Suchergebnisse

Analyzing the nature of complicity in international criminal law, this book provides an account of the growing attention international law pays to complicity. Exploring the responsibilities of individuals, states, and non-state actors in their obligations, the changing status of complicity in international law is demonstrated.

AbstractDespite recent and increasing attention to the wrong of apartheid in international politics, some basic definitional questions remain uncertain. This article seeks to delineate the definition of apartheid in international law. Its focus is on the prohibition of apartheid binding States in custom and the obligation in Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In both cases, the article shows that the Apartheid Convention of 1973 supplies the wrong's definition. Thereafter, the article addresses three key elements that will be central to determining an allegation of apartheid: its wrongful acts, its distinctive purpose requirement, and the issue of what constitutes a 'racial group'. Finally, the article also draws attention to the wider importance of the prohibition of apartheid in the international legal system. International law marks with particular normative significance a set of practices entailing systematic and structural harms that need not involve violations of life or bodily integrity.

AbstractHumanitarian actors sometimes have to decide whether to render assistance in situations that put them at risk of liability for aiding and abetting under international criminal law. This is the problem of the virtuous accomplice—the idea that knowingly contributing to the wrongdoing of others might, exceptionally, be the right thing to do. This article explains why the problem arises and clarifies its scope, before turning to criminal law in England and Wales and Germany to assess potential solutions. It argues that the best approach is to accept a defence of necessity—of justified complicity—and shows that such an argument works in international criminal law.

Abstract
It is widely believed that international law imposes no general prohibition on instigation – no general prohibition on states inducing, inciting or procuring other states to breach their international obligations. The absence of a prohibition on instigation stands in contrast to the now entrenched prohibition on the provision of assistance to another state that facilitates an internationally wrongful act. In this article, I argue that the orthodox position on instigation is incorrect. I argue that a prohibition on instigation is founded on a general principle of law, as envisaged in Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and that it would be appropriate to transpose that general principle to the international legal system. To sustain this argument, I first construct a representative set of domestic jurisdictions for comparative analysis. Second, through a brief comparative survey, I assess whether in each of these domestic jurisdictions it is wrongful, in one way or another, for an actor to instigate another to commit an act that it would be wrongful for it to do itself. And, third, I argue that the transposition of this principle from domestic law to international law is conceptually and normatively appropriate.