Finding a Proper Role for Command Responsibility
Finding a Proper Role for Command Responsibility
复制标题
寻找适当的指挥职责角色
DOI：
10.1093/jicj/mqm030
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
B. Bonafé
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Bonafé
本文审查了指挥责任目前在前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭(前南问题国际法庭)和卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭(卢旺达问题国际法庭)判例法中所起的作用。特设法庭原则上依赖一个广泛的指挥责任概念，该概念可适用于所有上级，包括政治和文职上级。然而，在实践中，很少有被告在这种形式的责任下被成功起诉。事实上，最近的判例法逐渐对指挥责任的法律要求采取了严格的做法。这增加了确定没有直接参与国际罪行的上级的刑事责任的难度。特设法庭明确表示倾向于直接责任形式，在这种形式下，被告可在直接责任和指挥责任下被定罪。虽然前南问题国际法庭和卢旺达问题国际法庭逐步解释了其他国际法律概念，以有效处理有组织团体领导人犯下的集体罪行，但它们似乎将指挥责任局限于在典型的军事背景下犯下的国际罪行。
This article examines the role that command responsibility currently plays in the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The ad hoc tribunals rely in principle on a broad concept of command responsibility which can be applied to all superiors, including political and civilian ones. However, in practice, accused persons have only rarely been successfully charged under this form of liability. Indeed, recent case law has gradually adopted a rigorous approach with respect to the legal requirements of command responsibility. This has made it more difficult to establish criminal liability of superiors who have not directly participated in the commission of international offences. The ad hoc tribunals have expressed an explicit preference for forms of direct liability where the accused can be convicted both under direct and command responsibility. While the ICTY and ICTR have progressively interpreted other international legal concepts to deal effectively with collective crimes committed by leaders of organized groups, they seem to have confined command responsibility to international crimes perpetrated in typical military-like contexts.