Menu Expand

Indirect Perpetration and ›Organisationsherrschaftslehre‹

Cite BOOK

Style

Lanza, G. (2021). Indirect Perpetration and ›Organisationsherrschaftslehre‹. An Analysis of Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute in Light of the German Differentiated and Italian Unitarian Models of Participation in a Crime. Duncker & Humblot. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58359-1
Lanza, Giulia. Indirect Perpetration and ›Organisationsherrschaftslehre‹: An Analysis of Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute in Light of the German Differentiated and Italian Unitarian Models of Participation in a Crime. Duncker & Humblot, 2021. Book. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58359-1
Lanza, G (2021): Indirect Perpetration and ›Organisationsherrschaftslehre‹: An Analysis of Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute in Light of the German Differentiated and Italian Unitarian Models of Participation in a Crime, Duncker & Humblot, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58359-1

Format

Indirect Perpetration and ›Organisationsherrschaftslehre‹

An Analysis of Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute in Light of the German Differentiated and Italian Unitarian Models of Participation in a Crime

Lanza, Giulia

Beiträge zum Internationalen und Europäischen Strafrecht / Studies in International and European Criminal Law and Procedure, Vol. 48

(2021)

Additional Information

Book Details

Pricing

About The Author

Giulia Lanza studied law at the University of Verona (Italy). In 2010 and 2011 she worked at the ICTY and at the ICC as a legal assistant. In 2014 she was admitted to the Italian Bar Association. She spent several research periods abroad, in particular in Göttingen, at the Institute of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and International Criminal Law, Department for Foreign and International Criminal Law and in London, at the Department of Law of the University of Middlesex. In 2018, she earned a European PhD (“Doctor Europaeus”) in European and International Legal Studies according to a cotutelle agreement between the University of Verona and the Georg-August Universität Göttingen. She has been a research associate in Criminal Law at the Department of Law of the University of Verona. Her main fields of research are criminal law, international criminal law, humanitarian law, cybercrime and cyberwarfare.

Abstract

The book analyses indirect perpetration within the meaning and interpretation of article 25(3)(a), third alternative, of the Rome Statute from a comparative perspective. Through a critical analysis, Giulia Lanza examines the control over the organization theory, adopted by the majority to interpret the provision. The objective of the author is to verify whether the dominant approach - resulting from the transposition of Roxin’ s Organisationsherrschaftslehre at the ICC - constitutes a feasible solution in the interpretation and application of article 25 (3)(a), third alternative, of the Rome Statute, or whether it is preferable to rely on different approaches inspired by other legal systems, such as the Italian system. The author concludes that the reliance on the Organisationsherrschaftslehre constitutes an important step in the path towards the development of autonomous ICL doctrine regarding indirect perpetration.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Acknowledgements 7
Table of Contents 9
List of Abbreviations 13
A. Introduction 17
I. The Problem 17
II. Objective of the investigation 20
III. Methodology 21
IV. Terminology 23
B. The Organisationsherrschaftslehre 27
I. Context and origin 27
II. The Organisationsherrschaftslehre as an autonomous form of indirect perpetration 32
1. Theoretical foundations 32
2. The constitutive elements of the Organisationsherrschaftslehre 35
a) The existence of a hierarchical power apparatus and the command authority of the indirect perpetrator 35
aa) The existence of a hierarchical power apparatus 35
bb) The command authority of the indirect perpetrator 37
b) The detachment of the apparatus of power from the law 41
c) The fungibility of the direct perpetrators 43
d) The direct perpetrator’s disposition to commit the act 46
3. The definition of the Organisationsherrschaftslehre according to Roxin 49
III. Alternative solutions to the Organisationsherrschaftslehre 50
1. Co-perpetration 50
2. Instigation 52
C. Towards the application of the control over the organisation theory at the ICC 55
I. The premises of the adoption of the Organisationsherrschaftslehre at the ICC 55
1. The codification of indirect perpetration in art. 25(3)(a), third alternative, ­ICCSt 55
2. Does art. 25(3) ­ICCSt provide for a differentiated participation model? 59
a) General remarks on the normative context of indirect perpetration within the meaning of art. 25(3)(a) ­ICCSt 59
b) The dominant approach 65
c) The minority approach 69
d) Concluding observations 72
3. The adoption of the control over the crime theory as a criterion to distinguish principals from accessories to a crime 76
a) A peculiar demand of the differentiated participation models 76
b) The dominant approach 81
aa) The Lubanga case 81
bb) The Katanga and Ngudjolo cases 84
c) The minority approach 86
aa) The Lubanga case 86
bb) The Katanga and Ngudjolo cases 87
d) Conflicting approaches: the dominant approach v. the minority approach 88
e) The normative approach v. the naturalistic approach 89
f) Concluding observations 92
II. The interpretation and application of art. 25(3)(a), third alternative, ­ICCSt 94
1. The appearance of the Organisationsherrschaftslehre in ICL: a feeble and uncertain attempt (the ad hoc Tribunals) 95
a) ICTY: the Stakić case and the Milutinović et al. case 95
b) ICTR: Judge Schomburg’s separate opinion appended to the Gacumbitsi appeals judgment 98
c) Concluding observations 100
2. The introduction of the Organisationsherrschaftslehre in the case law of the ICC 101
a) The Lubanga case 103
b) The Bemba case 104
c) The Al Bashir case 105
d) The Katanga and Ngudjolo cases 108
aa) Factual background and procedural history 108
bb) The Katanga and Ngudjolo confirmation of charges decision 110
cc) The Ngudjolo trial judgment 114
dd) The Katanga trial judgment 115
e) The Gaddafi case 118
f) The Muthaura, Kenyatta and Ali case and the Ruto, Kosgey and Sang case (the Kenya cases) 121
g) The Ntaganda case 127
h) The Al Hassan case 131
3. Article 25(3) ­ICCSt in light of the Organisationsherrschaftslehre 132
a) The application of the control over the organisation theory: indirect co-perpetration and joint indirect perpetration 132
b) The elements of the control over the organisation theory: in search of a definition 136
aa) The existence of an organised and hierarchical apparatus of power 138
bb) The commission of the crimes must be secured by almost automatic compliance with the indirect perpetrator’s orders 139
cc) The indirect perpetrator’s control over the organisation 141
dd) The indirect perpetrator’s fulfilment of the subjective elements of the crimes, including any required additional intent 143
ee) The indirect perpetrator’s awareness of the factual circumstances enabling him or her to exercise control over the crime through the organisation 143
c) A definition of the control over the organisation theory on the basis of the case law 144
4. Critical observations and open questions 144
III. The theoretical foundations of the control over the organisation theory 149
1. The theoretical foundations of the control over the organisation theory according to the case law of the ICC 150
2. Art. 21 ­ICCSt and the sources of law regime provided by the Rome Statute 157
3. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 161
4. The principle of legality 164
a) The principles of strict construction and in dubio pro reo 165
b) Is the prevailing interpretation of art. 25(3) ­ICCSt in conflict with the principle of legality? 167
5. Conclusion 168
D. The application of the Organisationsherrschaftslehre in domestic jurisdictions 172
I. General remarks 172
1. Argentina 173
2. Germany 177
3. Chile 179
4. Peru 180
a) The Abimael Guzmán Reynoso et al. case 180
b) The Fujimori case 184
5. Colombia 190
II. Concluding observations on the application of the Organisationsherrschaftslehre 192
1. General observations 192
2. Evidentiary issues 194
III. Conclusion 196
E. An Italian approach to art. 25(3)(a), third alternative, ­ICCSt 201
I. The prosecution and punishment of leaders in collective contexts in the Italian legal system 201
1. The Italian unitarian model of participation in a crime: origin and normative context 202
2. Indirect perpetration in the Italian legal system 207
3. Moral participation 210
a) The causal contribution to the crime 211
b) The mental element 212
c) Evidentiary issues 214
4. The Italian case law and its development 215
a) The judgment of the Joint Chambers of the Court of Cassation in the Kofler case: a milestone decision 216
b) The period of the terrorist emergency 216
aa) The Alunni and Formazioni Comuniste Combattenti case 217
bb) The trials against the Red Brigades 219
cc) Subsequent case law: in particular, the Marino et al. case 221
c) The mafia trials 222
aa) The Abbate et al. case 222
bb) The Madonia et al. case 225
cc) Subsequent case law 226
d) The crimes committed in macro-criminal contexts 228
aa) The Astiz et al. case 228
bb) The Arce Gomez et al. case (the Condor case) 230
e) Concluding observations 237
II. The Katanga and Ngudjolo case and the Italian legal system 241
F. Conclusion 245
Bibliography 250
Table of cases 274
Index 281