A Comparative Study on Conspiracy in International Criminal Courts

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 M.A in Criminal Law & Criminology at University of Guilan

2 Assistant Professor , Uuniversity of Guilan

3 Associate Professor, University of Guilan

Abstract

M.A in Criminal Law & Criminology at University of Guilan According to the nature of international crimes which are often committed because of the conspiracy between two or more persons, there is much more need to criminalize conspiracy for international crimes than for ordinary crimes. Although there was the conspiracy in the Nuremburg and Tokyo Charters in general, it has been limited to Genocide in ICTY and ICTR Statutes and finally, it was removed from the ICC Statute. Exploring the statutes and jurisprudence of the international criminal courts shows that there are two different kinds of conspiracy: conspiracy as an inchoate crime, and conspiracy as a mode of participation. Even though by introducing various modes of collective responsibility in Art. 25(3) of the statute of the ICC, it is not necessary to express conspiracy as a mode of participation in the ICC, there also remains the necessity of criminalizing conspiracy as an inchoate crime in the ICC.

Keywords

References

حبیب‌زاده، محمدجعفر و مؤمنی، مهدی (1389)، «جرم تبانی علیه امنیت کشور در حقوق ایران»، پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 14، شماره 2، 155-131.
حکیمی‌ها، سعید؛ جودکی، بهزاد و غنی، کیوان (1396)، «بررسی جرم تبانی در حقوق کیفری ایران و آمریکا»، مجله مطالعات حقوقی دانشگاه شیراز، دوره نهم، شماره دوم، تابستان، 81-51.
خالقی، ابوالفتح و میرزایی‌مقدم، مرتضی (1392)، «مسئولیت کیفری بین‌المللی در پرتو نظریه فعالیت مجرمانه مشترک»، پژوهشنامه حقوق کیفری، سال چهارم، شماره اول، 119-97.
کسسه، آنتونیو (1387)، حقوق کیفری بین‌المللی، مترجم: حسین پیران، اردشیر امیرارجمند، زهرا موسوی، چاپ اول، تهران: انتشارات جنگل.
میرمحمدصادقی، حسین (1380)، جرائم علیه امنیت و آسایش عمومی، چاپ اول، تهران: نشر میزان.
یوسفیان شوره‌دلی، بهنام (1393)، «کانون مشترک مجرمانه: جست‌وجوی توصیف مناسبی برای مسئولیت جنایت‌کاران بین‌المللی فراسوی مباشرت مادی»، فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی، شماره 68، دوره 17، شماره 4، 301-267.
یوسفیان شوره‌دلی، بهنام و رسولی آستانه، لیلا (1397)، «بازاندیشی در تعریف «شرکت در جرم» برای مقابله با فعالیت‌های هماهنگ و گروهی مجرمانه»، پژوهشنامه حقوق کیفری، سال نهم، شماره اول، 262-237.
Ambos, Kai (2008). “Article 25: Individual Criminal Responsibility”, COMMENTARY ON THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, SECOND EDITION, O. Triffterer, ed., München, 743-770.
Cryer, Robert & et al (2010). An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press.
Dalton, Taylor R (2010). “Counterfeit Conspiracy: The Misapplication of Conspiracy as a Substantive Crime in International Law”, Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers, Paper 24.
Elliot, Catherine (2011), French Criminal Law, Routledge, New York.
Okoth, Juliet R, Amenge (2014). The Crime of Conspiracy in International Criminal Law, ASSER PRESS, Springer, Hague.
Office of the United States Chief of Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality (1947). Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Vol. I: Opinion and Judgment, United States Government Printing Office, Washington.
Timmermann, Wibke Kristin (2006). “Incitement in international criminal law”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 88, No 864.
Yanev, Lachezar (2015). “A JANUS-FACED CONCEPT: NUREMBERG’S LAW ON CONSPIRACY VIS-A`-VIS THE NOTION OF JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE”, Criminal Law Forum, 26: 419–456.
The Prosecutor v. Milutinovic et al. (2003). “Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic’s Motion Challenging Jurisdiction - Joint Criminal Enterprise”. Case No. IT-99-37-AR72.
Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 1945.
International Military Tribunal for the Far East (1948). Judgment of 4 November 1948 The Tokyo War Crimes Trial, Vol. 22, Tokyo, Japan.
Prosecutor a. Musema (2000). Case No. ICTR-96-13-A.
Prosecutor v. Popovic et. al. (2010). Case No. IT-05-88-T.
Prosecutor v. Tolimir (2012). Case No. IT-05-88/2-T.
Prosecutor v. Kambanda (1998). Case No. ICTR 97-23-S.
Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor (2004). Case No. ICTR-96-14-A.
Prosecutor v. Nahimana (2003). Barayagwiza, Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T.
Nahimana, Barayagwiza, Ngeze v. Prosecutor (2007). Case No. ICTR-99-52-A.
Prosecutor v. Nyiramasuhuko, et al. (2011). Case No. ICTR-98-42-T.
Prosecutor v. Bizimungu, Mugenzi, Bicamumpaka, Mugiraneza (2011). Case No. ICTR-99-50-T.
Mugenzi, Mugiraneza v. The Prosecutor (2013). Case No. ICTR-99-50-A.
Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic & Mario Cerkez (2004). Case No. IT-95-14/2-A.
Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic (2006). Case No. IT-95-9-A.
Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (2007). Decision on Confirmation of Charges, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06.
Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, 14 March 2012.
Criminal Law Research
Volume 10, Issue 1 - Serial Number 19
Papers
July 2019
Pages 81-104

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics