...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of International Criminal Justice >Co-perpetration in the Lubanga Trial Judgment
【24h】

Co-perpetration in the Lubanga Trial Judgment

机译：卢班加审判判决中的共同犯罪

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The contribution discusses co-perpetration in the Lubanga Trial Judgment. It first compares co-perpetration with joint criminal enterprise (JCE) and analyses Lubanga under JCE. It goes on to consider Judge Fulford’s — arguably, unconvincing — dissent regarding the Statute’s dualist approach. As to the elements of co-perpetration, the article finds that it is difficult to see how the Chamber could find that all criminal conduct attributed to Lubanga was carried out by him or his co-perpetrators. It is argued that indirect co-perpetration might have been the more appropriate mode to hold Lubanga accountable. Further it is maintained that, under co-perpetration, it is not necessary that each co-perpetrator has the power to frustrate the crime. Finally, the author shares the view that customary international law mens rea standards apply under the Statute through the ‘unless otherwise provided’ formula in Article 30(1) ICC Statute. Accordingly the mens rea for co-perpetration (and other forms of committing) is awareness of a probability or substantial likelihood.
机译：该文稿讨论了卢班加审判判决中的共同犯罪。首先比较了与共同犯罪企业（JCE）的共同作案，并分析了在JCE下的卢班加（Lubanga）。继续考虑富尔福德法官对《规约》二元论方法的异议（可以说，令人信服）。关于共同作案的要素，文章发现很难看到分庭如何发现归因于卢班加的所有犯罪行为都是由他或他的共同作案者实施的。有人认为，间接合作可能是使卢班加承担责任的更合适的方式。进一步认为，在共同犯罪的情况下，每个共同犯罪者没有必要挫败犯罪。最后，作者也认为，习惯国际法经纬度标准通过《国际商会规约》第30条第1款的“除非另有规定”适用于《规约》。因此，共同参与（和其他形式的作案）的动机是意识到可能性或实质可能性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号