As the International Criminal Court is handing down its first trial chamber judgments, the debate on modes of participation continues. It appears that there is growing skepticism shown towards the control-of-the-crime-theory that has guided the Court’s approach on Article 25 of the ICC Statute so far. This article argues that before an assessment of the merits and demerits of the control-of-the-crime-theory can be made, one needs to determine the role of modes of participation in general. In this regard, it will be shown that Article 25 establishes a four level hierarchy of individual criminal responsibility where modes of participation are relevant for sentencing purposes. Only on the basis of such a systematic understanding can one reach a consistent definition of the different modes of participation and Article 25 as a whole. Ultimately, instead of starting anew, the ICC should continue following the path it has chosen, albeit with refinements.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Werle & Burghardt: Establishing Degrees of Responsibility: Modes of Participation in Article 25 of the ICC Statute
Gerhard Werle (Humboldt Univ. of Berlin - Law) & Boris Burghardt (Humboldt Univ. of Berlin - Law) have posted Establishing Degrees of Responsibility: Modes of Participation in Article 25 of the ICC Statute (in Pluralism in International Criminal Law, E. van Sliedregt & S. Vasiliev eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract: