Journal of International Criminal Law
Volume:4 Issue: 2, Spring 2023

Genocides and crimes against humanity may involve the highest political leaders and high-ranking military officials. These leaders can be far from the actual site of the crimes, and not engaging personally in any of the material elements of the crime charged. The present work will address theoretical and jurisprudential discussions regarding diverse forms of intervention in punishable acts, to analyze how to attribute individual criminal responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinates. Whether they are military commanders or not. I will compare the development of hierarchical responsibility or the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief within international law, based on the Nuremberg judicial proceedings to the present with the International Criminal Court and the “ESMA Trial” about individual criminal responsibility in the Argentina Navy base between 1976 and 1983. To achieve this objective, I will analyze the distinct forms of how responsibility is assigned, and referenced in art. 25.3 (a) and art. 28 of the Roman Statute and the adaptation with the rules and regulations of decisions of the International Criminal Court.

It is a global knowledge that the Boko Haram Terrorists and its offshoot of the Islamic State in West African Province have been fighting Nigerian security forces, especially in the North East of Nigeria since 2009. These terrorists in pursuit of their plan/policy have displaced millions of Nigerians, murdered thousands of innocent civilians, maimed, pillaged, raped, tortured and destroyed civilian objects with impunity. The crux of this paper is to investigate whether crimes against humanity have been committed by the activities of the Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria and, where it is committed whether the International Criminal Court can prosecute and sanction the perpetrators. The paper copiously demonstrated that the Boko Haram terrorists committed crimes against humanity in all its ramifications via their activities in Nigeria. The common place where the citizens of Nigeria assemble often are market places, restaurants, churches, mosques, motor parks, schools and colleges. Unfortunately, it is these places that became targets by the Boko Haram terrorists killing civilians who were horse de combat as well as destruction of civilian objects and consequently, committed crimes against humanity. The paper also shows that the Federal Government of Nigeria led by Muhammed Buhari is handling the Boko Haram terrorists with kid-glove. Consequently, the Federal Government is unable or unwilling to prosecute and sanction the Boko Haram perpetrators for reasons best known to them. It is therefore, recommended that the International Criminal Court should step in to prosecute and sanction the Boko Haram terrorists for the heinous crimes committed against thousands of innocent civilians in Nigeria to ensure justice and assuage the spirits of the innocent people the terrorists killed like goats.

For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, America has grappled with making progress in race relations. Apartheid is generally defined as systemic laws and practices that target one race against another and discriminate between races. It is my theory that the ratification of the Rome Statute, specifically art. 7(j), may be the next step in establishing what former civil rights pioneer and American jurist William Henry Hastie Jr. penned “an equalitarian legal order”. In this piece, I will discuss what Hastie’s “equalitarian legal order” is, and why the American legal system needs an equalitarian legal order, and how art. 7(j) of the Rome Statute’s crimes against humanity’s anti-apartheid provisions may be the next step in continuing Hastie’s aforestated legal order. In addition, I will highlight the American legal and political hurdles that inhibit the ratification of the Rome Statute in the United States. Lastly, I will discuss how international customary law compels the United States judiciary to adopt the Rome Statute’s antiapartheid provisions into American jurisprudence.

This article provides insight into corporate criminal liability as construed in French criminal law. It discusses specifically the history and contingency of the development of corporate criminal liability in French law and its legacy considering the decision of the Cour de cassation in the Lafarge cases. These landmark decisions are the first of their kind rendered by a supreme court anywhere in the world. They acknowledge that corporations, and no longer only directors of companies or corporations, may be found guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism if they have funded known terrorist organisations for business purposes. The decisions also clarify the limited circumstances where interest groups may be founded to bring private prosecutions to this effect. Given the foregoing, this paper outlines in detail the decisions of the Cour de cassation in Lafarge, analyses and contextualises their significance, and offers a long view that considers possible international developments.

Collecting primary evidence for investigations can be challenging due to a significant time gap between crimes and investigations, leading to lost, destroyed, or unreliable evidence. As a result, establishing guilts of individuals for primary or direct liability can be challenging, especially if they are low-level offenders, as prosecutors may need direct and primary evidence to prove actus reus and mens rea. However, having direct or primary evidence to prove secondary liability or guilt for indirectly committing crimes may not always be necessary. This is because some liabilities, such as accessories or aiding and abetting, may not be directly connected to the actual commission of crimes; thus, indirect evidence, such as documentary or expert evidence, may be sufficient to prove guilts. For example, in Germany, John Demjanjuk was convicted of remote atrocity crimes based on an identification card indicating his service status, the nature of the military operation, which included mass murder at the camp, and the daily activities of a camp guard. Imposing direct liability and proving guilt was challenging due to a lack of eyewitnesses; thus, the prosecutor applied the “functional participation” approach for jointly committed crimes. When imposing accountability, the court focused on the perpetrator’s function rather than their actions. The approach taken by the court implies that being functionally involved in a crime is enough to hold someone responsible, even if they were not physically present or in contact with victims. Can the approach applied in the Demjanjuk case, which has only been utilized in Germany so far, be employed to hold accountable those responsible for atrocity crimes committed in other regions? In Bangladesh, for example, the Pakistani Army and local Bengali perpetrators carried out a massacre in 1971. Obtaining primary evidence against many accused may be difficult as over 60 years have passed since the war’s end. Although Bangladesh has begun prosecuting local suspects, Pakistan has yet to act against its military. This research aims to see if the “functional participation” theory applies to Pakistani Army officers engaged in the 1971 massacre in Bangladesh.