Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

'Duty to Act' and 'Commission by Omission' in International Criminal Law

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

Whether a general rule on omission exists in international criminal law has long been fraught with controversy. It has recently met with increasing acceptance, most prominently by the ICTY Appeals Chamber's judgement of 5 May 2009 (Prosecutor v. Mrkšić et al.). In view of the likely further consolidation of the law, this study deals with the material requirements of 'commission by omission' more comprehensively. It tests several possible ways to give meaning to the offender's duty to prevent the incriminated action, as the 'duty to act' is widely seen as the key to criminal liability for omission. In particular, the present article challenges the prevailing trend in international case law and scholarship to derive individual duties to act from duties under international humanitarian law or domestic law. The alternative approach put forward herein is to derive duties to act genuinely from international criminal law. This is done by extending the 'principle of control', which according to ICC case law constitutes the underlying base for 'commission by action', to the sphere of omission. There, the overarching criterion of control can be broken down into a set of clear-cut duties to act and thus be reconciled with the requirements of legal certainty. Eventually, it is shown that pursuant to the present approach 'commission by omission', albeit not explicitly contemplated by the ICC Statute, falls within the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Affiliations: 1: Research Fellow, University of Cologne, Germany

10.1163/157181210X527046
/content/journals/10.1163/157181210x527046
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181210x527046
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/157181210x527046
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181210x527046
2010-10-01
2016-12-03

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    International Criminal Law Review — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation