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. Calley (1973a), U.S. Court of Military Appeals, 1973 WL 14894 (CMA), 48 C.M.R. 19

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. Calley (1973b), U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1973 WL 14570, 46 C.M.R. 1131; Friedman, The Law of War (1972), vol. II, pp. 1703–1728

    Google Scholar 

The Netherlands

  • Arlt (1949), Special Court of Cassation at Arnhem, The Netherlands, NJ 1950, no. 8, pp. 27–29; Summary in Annual Digest 1949, 462–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Wintgen (1949), Special Court of Cassation, The Netherlands, NJ 1949, 540, 981-5; Excerpts in Annual Digest 1949, 484–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann (1949), Special Court of Cassation, The Netherlands, NJ 1950, No. 9, 30-2; Annual Digest 1949, 552–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Lages case (1950), Special Court of Cassation, The Netherlands, NJ, 1950, No. 680, pp. 1201–1209

    Google Scholar 

  • B. case (1951), Special Court of Cassation, The Netherlands, NJ 1952, No. 247, pp. 516–526

    Google Scholar 

  • E. van E. case (1951), Special Court of Cassation, The Netherlands NJ 1952, No. 246, pp. 514–16

    Google Scholar 

Other Countries

  • R. v. SAH Alsagoff (1946), Court of Assizes, Singapore, 2 MC 191

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner case (1947), Appeal Division, South Africa, 20 May 1947, 1947 (2) South African Law Reports 828(A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kappler and others (1948), Rome Military Tribunal, Italy (Tribunale militare territoriale), Fore penale, 1948 603–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Sergeant W. (1966), Brussels War Council, Belgium; Military Court, Revue juridique du Congo, 1970, 236 8; Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie, 1970, 806–10; 46 Revue juridique du Congo, 1970, 238–9; Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie, 1972–3, 807–9, 810–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Hass and Priebke case (1998), Military tribunal of Rome; Military Appeals Court; Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy, L’Indice penale, 1998, 959–1000

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Criminal Law Department, University of Amsterdam, Oudemanhuispoort 4-6, 1012 DL, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Annemieke van Verseveld

Authors
  1. Annemieke van Verseveld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annemieke van Verseveld .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Verseveld, A. (2012). Applying the Theory of Mistake of Law: An Analysis of (Inter)national Case Law. In: Mistake of Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-867-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation