A Different Approach to mens rea in Joint Criminal Enterprises

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. student of criminal law and criminology, Qom University

2 Associate Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, Qom University,

Abstract

The theory of joint criminal enterprise has been developed and
applied in international proceedings for the realization of the goals of
international criminal law including the prevention of criminal activities
and punishing the perpetrators. According to this theory, if an individual
has the necessary mental element, his not being directly involved in
committing the material element of the crime does not lead to
exculpation. International criminal courts have adopted different
approaches in realizing the mental element of crimes and have suggested
different concepts. Hence, in some approaches (basic approaches) the
concept of “common intention” has been considered as a fundamental
basis for constituting the mental element". In a second approach (a
systematic approach), the intention of developing a criminal system" has
been regarded as the fundamental element of responsibility; in a third
approach, the ability to predict the crime has been seen as the main
building block of the mental element. Although development of these
approaches has helped international criminal law fulfill its objectives,
they are seen as the emergence of challenges and questions in relation to
the limitations and framework of the aforementioned concepts and the
possibility of accommodating them with crimes with specific mens rea.
These challenges represent the necessity of further investigation of mens
rea in joint criminal enterprise with specific attention to principles of law
and the foundations and nature of the theory.

Keywords

References

  1. فارسی

    - کتاب‌ها

    1. خالقی، ابوالفتح (1394)،حقوق بین‌الملل کیفری عمومی، چاپ اول، تهران: انتشارات مجد.
    2. ﮐﺎﺳﺴﻪ، آﻧﺘﻮﻧﯿو (1387)، حقوق کیفری بین‌المللی، مترجم: حسین پیران و دیگران، چاپ اول، تهران.
    3. کیتی چایساری، ساک کریانگ (1387)،حقوق کیفری بین‌المللی، مترجم: حسین آقایی جنت‌مکان، تهران: نشر دادگستر.
    4. میرمحمدصادقی، حسین (1383)، دادگاه کیفری بین‌المللی، چاپ اول، تهران: نشر دادگستر.
    5. نژندی‌منش، هیبت‌الله (1394)، حقوق بین‌المللی کیفری در رویۀ قضایی، چاپ اول، تهران: نشر خرسندی.

    - مقالات      

    1. جانی‌پور مجتبی و لادمخی، معصومه (بهار 1393)، «مفهوم موسع اقدامات مجرمانه در حقوق کیفری بین‌الملل»، پژوهش حقوق کیفری، دورۀ اول، شمارۀ 6.
    2. جانی‌پور، مجتبی و میرزائی‌مقدم، مرتضی (بهار و تابستان 1392)، «مسئولیت کیفری بین‌المللی در پرتو نظریۀ فعالیت مجرمانۀ مشترک»، فصلنامۀ پژوهشنامۀ حقوق کیفری، دانشگاه گیلان، سال چهارم، شمارۀ 1.

    ب) انگلیسی

    - کتاب‌ها

    8. Prof.dr.sc. Igor Bojanić and others, (2001), theory of joint criminal enterprise and international criminal law- challenges and controversies, Academy of Croatian Legal Sciences.

    9. Hector Olásolo, (2009), The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principals to International Crime, hart publishing, oxford and Portland.

    - مقالات

    1.  C. Kress (2005), "The Darfur Report and Genocidal Intent", 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice 562-578.
    2.  Antonio Cassese (2007), "the Proper Limits of Individual Responsibility under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise". Journal of International Criminal Justice 5 109-133.
    3.  Haan, (2005), "The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" 5 International Criminal Law Review 170.

    - پرونده‌ها

    1.  Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06, 29 Jan 2007.
    2.  Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T ,17 Oct 2003.
    3.  Prosecutor v Kordic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T, 26 Feb 2001.
    4.  Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T, 27 Sep 2006.
    5.  Ntakirutimana Case Appeals Judgment (Above n 384), at paras 448, 483–4.
    6.  Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Kos, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Judgement, 2 November 2001.
    7.  Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Radic, Z igic and Prcac´, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeal Judgement, 28 February 2005.
    8.  Prosecutor v. Simba, Case No. ICTR-2001-76-I, Amended Indictment, 10 May 2004.
    9.  Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A, 17 Sep 2003.
    10.  Prosecutor v. Brdanin and Talic ´, Case No. IT-99-36PT, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend, 26 June 2001.
    11.  prosecutor v. Tadic (IT-94-1-T), ICTY Trial Chamber, 11 November 1997.
    12.  Prosecutor v. Tadic ´, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgement, 15 July 1999.
    13.  Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, Case Nos. ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Appeal Judgement, 13 December 2004.
    14.  Prosecutor v. Krstic ´, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgement, 2 August 2001.
    15.  Prosecutor v. Krstic ´, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Appeal Judgement, 19 April 2004.
    16.  Prosecutor v. Brdanin (IT-99-36-T), Trial Chamber II, 1 September 2004.
    17.  Prosecutor v. Milos’s evic´, Case No. IT-02-54-T, Decision on Motion for Judgement of Acquittal, 16 June 2004.
    18.  Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, Judgement, 27 September 2006.
    19.  Prosecutor v. Blaskic ´, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Judgement, 29 July 2004.
    20.  Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-24-A, 22 Mar 2006.
    21.  Prosecutor v.Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, 2003.
    22.  Prosecutor V. Vasilevice, Icty Appeals champer, case No: IT-98-32-T, 2004.
    23.  Prosecutor v. mico stanisic, case No: IT-98-32-T, 2016.
    24.  Prosecutor v. Ratco mladic, case No: IT-08-91-A, 2017.
    25.  Prosecutor v. prlic, stojic, praljak, petkovic, coric, pusic, case no: IT-04-Z4-A, 2017.
Jurisprudence and Islamic Law
Volume 9, Issue 16
March 2018
Pages 161-188

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics