Skip to main content

The Juridical Consequences of Core Crimes: Individual Criminal Liability and State Aggravated Responsibility

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Global Prosecution of Core Crimes under International Law
  • 632 Accesses

Abstract

Core crimes, unlike other species of crimes, elicit State aggravated responsibility, which explains both why the State is failing to live up to its duties and justifies the external intervention of the international community. State aggravated responsibility is a consequential characteristic of the commission of core crimes especially when the State is involved as an active perpetrator. These consequences are so unique and conspicuous that they may safely be said to constitute characteristics in their own right, particularly since they (cumulatively) do not belong to other categories/species of crime (such as domestic crimes, transnational organized crimes and international crimes). When cumulatively considered, these consequential characteristics belong solely and exclusively to core crimes. To this extent, although they cannot be directly equated to State aggravated responsibility, these consequential characteristics constitute evidence of aggravated State responsibility. Inversely, the subsistence of State aggravated responsibility serves to corroborate the contention that the State is somehow involved, directly or indirectly, in the perpetration of core crimes. Individual criminal liability on one hand and aggravated State responsibility on the other hand, although distinct, can concur. The idea that the State is somehow involved, directly or indirectly, in the perpetration of core crimes has a parallel in State responsibility. Not only will the State be held responsible for not preventing the core crime and, once perpetrated, for not prosecuting and punishing it, but it will be faced with a continuing obligation to ensure that an individual suspected of having committed a core crime be submitted to prosecution.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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.

    Nollkaemper 2016.

  2. 2.

    Oto Spijkers, lecturer of public international law at Universiteit Utrecht and senior researcher associate at the Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, analysing Hoge Raad [Supreme Court], The Netherlands, Nuhanović v the Netherlands , 6 September 2013, Case No. 12/03324, during a series of guest lectures held at the University of Malta on 5–9 February 2018, which were entitled ‘Responsibility of the UN and troop-contributing State for acts of peacekeeping operations: The case of Srebrenica ’.

  3. 3.

    Meloni 2010, p. 8.

  4. 4.

    Bianchi 2009, p. 24.

  5. 5.

    ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (BiH v Serbia and Montenegro) , 26 February 2007, ICJ Rep. 2007, p. 43, para 173.

  6. 6.

    ICTY Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v Miroslav Kvočka et al., Decision on the Defence Motion Regarding Concurrent Procedures Before International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and International Court of Justice on the Same Questions, 5 December 2000, Case No. IT-98-30/1, subsequently confirmed by the ICTY Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v Miroslav Kvočka et al., Decision on Interlocutory Appeal by the Accused Zoran Žigić Against the Decision of the Trial Chamber I dated 5 December 2000, 25 May 2001, Case No. IT-98-30/1, para 17.

  7. 7.

    Pellet 1999, p. 432.

  8. 8.

    Marchuk 2014, p. 90.

  9. 9.

    Kaczorowska-Ireland 2015, p. 460.

  10. 10.

    Simpson 2009, p. 71.

  11. 11.

    ICTY Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v Anto Furundžija , 10 December 1998, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, para 142.

  12. 12.

    van Alebeek 2008, p. 146.

  13. 13.

    Wyler and Castellanos-Jankiewicz 2011, p. 400.

  14. 14.

    Having been considered as excessive by some, it ‘contributes directly to limiting attribution of responsibility for genocide’ (Aquilina and Mulaj 2017).

  15. 15.

    One must recall that States are often responsible for many kinds of wrongs (delictual acts ) which certainly do not constitute core crimes.

  16. 16.

    Nollkaemper 2003, p. 636.

  17. 17.

    Nollkaemper 2003, p. 638.

  18. 18.

    ICJ, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (USA v Iran) (Iranian Hostage Case), 24 May 1980, ICJ Reports [1980]. ICJ Reps. 3, cited by Nollkaemper 2003, p. 638, fn. 111.

  19. 19.

    Nollkaemper 2003, p. 639.

  20. 20.

    Pellet 1999, pp. 433–434.

  21. 21.

    Boas 2010, p. 506.

  22. 22.

    Crawford and Olleson 2005, p. 909; see also Spinedi 2002, p. 895.

References

  • Aquilina K, Mulaj K (2017) Limitations in Attributing State Responsibility under the Genocide Convention. JHR, Taylor & Francis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14754835.2017.1300521?journalCode=cjhr20. Accessed 12 January 2017

  • Bianchi A (2009) State Responsibility and Criminal Liability of Individuals. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice, OUP, Oxford, pp. 16–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Boas G (2010) The Difficulty with Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Criminal Law In: Stahn C, van den Herik L (eds) Future Perspectives on International Criminal Justice. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 501–519

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J, Olleson S (2005) State Responsibility. In: Shelton DL (ed) Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, Thomson Gale, Detroit/Munich, pp. 904–910

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneva Convention (1949a) Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneva Convention (1949b) Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneva Convention (1949c) Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneva Convention (1949d) Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

    Google Scholar 

  • Genocide Convention (1948) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

    Google Scholar 

  • ILC’s Articles on State Responsibility (2001) Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN Doc. A/56/10

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaczorowska-Ireland A (2015) Public International Law, 5th edn. Routledge, T & F, London & NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchuk I (2014) The Fundamental Concept of Crime in International Law: A Comparative Law Analysis. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Meloni C (2010) Command Responsibility in International Criminal Law. Asser Press, The Hague

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nollkaemper A (2003) Concurrence Between Individual Responsibility and State Responsibility in International Law. ICLQ 52(3):615–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nollkaemper A (2016) UN Audiovisual Library of International Law Lecture Series, André Nollkaemper on Shared Responsibility in International Law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vj64HnBIz0. Accessed 11 April 2018

  • Pellet A (1999) Can a State Commit a Crime? Definitely, Yes! EJIL 10(2):425–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson G (2009) Men and Abstract Entities: Individual Responsibility and Collective Guilt in International Criminal Law. In: Nollkaemper A, van der Wilt H (eds) System Criminality in International Law. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 69–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Spijkers O (2018) Responsibility of the UN and troop-contributing State for acts of peacekeeping operations: The case of Srebrenica. Guest lectures held at the Faculty of Laws, University of Malta between 5–9 February 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinedi M (2002) State Responsibility v Individual Responsibility for International Crimes: Tertium non Datur? EJIL 13(4):895–899

    Google Scholar 

  • van Alebeek R (2008) The Immunity of States and Their Officials in International Criminal Law and International Human Rights Law. Oxford Monographs in International Law, OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyler E, Castellanos-Jankiewicz A (2011) State Responsibility and International Crimes. In: Schabas WA, Bernaz N (eds) Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law, T & F, London & NY, pp. 385–405

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Soler .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Soler, C. (2019). The Juridical Consequences of Core Crimes: Individual Criminal Liability and State Aggravated Responsibility. In: The Global Prosecution of Core Crimes under International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-335-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-335-1_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-334-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-335-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics