Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Nature and Difficulties of the Concept of ‘Contextual’ Elements

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The 'Contextual Elements' of the Crime of Genocide

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 17))

  • 611 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the nature, inherent characteristics, and difficulties of the concept of ‘contextual elements’ in the crime of genocide. It reverts to the origin of the concept of context and its elements and uses in relation to international crimes in general, through exploration of the concept itself and its different roles. In light of a lack of any reference to an objective circumstantial threshold for the crime of genocide, the chapter groups the suggested contextual elements of genocide into three identifiable elements—genocidal pattern, scale and magnitude, and plan or policy—that are deemed to be inclusive of all the other elements. It soon becomes clear that there is little indication or unified meaning in academic writing and judicial reasoning as to what exactly contextual elements of genocide are, leading to a divergence of views and meanings, leaving the constituent boundaries of the concept of context difficult to define with any degree of certainty required in criminal law. The chapter concludes by presenting the raison d’être and the position of contextual elements among the core international crimes in general. It is found that there is an uncritical acceptance of the idea that contextual elements are what makes those crimes international, ignoring the fact that the interstate consent is what justifies the imposition of international jurisdiction. For certain crimes, States consented to extend jurisdiction based on the context of their occurrence as opposed to genocide where the specific intent is used instead, but such justification has now gained credibility in respect of genocide as a jurisdictional element within the new Rome Statute’s regime.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Statutes of the Ad Hoc Tribunals; The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, UN Doc A/CONF183/9. Some national codes departed from the Convention’s definition of genocide, such as the French Penal Code and the Turkish Penal Code. The Rome Statute’s inclusion of the Elements of Crimes as an annex is discussed in detail in Chap. 4.

  2. 2.

    In cognitive science, see Bazire and Brézillon 2005. In law, see Minow and Spellman 1989–1990. In psychology, see Clancey 1994.

  3. 3.

    Bazire and Brézillon 2005, p. 29.

  4. 4.

    OED Online 2015a, http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/11125. Accessed 3 February 2016.

  5. 5.

    Ibid.

  6. 6.

    Ibid.

  7. 7.

    Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 35, n. 198.

  8. 8.

    The ICTY called the component of the context of crimes against humanity ‘elements’, and subdivided it into five elements. See Prosecutor v Kunarac, Appeals Judgment, 12 June 2002, IT-96-23 and IT-96-23/1-A, para 85 (and references given therein); Prosecutor v Kunarac, Trial Judgment, 22 February 2001, IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, para 410. 18 U.S.C. § 1091 described the attendant circumstance of the crime as an objective element of the crime.

  9. 9.

    Prosecutor v Akayesu, Trial Chamber, 2 September 1998, ICTR-96-4-T, paras 78–111, looked at the background and the historical event in Rwanda; in Prosecutor v Kayeshema and Ruzindana, Judgment, 21 May 1999, ICTR-95-1-T, para 274, the court considered the event and whether genocide occurred in Rwanda at all (paras 31–54), and a similar method was used by the ICTY in Prosecutor v Krstić, Trial Judgment, 2 August 2001, IT-98-33-T. Also, Kelt and Von Hebel 2001, pp. 13, 15, 28; Oosterveld 2001, p. 45.

  10. 10.

    Akayesu, Trial Chamber, paras 578, 581, 595; Prosecutor v Semanza, Trial Chamber, 15 May 2003, ICTR-97-20, paras 326, 329; Kayeshema and Ruzindana, Trial Chamber, paras 122–124.

  11. 11.

    Akayesu, Trial Judgment, para 580; Prosecutor v Rutaganda, Trial Chamber, 6 December 1999, ICTR-96-3, para 69; Prosecutor v Musema, Trial Chamber, 27 January 2000, ICTR-96-13-A, para 204; Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Trial Chamber, 21 February 2003, ICTR-96-10 and ICTR-96-17-T, para 804.

  12. 12.

    Akayesu, Trial Chamber, para 580; Kayeshema and Ruzindana, Trial Chamber, paras 124, 58; and Semanza, Trial Chamber, para 329.

  13. 13.

    Prosecutor v Kayeshema and Ruzindana, Judgment ICTR 95-1-T, 21 May 1999, paras 273–291.

  14. 14.

    Prosecutor v Karemera and others, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Interlocutory Appeals of the Decision on Judicial Notice 36, 16 June 2006, ICTR-98-44-AR73(C).

  15. 15.

    Minow and Spellman 1989–1990, pp. 1602–1603.

  16. 16.

    Prosecutor v Akayesu, Trial, paras 638–644; Prosecutor v Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeals on Jurisdiction, Appeals Chamber, 2 October 1995, IT-94-1, para 70; and Prosecutor v Norman and others, Decision on Appeals against the Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion for Judicial Notice and Admission of Evidence, 2005, SCSL-2004-14-AR73, ICL 401.

  17. 17.

    Prosecutor v Tadić, Opinion and Judgment, 7 May 1997, IT-94-1-T, paras 618, 626; Prosecutor v Kupreškić, Trial Judgment, 14 January 2000, IT-95-16-T, para 543; Prosecutor v Blaskić, Trial Judgment, 3 March 2000, IT-95-14-T, paras 201–214; Prosecutor v Kordic and Cerkez, Judgment, 26 February 2001, IT-95-14/2-T, paras 172–187; Prosecutor v Jelisić, Trial Judgment, 14 December 1999, IT-95-10-T, paras 50–57; Kunarac, Trial Judgment, para 410; Krstić, Trial Judgment, para 482; Prosecutor v Kvocka and others, Judgment, 2 November 2001, IT-98-30/1-T, para 127; Prosecutor v Krnojelac, Trial Judgment, 15 March 2002, IT-97-25-T, para 53; Prosecutor v Tadić, Appeals Judgment, 15 July 1999, IT-94-1-A, paras 247–272; Kunarac, Appeals Judgment, paras 82–105. In the jurisprudence of the ICTR, see e.g. Akayesu, Trial Judgment, paras 563–584; Musema, Trial Judgment, paras 199–211; Rutaganda, Trial Judgment, paras 34–35; Kayeshema and Ruzindana, Trial Judgment, paras 119–134; Prosecutor v Akayesu, Appeals Chamber, 1 June 2001, ICTR-96-4-A, paras 460–469; Semanza, Trial Judgment, para 326.

  18. 18.

    Prosecutor v Tadić, Trial, para 646, and Appeals, para 248.

  19. 19.

    Sluiter 2011, p. 121.

  20. 20.

    Prosecutor v Kayeshema and Ruzindana, Judgment, para 93; Prosecutor v Jelisić, Judgment, para 47; Prosecutor v Kvocka and others, Judgment, para 324. Also note that in inchoate crimes, superior responsibility or indirect forms of participation are usually inferred from general circumstances: Prosecutor v Delalic and others, Trial Judgment, 16 November 1998, IT-96-21-T, para 386; and Kordic and Cerkez, Judgment, para 427.

  21. 21.

    Wheaton 1934–1935; May and Wierda 2002, p. 41.

  22. 22.

    Zuckerman 1989, p. 22; see also ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 89(c) which is identical to ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which allows the admission of any evidence that has probative value.

  23. 23.

    Zuckerman 1989.

  24. 24.

    Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 310.

  25. 25.

    Prosecutor v Naletilić and Martinović, Judgment, 3 May 2006, IT-98-34-A, paras 116, 118; Prosecutor v Mrksić and Sljivananin, Judgment, 5 May 2009, IT-95-13/1-A, paras 25, 26, 28, 30, 37, 43.

  26. 26.

    Klamberg 2012, p. 95.

  27. 27.

    OED Online 2015b.

  28. 28.

    Zuckerman 1989, p. 23; Zuckerman 1986; Wheaton 1934–1935, p. 194.

  29. 29.

    Hohfeld 1913, pp. 32–33.

  30. 30.

    Prosecutor v Akayesu, Trial Chamber, ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998, para 523; Prosecutor v Jelisić, Trial Judgment, IT-95-10-T, 14 December 1999, para 73; Prosecutor v Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, Review of the Indictments Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 11 July 1996, IT-95-5-R61 and IT-95-18-R61, para 94.

  31. 31.

    Prosecutor v Akayesu, Trial Chamber, ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998, para 523; Prosecutor v Jelisić, Trial Judgment, IT-95-10-T, 14 December 1999, para 73; Prosecutor v Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, para 94. Note that the court in Akayesu did not refer to those acts as context but other factors.

  32. 32.

    Prosecutor v Karemera et al. ICTR 98-44-AR73(C) (Decision on the Prosecutor’s Interlocutory Appeals of Decision on Judicial Notice, 35) 16 June 2006.

  33. 33.

    Prosecutor v Akayesu, Trial Chamber, ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998, para 523; Prosecutor v Jelisić, Trial Judgment, IT-95-10-T, 14 December 1999, para 73; Prosecutor v Ratko Mladic, para 94.

  34. 34.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Croatia v Serbia, Judgment, 2015, ICJ Report, para 413.

  35. 35.

    Tadić, ICTR-94-1-AR72, Trial Chamber, Decision 2 October 1995 Jurisdiction Decision, para 70.

  36. 36.

    Prosecutor v Blaskić, Judgment, para 203, and Appeals Judgment, paras 94–99.

  37. 37.

    Blaskić, Trial Judgment, para 207; Altman 2012, p. 285.

  38. 38.

    Blaskić, Trial Judgment, para 207.

  39. 39.

    Oosterveld 2001.

  40. 40.

    Prosecutor v Kayeshema Ruzindana, Judgment, ICTR 95-1-T, 21 May 1999, para 123; Akayesu, Trial Chamber ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998, paras 579–580; Musema, Trial Chamber, ICTR-96-13-T, 27 January 2000, paras 202–204.

  41. 41.

    Prosecutor v Tadić, Opinion and Judgment, 235, para 625.

  42. 42.

    Prosecutor v Akayesu, Trial, paras 638–644.

  43. 43.

    Cassese 2012, p. 1399.

  44. 44.

    Kunarac, Trial Judgment, para 568; Tadić, Jurisdiction Decision, para 70; Blaskić, Trial Judgment, paras 63–65; Prosecutor v Delalic and others, Celebici, Trial Chamber, Decision on the Motion of the Prosecution for Admissibility of Evidence, 19 January 1998, IT-96-21, paras 182–185, 193–195.

  45. 45.

    Tadić, Appeals Judgment, para 205.

  46. 46.

    Kayeshema, Trial Judgment, para 188.

  47. 47.

    Krstić, Trial Judgment and Appeals Judgment; Prosecutor v Popović, Trial Judgment, 10 June 2010, IT-05-88-T.

  48. 48.

    Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, 25 May 1993, SC Res. 827, Article 4, UN Doc. S/RES/827; Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, 8 November 1994, Annex to SC Res. 955, UN Doc S/RES/955; and the Rome Statute.

  49. 49.

    Prosecutor v Kambanda, Judgment, 4 September 1998, ICTR-97-23, para 16; Kayeshema, Trial Judgment, para 89.

  50. 50.

    See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.2; also note that the cases of Jelisić and Akayesu made it very clear that genocidal intent is required on an individual level and that this has nothing to do with the collective action.

  51. 51.

    Jelisić, Trial Judgment, para 400.

  52. 52.

    Chapter 3 deals with this aspect.

  53. 53.

    ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 6.

  54. 54.

    Article 9(3), however, stipulates that the ‘Elements of Crimes … shall be consistent with this Statute’, thus reinforcing the implicit primacy of the latter in the event of inconsistency. Also see Chap. 4 for further discussion.

  55. 55.

    The court in the judgment of Croatia v Serbia considered all events before, after and during the alleged crime to establish patterns of conduct: Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v Serbia), General List No. 118, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 18 November 2008, para 511. http://www.refworld.org/docid/4937d5e62.html. Accessed 22 May 2016.

  56. 56.

    Kayeshema, Trial, paras 541–544, and Appeals, para 163.

  57. 57.

    Croatia v Serbia, para 145.

  58. 58.

    In Kayeshema, the Appeals Chamber stated that there was no need to define ‘pattern’ if the court used it as evidence from which intent could be inferred (para 163). However, the court was making such a statement not to clarify what pattern was, but in response to the claim of the accused that failure to define it was a reason for his acquittal, so it is reasonable to assume that the court can define it, but its failure to do so must not be a reason to disregard the definition of pattern even if it has evidentiary value only.

  59. 59.

    According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘pattern’ means ‘a regular and intelligible form or sequence discernible in the way in which something happens or is done’ OED Online 2015a.

  60. 60.

    Fournet 2007.

  61. 61.

    For Rwanda, the first case that qualified the Rwandan event as genocide was Akayesu, Trial Judgment, para 129, and in the same court it was judicially noted that genocide had taken place in Rwanda in 1994; Prosecutor v Karemera and others. In the case of the former Yugoslavia, the ICTY acknowledged genocide to have taken place in Srebrenica in the case of Krstić, Trial Judgment, para 599.

  62. 62.

    For instance, in the case of Rwanda, there were clear statements and utterances showing the intention to destroy a group and the collective participation in so doing, but in the case of Yugoslavia, genocide was found to have been committed in only one territory of Srebrenica. Similarly, historical genocides such as the Holocaust were planned and executed by the machinery of state, as opposed to Armenians.

  63. 63.

    Note that during the drafting of the Genocide Convention, France suggested a broad formulation of the genocide definition to include the murder of a single person: see United Nations General Assembly (1948) Official Record of the General Assembly, Third Session, Sixth Committee, 73rd Meeting, pp. 91–92. See also the 2002 German Code of Crimes against International Law, s 6.

  64. 64.

    Genocide can be committed by a single act—for instance, using a chemical weapon. Such a possibility is acknowledged by the ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 6, the last common element.

  65. 65.

    Lemkin 1944, p. 79.

  66. 66.

    United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96(I), 11 December 1946.

  67. 67.

    Prosecutor v Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, para 92. See also Schabas 2000, pp. 158, 234.

  68. 68.

    Schabas 2001a, p. 40.

  69. 69.

    Schabas 2000, p. 158.

  70. 70.

    Prosecutor v Jelisić, Appeals Judgment, 5 July 2001, IT-95-10-A, para 100.

  71. 71.

    Prosecutor v Semenza, Trial Judgment, para 316.

  72. 72.

    Prosecutor v Krstić, Trial Judgment, para 584; Schabas 2000, p. 158.

  73. 73.

    Cassese 2009. Also see ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 6(a).

  74. 74.

    Jelisić, Trial Judgment, para 400.

  75. 75.

    Lemkin 1944, pp. 79–95; also see Schabas 2001b, 2008; Vest 2007; Kress 2007.

  76. 76.

    Krstić, Trial Judgment, para 549; Jelisić, Appeals Judgment, para 48; Kayeshema, Trial Judgment, para 94; Jelisić, Trial Judgment, para 101.

  77. 77.

    Prosecutor v Tolimir, Appeals Judgment, 8 April 2015, IT-05-88/2-A, paras 246–247.

  78. 78.

    Jones 2003, p. 468. On the relevance of motive, see Behrens 2012.

  79. 79.

    Prosecutor v Tolimir, Trial Judgment, 12 December 2012, IT-05-88/2-T, para 772.

  80. 80.

    Kirsch 2009.

  81. 81.

    Bassiouni 1983.

  82. 82.

    Not all countries have signed up to the formation of the court. Most notably absent are the United States, China and India.

  83. 83.

    Cassese et al. 2011, pp. 16–17.

  84. 84.

    US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Wilhelm List and others, 19 February 1948 (1953), 15 Ann Dig 632, 635.

  85. 85.

    Bassiouni 1985.

  86. 86.

    Bassiouni 1992, pp. 263–87.

  87. 87.

    Friedlander 1983.

  88. 88.

    Cassese et al. 2011, p. 16.

  89. 89.

    Yarnold 1994, p. 85. For the general trend towards the criminalization of international law, see Meron 1998.

  90. 90.

    Gaeta 2009, p. 63.

  91. 91.

    Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38.

  92. 92.

    IMT, Article 6(c); Tokyo Charter, Article 5(c); Allied Control Council No 10; ICTY Statute, Article 5; ICTR Statute, Article 3; Genocide Convention 1948; the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitation to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity 1968; Apartheid Convention 1973; Inter American Convention on Enforced Disappearance 1994.

  93. 93.

    Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya, ICC-01/09, 31 March 2010, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Hans-Peter Kau, paras 63, 64.

  94. 94.

    Schabas 2012, p. 108.

  95. 95.

    Second Day, Wednesday, 11/21/1945, Part 04, in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal. Volume II. Proceedings: 11/14/1945–11/30/1945. [Official text in the English language.] Nuremberg: IMT, 1947, pp. 98–102.

  96. 96.

    Prosecutor v Tadić, Appeal Decision, paras 140–142.

  97. 97.

    Thiam 1984, p. 90. See also the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1968. Article 1(b) of that treaty speaks of ‘crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg’.

  98. 98.

    Hwang 1998, p. 489; Van Schaack 1999.

  99. 99.

    Von Hebel and Robinson 1999, p. 186.

  100. 100.

    United States v Otto Ohlendorf, IV Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10 411 (1950), 427.

  101. 101.

    Elements of Crimes of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

  102. 102.

    See Sect. 2.2 above.

  103. 103.

    The crime of aggression will be added to this list following the court exercising jurisdiction over it as per the Kampala conditions.

References

  • Altman A (2012) Genocide and Crimes against Humanity: Dispelling the Conceptual Fog. Social Philosophy and Policy 29(1):280–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni C (1983) The Penal Characteristics of Conventional International Criminal Law. Case W Res J Intl Law 15(1):28

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC (1985) International Crimes: Digest/Index of International Instruments 1815–1985, 2 vols. Oceana, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC (1992) Crimes against Humanity in International Criminal Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazire M, Brézillon P (2005) Understanding Context before Using It. In: Dey A, Kokinov B, Leake D, Turner R (eds) Modeling and Using Context. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrens P (2012) Genocide and the Question of Motive. JICJ 10(3):501–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2009) Is Genocidal Policy a Requirement for the Crime of Genocide? In: Gaeta P (ed) The UN Genocide Convention. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2012) The Nexus Requirement for War Crimes. JICJ 10(5):1395–1417

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A, Acquaviva G, Fan M, Whiting A (2011) International Criminal Law: Cases and Commentary. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Clancey WJ (1994) Situated Cognition: How Representations are Created and Given Meaning. In: Lewis R, Mendelsohn P (eds) Lessons from Learning. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournet C (ed) (2007) The Crime of Destruction and the Law of Genocide: Their Impact on Collective Memory, International and Comparative Criminal Justice. Ashgate

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedlander R (1983) The Foundation of International Criminal Law. Case W Res J Intl L 15:13–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta P (2009) International Criminalization of Prohibited Conduct. In: The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohfeld WN (1913) Fundamental Legal Concepts as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. YLJ 23(1):16–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang P (1998) Defining Crimes against Humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. FILJ 22(2):457–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones JRWD (2003) ‘Whose Intent is it Anyway?’ Genocide and the Intent to Destroy a Group. In: Vohrah LC et al. (eds) Man’s Inhumanity to Man: Essays on International Law in Honour of Antonio Cassese. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelt M, Von Hebel H (2001) General Principles of Criminal Law and the Elements of Crimes. In: Lee RS, Friman H (eds) The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Transnational Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch S (2009) Two Notions of Genocide: Distinguishing Macro Phenomena and Individual Misconduct. Creighton L Rev 42:347–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Klamberg M (2012) Evidence in International Criminal Procedure: Confronting Legal Gaps and Reconstruction of Dispute Events. Ph.D. thesis in Public International Law, Stockholm University, Sweden (copy on file with the author)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress C (2007) The International Court of Justice and the Elements of the Crime of Genocide. EJIL 18(4):619–629

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemkin R (1944) Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Laws of Occupations, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

    Google Scholar 

  • May R, Wierda M (2002) International Criminal Evidence. International and Comparative Criminal Law Series. Transnational Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (1998) Is International Law Moving Towards Criminalization? European Journal of International Law 9(1):18–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Minow M, Spellman EV (1989–1990) In Context. S Cal L Rev 63:1597

    Google Scholar 

  • OED Online (Oxford English Dictionary Online) (2015a) Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/11125. Accessed 3 February 2016

  • OED Online (Oxford English Dictionary Online) (2015b) Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/evidence. Accessed 12 June 2016

  • Oosterveld V (2001) The Elements of Genocide. In: Lee RS, Friman H (eds) The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Transnational Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (2000) Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (2001a) Was Genocide Committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina: First Judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. FILJ 25(1):23

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (2001b) The Jelisić Case and the Mens Rea of the Crime of Genocide. LJIL 14(1):125–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (2008) State Policy as an Element of International Crimes. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 98(3):953–982

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (2012) Unimaginable Atrocities: Justice, Politics, and Rights at the War Crimes Tribunals. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Sluiter G (2011) The Chapeau Elements of Crimes against Humanity in the Jurisprudence of the UN Ad Hoc Tribunals. In: Sadat LN (ed) Forging a Convention for Crimes against Humanity. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiam D (1984) Special Rapporteur, Second Report on the Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind. YB Intl Comm’n 2, UN Doc A/CN.4/SerA/1984, 90

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (1946) Resolution 96(I), 11 December 1946, UN Doc A/Res/96(I)

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (1948) Official Record of the General Assembly, Third Session, Sixth Committee, 73rd Meeting, 92, 97

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hebel H, Robinson D (1999) Crimes Within the Jurisdiction of the Court. In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Schaack B (1999) The Definition of Crimes against Humanity: Resolving the Incoherence. Col JTL 37:787–850

    Google Scholar 

  • Vest H (2007) A Structure-based Concept of Genocidal Intent. JICJ 5(4):781–797

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle G, Jessberger F (2014) The Principles of International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheaton C (1934–1935) Manner of Stating the Case for Action. Cornell LQ 20:185

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarnold BM (1994) Doctrinal Basis for the International Criminalization Process. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 8:85

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman AAS (1986) Law, Facts or Justice? BU L Rev 66:489

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman AS (1989) The Principles of Criminal Evidence. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Applied Research, National School of Administration, N’Djamena, Chad

    Nasour Koursami

Authors
  1. Nasour Koursami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nasour Koursami .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Koursami, N. (2018). The Nature and Difficulties of the Concept of ‘Contextual’ Elements. In: The 'Contextual Elements' of the Crime of Genocide. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 17. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-225-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-225-5_2

  • Published:

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

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-224-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-225-5

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation