国际刑法中的共同犯罪行为研究
|
摘要
罪责自负原则是现代世界各国国内刑法中的普适原则。任何人对于自己所实施的犯罪行为都应当承担刑事责任,不得以任何借口逃避法律的制裁；同时犯罪人只对自己所犯的罪行承担刑事责任,而不对其他人的犯罪行为承担刑事责任。个人对国际犯罪负刑事责任原则奠定于二战后的纽伦堡审判和东京审判,它所针对的是灭绝种族罪、危害人类罪和战争罪等不同于一般普通犯罪的特定犯罪。
研究国际刑法中的共同犯罪行为,让个人对国际犯罪负刑事责任,特别是高级军政上级对国际犯罪的刑事责任,梳理、改造、构建合理的关于国际犯罪的理论学说,进而完善有效打击严重国际犯罪的法理基础,以此来保证有罪必罚原则能够落到实处；同时也可在国际社会有关个人对国际犯罪负刑事责任方面构建一个相互交融的平台：横向观之,可比较各国的理论与实践；纵向观之,则可将各国的理论与实践与国际条约、特别法庭规约、国际刑事法院规约和国际审判相比较。
过去几年国际刑法所经历的重大发展,都是将高级军政上级认定为大规模的、有系统的国际犯罪中的主犯,让他们承担最重的刑事责任。在正犯与共犯之间的区分方法,以及全面反映高级军政上级在大规模、有系统的国际犯罪中作为主犯的共同犯罪体概念和犯罪控制概念之作用等问题上,前南问题国际刑事法庭和卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭的案例法与《罗马规约》有着不同的选择。《罗马规约》以国际刑事法院的制度为基准,部分地继承了国际刑事法庭案例法演进过程中的国际刑法理念,较之特别国际刑事法庭各自的实体法规定看,《罗马规约》第10条、第21条和第22条第3款明确了国际刑事法院的特有制度。
论文共包括5章。第1章强调国际犯罪和国际刑法中的共同犯罪行为特征,以及高级军政上级在大规模和有系统的国际犯罪中的核心作用。当犯罪发生时,高级军政上级通常都远离犯罪现场,与犯罪组织中以自己的身体动静实施犯罪的下级人员没有直接接触。这样,如果运用国内犯罪行为的传统概念,似乎因为缺少高级军政上级的直接犯罪行为而难以追究与其所犯罪行严重程度相适应的刑事责任。针对这一难题,国际刑法专注于特定概念的发展,其中犯罪控制和共同犯罪体即是体现国际犯罪中高级军政上级核心作用的概念。不过,这些概念并非国际刑法的原创,而是国内刑法本身所固有的概念,只不过国际刑法将其发展并整合适用于国际犯罪的某些特定情况。
第2章着墨于负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯之间的区别。正犯,是指其刑事责任独立于其他共犯的人；共犯,则是指其刑事责任源于正犯的人。该章首先提出的问题是国际刑法是否采纳了这种区别,在分析总结了二战后国际刑法的演进之后,笔者得出了肯定的回答,与此同时,笔者还详细论证了正犯与共犯刑事责任之间的区别。
共同犯罪体概念,是以主观说区别负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯的概念；犯罪控制概念,则是以实质客观说区别负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯的概念。继探讨了主观说和实质客观说的通常地位之后,该章得出的结论认为,尽管有前南问题国际刑事法庭上诉庭关于Tadic案的判决,且现在的趋势是广泛接受犯罪控制概念,但习惯国际法尚未就负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯之间的区别形成默契。
第3章论证了直接正犯和间接正犯的概念。在直接正犯概念中,特别强调了不作为概念,以及这种形式的不作为与负共犯刑事责任或根据上级责任原则所确定的不作为之间的区别。
该章还论证了《罗马规约》第25条第3款第1项所规定的“通过不论是否负刑事责任的另一人”实施犯罪的间接正犯概念。该部分特别强调了权力组织结构体所必须具有的使间接正犯概念得以适用的特征。间接正犯不适用于小规模的准军事组织或恐怖集团,因为人数的有限性使得小规模团体的人员不具有替换性,或者说从组织结构上看,这样的团体只具有横向而非纵向的特征。在继这些分析之后,该部分认为,另外几种与间接正犯概念相关的负共犯刑事责任的行为形式——命令、教唆和计划,可在间接正犯概念不能适用时予以采用。
最后两章论证了共同正犯概念,共同正犯概念必须与界分负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共同犯罪一般原则相一致。第4章详细论证了共同犯罪体原理,分析了前南法庭上诉庭关于Tadic案判决的三种共同犯罪体形式,以及它们与负共犯刑事责任的协助煽动行为之间的关系。
该章强调了根据Radoslav Brdanin和Momcilo Krajisnik案发展而来的针对身居要职者对国际犯罪负刑事责任的原则。论文将共同犯罪体分为两种模式：一种是在“传统的共同犯罪体”情况下,高级军政上级策划犯罪,下级人员实施犯罪,上级和下级人员均为同一犯罪体的成员；另一种是“上级层面的共同犯罪体”,只有计划和将计划付诸实施的最高层的政治和军事官员是犯罪体的成员,以自己的身体动静实施犯罪的下级是上级的犯罪工具。前南法庭依据主观说界分负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯,这是一种欠佳的抉择,事实上,这里的第二种模式对于追究高级军政上级的刑事责任比较可取。
第5章分析了共同控制犯罪基础上的共同正犯行为概念,其中特别指出,一旦有某个共同正犯没有完成分配的任务,就会使共同犯罪计划“流产”。该部分还分析了作为共同正犯的高级军政上级,通过权力组织结构体(军事组织、警察部队和/或政治团体)在完成其必要的“角色任务”时的犯罪情况,通过借助间接共同正犯概念,使得“上级层面的共同犯罪体”模式的缺陷得以消解。
The doctrine of bearing criminal responsibility solely for ones is an universal principle in the modern domestic criminal law in the world. Anyone should be held criminally liable for their criminal acts committed without any pretext to escape legal punishment. An offender bears criminal responsibility only for his own crimes rather than those of others. The principle of individual criminal responsibility is laid on the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Trials after World WarⅡfor the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes which are different from ordinary crimes.
To study, comb, transform and construct individual criminal responsibility for international crimes, in particular the criminal responsibility of the senior political and military leaders is the legal basis for effectively combating serious international crime. And if so, no impunity principle can be implemented; a global platform for interacting with each other on individual criminal responsibility for international crimes can be built, which can be used to compare theories and practices among different countries from horizontal point and theories and practices of different countries with international treaties, the Ad hoc Tribunal Statutes, the Rome Statute and international trials from vertical point.
The important evolution of international criminal law experiences in the past few years is that the senior political and military leaders are held the principals and bear the heaviest criminal responsibility for large-scale and systematic international crimes. The Rome Statue has a different choice to the distinction between the principal and accessorial liability, the notion of joint criminal enterprise and the notion of control of crime for the principal role of senior political and military leadersin the large-scale and systematic international crimes to the ICTY and ICTR Case Law.
The drafter of the Rome Statute, based on the ICC system, does not completely inherit the ICTY and ICTR Case Law in the evolution of international criminal law. Compared to the substantive provisions of ICTY and ICTR Statutes, Article 10, Article 21 and paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Rome Statute provide a clearly unique system for the ICC.
The thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 emphasizes international crimes, the specific characters of individual criminal responsibility for international crimes and the central role of the senior political and military leadersin the large-scale and systematic international crimes. When the crimes occur, the senior political and military leaders are usually far away from the crime scene and have no direct contact with their subordinates who physically commit the crimes. If we apply the domestic traditional concepts of criminal responsibility, it seems hard to reflect the correspondingly grave criminal responsibility of the senior political and military leadersbecause of their lacking of direct criminal behaviors. In response to this problem, international criminal law focuses on the development of the specific concepts of crimes. Control of the crime and joint criminal enterprise are two concepts to reflect the central role of the senior political and military superiors. However, these concepts are not coined by the international criminal law, but are inherent in the domestic criminal law, which are developed and adjusted to certain circumstances of international crimes.
Chapter 2 focuses the distinction between perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility. Perpetrators are those whose criminal responsibility is independent of other accessories. Accessories are those whose criminal responsibility comes from perpetrators'criminal responsibility. The chapter firstly mentions the question whether international criminal law has adopted this distinction. After analyzing the evolution of international criminal law after World War II, the thesis obtains an affirmative answer and at the same time discusses the different actions respectively by perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility.
The notion of joint criminal enterprise distinguishes the different actions respectively by perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility based on subjective approach, while the notion of control of crime distinguishes the different actions respectively by perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility based on material-objective approach. Having discussed the usual positions of subjective approach and material-objective approach, the author obtains the conclusion that despite the Appeals Chamber Judgment on the Tadic Case by the ICTY and the present trend of widely accepting the notion of control of crime, customary international law has not yet formed agreement on the distinction of the different actions respectively by perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility.
Chapter 3 demonstrates the notions of direct and indirect perpetration. The notion of omission and distinction between the omission of this form and the omission under accessories'criminal responsibility or under the doctrine of superior responsibility are particularly emphasized.
The chapter also demonstrates the notion of indirect perpetration, defined in article 25(3)a of the Rome Statute as the commission of a crime through another person. The chapter emphasizes the specific characters of organized structure of power which makes the notion of indirect perpetration applicable. The notion of indirect perpetration does not apply to small-scale paramilitary units or terrorist groups because the limited staff number makes the members of the small-scale groups irreplaceable, or it may be said that these groups have only horizontal but not vertical characters from the view of structure. Following these analyses, the chapter has the conclusion that the several other forms of action, such as ordering, instigation and planning, that bearing secondary criminal responsibility, can be available when the notion of indirect perpetration does not apply.
The last two chapters demonstrate the notion of co-perpetration. The notion must be consistent with the general principle of joint crime for the distinction between the perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility.
Chapter 4 demonstrates in detail the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise, analyzes the three forms of joint criminal enterprise in the Appeals Chamber Judgment on the Tadic Case by the ICTY, and their relationship with the act form of aid and abet.
The chapter emphasizes the principle developed from Radoslav Brdanin case and Momcilo Krajisnik case to the act of persons with high level position. The joint criminal enterprise in the thesis is divided into two modes. The first is the "traditional joint criminal enterprise" in which senior political and military leadersplot crimes and the low level persons commit crimes. They all belong to the same joint criminal enterprise. The second is "joint criminal enterprise at the leadership level", in which only senior political and military leaderswho plots and put the crimes into action are the members of the joint criminal enterprise, the low level persons who physically commit the crimes are the crime tool used by the senior political and military leadersto secure the crimes. ICTY distinguishes between perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility according to subjective approach. It is a not good choice. The second mode is actually a not bad choice.
Chapter 5 analyzes the notion of co-perpetration based on the notion of control of crime. If one of the co-perpetrators does finishes his task entrusted to him, the common criminal plan will fail. This chapter does also analyze the situation where the senior political and military leadersas co-perpetrators through organized structure of power finish their own essential tasks. The defects of the mode of "joint criminal enterprise at the leadership level" can be resolved through indirect perpetrators.
研究国际刑法中的共同犯罪行为,让个人对国际犯罪负刑事责任,特别是高级军政上级对国际犯罪的刑事责任,梳理、改造、构建合理的关于国际犯罪的理论学说,进而完善有效打击严重国际犯罪的法理基础,以此来保证有罪必罚原则能够落到实处；同时也可在国际社会有关个人对国际犯罪负刑事责任方面构建一个相互交融的平台：横向观之,可比较各国的理论与实践；纵向观之,则可将各国的理论与实践与国际条约、特别法庭规约、国际刑事法院规约和国际审判相比较。
过去几年国际刑法所经历的重大发展,都是将高级军政上级认定为大规模的、有系统的国际犯罪中的主犯,让他们承担最重的刑事责任。在正犯与共犯之间的区分方法,以及全面反映高级军政上级在大规模、有系统的国际犯罪中作为主犯的共同犯罪体概念和犯罪控制概念之作用等问题上,前南问题国际刑事法庭和卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭的案例法与《罗马规约》有着不同的选择。《罗马规约》以国际刑事法院的制度为基准,部分地继承了国际刑事法庭案例法演进过程中的国际刑法理念,较之特别国际刑事法庭各自的实体法规定看,《罗马规约》第10条、第21条和第22条第3款明确了国际刑事法院的特有制度。
论文共包括5章。第1章强调国际犯罪和国际刑法中的共同犯罪行为特征,以及高级军政上级在大规模和有系统的国际犯罪中的核心作用。当犯罪发生时,高级军政上级通常都远离犯罪现场,与犯罪组织中以自己的身体动静实施犯罪的下级人员没有直接接触。这样,如果运用国内犯罪行为的传统概念,似乎因为缺少高级军政上级的直接犯罪行为而难以追究与其所犯罪行严重程度相适应的刑事责任。针对这一难题,国际刑法专注于特定概念的发展,其中犯罪控制和共同犯罪体即是体现国际犯罪中高级军政上级核心作用的概念。不过,这些概念并非国际刑法的原创,而是国内刑法本身所固有的概念,只不过国际刑法将其发展并整合适用于国际犯罪的某些特定情况。
第2章着墨于负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯之间的区别。正犯,是指其刑事责任独立于其他共犯的人；共犯,则是指其刑事责任源于正犯的人。该章首先提出的问题是国际刑法是否采纳了这种区别,在分析总结了二战后国际刑法的演进之后,笔者得出了肯定的回答,与此同时,笔者还详细论证了正犯与共犯刑事责任之间的区别。
共同犯罪体概念,是以主观说区别负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯的概念；犯罪控制概念,则是以实质客观说区别负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯的概念。继探讨了主观说和实质客观说的通常地位之后,该章得出的结论认为,尽管有前南问题国际刑事法庭上诉庭关于Tadic案的判决,且现在的趋势是广泛接受犯罪控制概念,但习惯国际法尚未就负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯之间的区别形成默契。
第3章论证了直接正犯和间接正犯的概念。在直接正犯概念中,特别强调了不作为概念,以及这种形式的不作为与负共犯刑事责任或根据上级责任原则所确定的不作为之间的区别。
该章还论证了《罗马规约》第25条第3款第1项所规定的“通过不论是否负刑事责任的另一人”实施犯罪的间接正犯概念。该部分特别强调了权力组织结构体所必须具有的使间接正犯概念得以适用的特征。间接正犯不适用于小规模的准军事组织或恐怖集团,因为人数的有限性使得小规模团体的人员不具有替换性,或者说从组织结构上看,这样的团体只具有横向而非纵向的特征。在继这些分析之后,该部分认为,另外几种与间接正犯概念相关的负共犯刑事责任的行为形式——命令、教唆和计划,可在间接正犯概念不能适用时予以采用。
最后两章论证了共同正犯概念,共同正犯概念必须与界分负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共同犯罪一般原则相一致。第4章详细论证了共同犯罪体原理,分析了前南法庭上诉庭关于Tadic案判决的三种共同犯罪体形式,以及它们与负共犯刑事责任的协助煽动行为之间的关系。
该章强调了根据Radoslav Brdanin和Momcilo Krajisnik案发展而来的针对身居要职者对国际犯罪负刑事责任的原则。论文将共同犯罪体分为两种模式：一种是在“传统的共同犯罪体”情况下,高级军政上级策划犯罪,下级人员实施犯罪,上级和下级人员均为同一犯罪体的成员；另一种是“上级层面的共同犯罪体”,只有计划和将计划付诸实施的最高层的政治和军事官员是犯罪体的成员,以自己的身体动静实施犯罪的下级是上级的犯罪工具。前南法庭依据主观说界分负主犯刑事责任的正犯与负从犯刑事责任的共犯,这是一种欠佳的抉择,事实上,这里的第二种模式对于追究高级军政上级的刑事责任比较可取。
第5章分析了共同控制犯罪基础上的共同正犯行为概念,其中特别指出,一旦有某个共同正犯没有完成分配的任务,就会使共同犯罪计划“流产”。该部分还分析了作为共同正犯的高级军政上级,通过权力组织结构体(军事组织、警察部队和/或政治团体)在完成其必要的“角色任务”时的犯罪情况,通过借助间接共同正犯概念,使得“上级层面的共同犯罪体”模式的缺陷得以消解。
The doctrine of bearing criminal responsibility solely for ones is an universal principle in the modern domestic criminal law in the world. Anyone should be held criminally liable for their criminal acts committed without any pretext to escape legal punishment. An offender bears criminal responsibility only for his own crimes rather than those of others. The principle of individual criminal responsibility is laid on the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Trials after World WarⅡfor the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes which are different from ordinary crimes.
To study, comb, transform and construct individual criminal responsibility for international crimes, in particular the criminal responsibility of the senior political and military leaders is the legal basis for effectively combating serious international crime. And if so, no impunity principle can be implemented; a global platform for interacting with each other on individual criminal responsibility for international crimes can be built, which can be used to compare theories and practices among different countries from horizontal point and theories and practices of different countries with international treaties, the Ad hoc Tribunal Statutes, the Rome Statute and international trials from vertical point.
The important evolution of international criminal law experiences in the past few years is that the senior political and military leaders are held the principals and bear the heaviest criminal responsibility for large-scale and systematic international crimes. The Rome Statue has a different choice to the distinction between the principal and accessorial liability, the notion of joint criminal enterprise and the notion of control of crime for the principal role of senior political and military leadersin the large-scale and systematic international crimes to the ICTY and ICTR Case Law.
The drafter of the Rome Statute, based on the ICC system, does not completely inherit the ICTY and ICTR Case Law in the evolution of international criminal law. Compared to the substantive provisions of ICTY and ICTR Statutes, Article 10, Article 21 and paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Rome Statute provide a clearly unique system for the ICC.
The thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 emphasizes international crimes, the specific characters of individual criminal responsibility for international crimes and the central role of the senior political and military leadersin the large-scale and systematic international crimes. When the crimes occur, the senior political and military leaders are usually far away from the crime scene and have no direct contact with their subordinates who physically commit the crimes. If we apply the domestic traditional concepts of criminal responsibility, it seems hard to reflect the correspondingly grave criminal responsibility of the senior political and military leadersbecause of their lacking of direct criminal behaviors. In response to this problem, international criminal law focuses on the development of the specific concepts of crimes. Control of the crime and joint criminal enterprise are two concepts to reflect the central role of the senior political and military superiors. However, these concepts are not coined by the international criminal law, but are inherent in the domestic criminal law, which are developed and adjusted to certain circumstances of international crimes.
Chapter 2 focuses the distinction between perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility. Perpetrators are those whose criminal responsibility is independent of other accessories. Accessories are those whose criminal responsibility comes from perpetrators'criminal responsibility. The chapter firstly mentions the question whether international criminal law has adopted this distinction. After analyzing the evolution of international criminal law after World War II, the thesis obtains an affirmative answer and at the same time discusses the different actions respectively by perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility.
The notion of joint criminal enterprise distinguishes the different actions respectively by perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility based on subjective approach, while the notion of control of crime distinguishes the different actions respectively by perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility based on material-objective approach. Having discussed the usual positions of subjective approach and material-objective approach, the author obtains the conclusion that despite the Appeals Chamber Judgment on the Tadic Case by the ICTY and the present trend of widely accepting the notion of control of crime, customary international law has not yet formed agreement on the distinction of the different actions respectively by perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility.
Chapter 3 demonstrates the notions of direct and indirect perpetration. The notion of omission and distinction between the omission of this form and the omission under accessories'criminal responsibility or under the doctrine of superior responsibility are particularly emphasized.
The chapter also demonstrates the notion of indirect perpetration, defined in article 25(3)a of the Rome Statute as the commission of a crime through another person. The chapter emphasizes the specific characters of organized structure of power which makes the notion of indirect perpetration applicable. The notion of indirect perpetration does not apply to small-scale paramilitary units or terrorist groups because the limited staff number makes the members of the small-scale groups irreplaceable, or it may be said that these groups have only horizontal but not vertical characters from the view of structure. Following these analyses, the chapter has the conclusion that the several other forms of action, such as ordering, instigation and planning, that bearing secondary criminal responsibility, can be available when the notion of indirect perpetration does not apply.
The last two chapters demonstrate the notion of co-perpetration. The notion must be consistent with the general principle of joint crime for the distinction between the perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility.
Chapter 4 demonstrates in detail the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise, analyzes the three forms of joint criminal enterprise in the Appeals Chamber Judgment on the Tadic Case by the ICTY, and their relationship with the act form of aid and abet.
The chapter emphasizes the principle developed from Radoslav Brdanin case and Momcilo Krajisnik case to the act of persons with high level position. The joint criminal enterprise in the thesis is divided into two modes. The first is the "traditional joint criminal enterprise" in which senior political and military leadersplot crimes and the low level persons commit crimes. They all belong to the same joint criminal enterprise. The second is "joint criminal enterprise at the leadership level", in which only senior political and military leaderswho plots and put the crimes into action are the members of the joint criminal enterprise, the low level persons who physically commit the crimes are the crime tool used by the senior political and military leadersto secure the crimes. ICTY distinguishes between perpetrators bearing principal criminal responsibility and accessories bearing secondary criminal responsibility according to subjective approach. It is a not good choice. The second mode is actually a not bad choice.
Chapter 5 analyzes the notion of co-perpetration based on the notion of control of crime. If one of the co-perpetrators does finishes his task entrusted to him, the common criminal plan will fail. This chapter does also analyze the situation where the senior political and military leadersas co-perpetrators through organized structure of power finish their own essential tasks. The defects of the mode of "joint criminal enterprise at the leadership level" can be resolved through indirect perpetrators.
引文
1 United Nations Security Council (UNSC) 'Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992)' (27 May 1994) UN Doc S/ 1994/674; UNSC 'Annexes to the Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992)'(28 Dec 1994) UN Doc S/ 1994/674/Add 2 (Vol II).2 UNSC 'Preliminary Report of the Independent Commission of Experts in accordance with Security Council Resolution 935 (1994)'(4 Oct 1994) UN Doc S/1994/1125; UNSC 'Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 935 (1994)'(9 Dec 1994) UN Doc S/1994/1405.3不过,这也并非绝对。例如,在伊拉克最高法院对萨达姆的审判过程中,对他的指控限定在：(1)1982年杜贾尔村沦陷的第一天9人被杀害；(2)399名该村居民被非法逮捕；(3)对妇女和儿童的酷刑,以及命令将农田夷为平地,以报复意图对他的刺杀；(4)由其革命法庭(Revolutionary Court)判处148人死刑。萨达姆最终由伊拉克最高法院于2006年11月11日判处并执行死刑。4 Charles Ghankay Taylor (Indictment) SCSL-03-01-I (3 Mar 2003), para29.5 Charles Ghankay Taylor (Indictment) SCSL-03-01-I (3 Mar 2003), para 30.6 Charles Ghankay Taylor (Indictment) SCSL-03-01-I (3 Mar 2003), para 31.1 Attorney General v Adolf Eichmann (1968) 36 ILR 18, para197.2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para192.1 Conde F M, Aran M G, Penal D. Parte Gerneral [M].5th ed. Valencia:Tirant lo Blanch,2002:448-449.2根据Tadic案的上诉裁决(Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999)第229段,可从下列4点界分共同犯罪体概念(或共同目的理论)与协助煽动(aiding and abetting)概念：(1)协助煽动者(aider and abettor)是另一个犯罪实施者即正犯的共犯；(2)在协助煽动的情况下,无需证明存在共同一致的计划,更不用说预先就存在计划。不要求计划或协议的存在,正犯甚至都不需要知道共犯的作用：(3)协助煽动者行为的目的是,给予某种特定犯罪(杀害、灭绝、强奸、酷刑、任意毁灭平民财产等)的实施以帮助、鼓励或道义支持,这种支持对犯罪的实施具有实质效果。相比较而言,在追求共同的目或方案的情况下,行为人的行为只要以某种方式促进共同计划或目的的实现为即可；(4)在协助煽动的情况下,必备的心理要件是知道(knowledge),即协助煽动者的行为是在帮助正犯实施特定的犯罪。相比较而言,在有共同目的或计划的情况下,如同上面提到的那样,要求更多一些,即意在实施这一犯罪或意在追求共同的犯罪方案,以及能够预见到的共同犯罪目的之外的犯罪。3 Eser A. Individual Criminal Responsibility[C]//Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones J. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:A Commentary. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002:793; Ambos K. Article 25. Individual Criminal Responsibility[C]//Triffterer O. Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Baden-Baden:Nomos,1999:4794通常可见以下三个国家的法典和判决：(1)澳大利亚:R v Johns (1978) 1 NSEWLR 282,290; R v McAuliffe (1995) 69 AKHR 6211; 1913年《西部澳大利亚刑法典》(Western Australian Criminal Code Act)第8(1)条；1899年《昆士兰刑法典》(Queensland Criminal Code Act)第8条；(2)英格兰和威尔士:R v Powell, R v English (1997) 4 ALL ER 545; R v Hyde (1991) 1 QB 134; R v Anderson, R v Morris (1996) 2 QB 110; (3)美国:Pinkerton v United States,328 US 640 (1946); State of Connecticut v Diaz 679 A/ 2d 902 (1996); 1997年《爱荷华法典》第703(2)条,等。民法法系国家也援引类似于共同犯罪体概念或共同目的理论的刑事责任理论。例如,西班牙在1995年《刑法典》实行前一直适用“先前同意说”(doctrine of the previous agreement),详见the Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court of 22 Feb 1985,31 May 1985 and 13 May 1986.转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:6. note 19.5 Rush P, Yeah S. Criminal Law Sourcebook[M]. Sydney:Butterworths,2001:662; Snyman C R. Criminal Law [M]. Durban:Butterworths,1995:246-247.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para439.2 US v Altstoetter (1947) in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal under Control Council Law No 10, Vols III (US Government Printing Office,1951), para954.3 US v Greifelt et al (1948) in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal under Council Law No 10, Vols IV and V (US Government Printing Office,1951), para203.4 Rwamakuba Case (Appeals Chamber Decision) IVTR-98-44-AR72.4 (23 Jul 2004), para25; Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Pertpetration, Separate Opinion of Judge Bonomy) ICTY-05-87-PT (22 Mar 2006), paras 18-22.52006年3月11日,米洛舍维奇在前南法庭的羁押所去世。6 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Third Amended Joinder Indictment) ICTY-05-87-PT (21 Jun 2006), parasl8-19.1 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Third Amended Joinder Indictment) ICTY-05-87-PT (21 Jun 2006). para20.2 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Third Amended Joinder Indictment) ICTY-05-87-PT (21 Jun 2006), para21.3 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Third Amended Joinder Indictment) ICTY-05-87-PT (21 Jun 2006), para 22.4 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Third Amended Joinder Indictment) ICTY-05-87-PT (21 Jun 2006), para34.5 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Third Amended Joinder Indictment) ICTY-05-87-PT (21 Jun 2006), para 22.6 Olasolo H. Reflections on the Treatment of the Notions of Control of the Crime and Joint Criminal Enterprise in the Stakic Appeal Judgment[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2007, (7):143-162.7 Badar M E. Just Convict Everyone!—Joint Perpetration from Tadic to Stakic and Back Again[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2006, (6):293-302.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-24-A (22 Mar 2006) para 468.2这里的间接正犯,反映的是高级军政上级与其组织中的中低层人员之间的层级或纵向关系。3这里的功能性控制概念,反映的是同一层级人员之间的横向关系,即本案特指高级军政上级之间的关系。4 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Third Amended Joinder Indictment) ICTY-05-87-PT (21 Jun 2006), paras22,34.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chambr I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para337.2国际刑事法院检察官办公室在Lubanga案中也持有同样的观点,详见:Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 323.1 Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:41.1 Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:41.3 Kittichaisaree K. International Criminal Law[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2001:235.4 Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:41.1 Fletcher G P. Rethinking Criminal Law[M].2nd ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000:36.2 Smith J C, Hogan B. Criminal Law [M].11th ed. London:Butterworths,2005:165.3 Gillies P. Criminal Law[M].4th ed. North Ryde:LBC Information Services,1997:1554 Krnojelac案的上诉判决指出,Tadic案上诉判决中的术语"accomplice"的含义如下：“上诉庭首先注意到,在法庭的案例法中,甚至是在统一判决中,这一术语视情形不同而有不同的含义,可能指共同正犯或协助煽动者”5 Fletcher G P. Rethinking Criminal Law[M].2nd ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000:659.6 Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:15.7 Gillies P. Criminal Law[M].4th ed. North Ryde:LBC Information Services,1997:155.8 Kadish S H. Complicity, Cause and Blame:A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine[J]. California Law Review, 1985,73(2):323-410.1 Smith J C, Hogan B. Criminal Law [M].11th ed. London:Butterworths,2005:165-166.2《德国刑法典》第27条第2款。3《西班牙刑法典》第28条和第63条。4《阿根廷刑法典》第45条和第46条：《哥伦比亚刑法典》第29条和第30条。5 Hamdorf K. The Concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise and Domestic Modes of Liability for Parties to a Crime: A Comparison of German and English Law[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (1):208-226; Fletcher G P. Rethinking Criminal Law[M].2nd ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000:636.6《奥地利刑法》第12条。7《丹麦刑法典》第23条第1款。8《意大利刑法典》第110条。9这样,这些国家适用的是纯粹性因果方法确立正犯概念。10鉴于此,有建议认为应当在欧盟层面采用这种一元化制度。1在这些国家制度,特别是大陆法系国家的制度中,共犯的共犯不受刑事处罚,作为一项对个人的重要安全阀,源于共犯责任的派生性。2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para191.3 Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:21.1见同盟国管理理事会颁发的第10号法令第Ⅱ条第2款。2转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:21.3转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:21.4转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:22.5 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para186; Gustafson K. The Requirements of an "Express Agreement" for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability:A Critique of Branin[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):134-158.6 UNSC 'Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993)'(3 May 1993) UN Doc s/25704, para53.7 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), paras187-193; Cassese A. The Proper Limits if Individual Responsibility under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):109-133.; Sliedregt E V. Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):184-207.8 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), p187-193.1 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), p186.2在这种情况下,共同犯罪体概念或共同目的理论应该是在第7条第1款“进行”项下的内容。3在这种情况下,共同犯罪体概念或共同目的理论应该是在第7条第1款“协助煽动”项下的内容,或者构成了这种规定范围内从犯刑事责任的自主形式。4在这种情况下,共同犯罪体概念或共同目的理论应该是一种前述普通法系不界分正犯与共犯的从犯责任理论(theory of accomplice liability)或共犯关系(partnership in crime)理论,在第7条第1款的范围内是一种自主的责任形式。5 Sliedregt E V. Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (1):184-207.6 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), p229.7 Prosecutor v Kordic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para373.8 Prosecutor v Krstic (Trial Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), para 642. Prosecutor v Kvocka案的判决也采用的这一界分方法。审判庭认为,参与共同犯罪体但没有以自己的身体动静实施犯罪客观行为要件的人：(1)要么是主犯(正犯),如果他们在共同的犯罪目的的主导下为犯罪出力加功；(2)要么是从犯(协助煽动者),如果他们在出力协助犯罪时知道但不具有共同的犯罪目的。1 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction---Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTY-99-37-AR72 (21 May 2003), para20.2 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), paras30,73.3 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), paras95,102,111.4 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para33.5 Prosecutor v Krstic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-33-A (19 Apr 2004), paras134,137.6 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para79.7 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para243.8 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 Apr 2007), paras431,434,444-450.9 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), paras79-81.10 Prosecutor v Martic (Judgment) ICTY-95-11-T (12 Jun 2007), paras435-440.11 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Judgment) ICTY-97-25-T (15 Mar 2002), paras75-77.12 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction---Joint Criminal Enterprise, Separate Opinion of Judge Hunt) ICTY-99-37-AR72 (21 May 2003), para31.13 Sliedregt E V. Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007,(5):184-207.1 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), para462.3 Prosecutor v Gacumbitsi (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-2001-64-A (7 Jul 2006), para158.2 Prosecutor v Simba (Judgment) ICTR-01-76-T (13 Dec 2005), para389.4 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on Prosecution's Application for Warrant of Arrest) ICC-01/04-01/06 9910 Feb 2006), para78.5 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on Prosecution's Application for Warrant of Arrest) ICC-01/04-01/06 9910 Feb 2006), para78.6 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on Prosecution's Application for Warrant of Arrest) ICC-01/04-01/06 9910 Feb 2006), para320.1例如, Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003),第75段强调：“共同犯罪体的正犯,其行为比协助煽动者的行为严重,因为共同犯罪体的正犯(主犯)享有同一意图,而协助煽动者只需要了解这一意图。”第92段在解释界分共同犯罪体概念与协助煽动概念的重要性时说道：“上诉庭注意到,界分这两种参与概念,对精确描述犯罪和确定妥当的刑罚很重要。协助煽动一般较共同犯罪体的共同正犯的个人刑事责任程度要低些。”2 Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:28.1根据共谋概念,仅仅达成犯罪的一致意向,就能导致产生刑事责任,而不论共同的犯罪计划是否最终达成。这样,共谋就被描述为“有犯罪目的的伙伴关系"(partnership in criminal purpose)。详见United States v Kissel,218 US 601,608(1910)。对于共谋,某些国家要求有公开的行为表明共同犯罪目的的存在,才可导致产生刑事责任。详见Gletcher G P. Is Conspiracy Unique to the Common Law?[J]. American Journal of Comparative Law,1995,43:171. Pinkerton案(Pinkerton v United States,328 US 640 (1946)),是共谋概念在美国的肇始。根据Pinkerton规则,某人与其他人达成犯罪一致,就成为共谋的一方,即便他没有参与共同犯罪目的中的所有行为,他都要对此负刑事责任。详见:Fichtelberg A. Conspiracy and International Criminal Justice[J]. Criminal Law Forum,2006, (2):149-176.Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:28.3例如,普通法系国家的共谋行为,以及我国刑法第22条的犯罪预备规定,都属于将预备行为犯罪化的一般性规定。4例如,《西班牙刑法典》第17条和第18条规定了合谋犯、建议犯和煽动犯的定义,同时又规定合谋犯、建议犯和煽动犯,只有在法律有特别规定时才给予处罚。5虽然《罗马规约》第25条3款第2项中的“唆使”给人的感觉是,仅仅邀请他人实施《罗马规约》规定的犯罪就将导致刑事责任的产生,而不论被邀请人最终是否参加了犯罪。6[加]威廉·A·夏巴斯.国际刑事法院导论[M].黄芳译.北京：中国公安大学出版社,2006：46.7有学者认为,将共谋概念排除于《罗马规约》不符合习惯国际法。详见Cassese A. International Criminal Law[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003:347而且,即便《罗马规约》没有体现共谋概念的规定,共谋概念也可以根据《罗马规约》第21条第1款第2-3项的规定而适用,因为共谋概念是国际法规则和原则的组成部分,也是国际刑事法院从主要国家法律制度中得出的一般原则。详见:Fichtelberg A. Conspiracy and International Criminal Justice[J]. Criminal Law Forum,2006, (2):149-176不过,笔者认为,这种解释忽视了《罗马规约》第22条第1款规定的罪刑法定原则；而且,也不符合第22条第2款“犯罪定义应予以严格解释,不得类推延伸。涵义不明时,对定义作出的解释应有利于被调查、被起诉或被定罪的人”的规定。1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:31.2形式客观说是普通法系国家的做法。不过,也有一些大陆法系国家的学者支持该说。3继1995年《刑法典》之后,西班牙最高法院采用的是主观说。例如,见1985年2月22日、1985年5月31日和1986年5月13日西班牙最高法院的判决。不过,从20世纪80年代末开始,西班牙最高法院坚持放弃了主观说并接受犯罪控制概念,随着1995年西班牙《刑法典》的实施,西班牙最高法院彻底放弃了主观说。同样,在上世纪的最后25年期间,德国司法来回摇摆于界分正犯与共犯标准的主观说和犯罪控制概念之间。1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:32.2转引自H Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:32.3张明楷.外国刑法刚要[M].2版.北京：清华大学出版社,2007：301.4转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:32-33.5转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:33.6张明楷.外国刑法刚要[M].2版.北京：清华大学出版社,2007：302.1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:33.2转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:33.Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para227; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A(17 Sep 2003), para31; Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para100.3对于这一问题, Prosecutor v Milutinovic案的第23-26段解释道：“共谋”概念和“犯罪组织成员状态”概念不同于共同犯罪体概念或共同目的理论,因为后者是作为共同犯罪体组成部分参与犯罪的实施而引起的刑事责任形式。根据前南法庭上诉庭观点,仅仅达成协议足以构成共谋,而不管犯罪是否真正实施。至于犯罪组织成员状态,以知道并自愿成为犯罪组织的成员为已足。详见Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction---Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTY-99-37-AR72 (21 May2003)。但是也有不同的观点认为,前南法庭的案例法发展了一种“集体犯罪体" (collective criminal enterprise)概念,而这种概念难以与共谋概念相界分。详见:Barrel R P, Little LE. Lessons of Yugoslav Rape Trial: A Role for Conspiracy Law in International Criminal Tribunals[J]. Minnesota Law Review,2003,88:30-86; Prosecutor v Martic (Appeals Chamber Judgment, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the individual criminal responsibility of Milan Martic) ICTY-95-11A (8 Oct 2008), para227.5 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para227; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A(17 Sep 2003), para31; Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber??Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para100.1 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para228; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), paras 32-33; Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para101。2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), paras227,229.3 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para228.4有学者认为,对共同犯罪体犯罪的出力协助至少要有一定程度的要求。详见:Danner A M, Martinez J S, Guilty Associations:Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility and the Development of International Criminal Law[J]. California Law Review,2005,93(1):75-169.5 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para101; Wilt H V D. Joint Criminal Enterprise:Possibilities and Limitations[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):91-108.6国际刑事法院第一预审庭在Lubanga案中指出：“犯罪控制概念构成了界分正犯与共犯的第三种学说,其不同于辩方申辩的那样,犯罪控制概念适用于许多国家。该概念意味着,正犯不限于以自己的身体动静实施犯罪客观行为要件的人,也包括哪些尽管远离犯罪现场,但控制或主导犯罪的人,因为他们决定是否以及如何实施犯罪。”详见Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on Prosecution's Applicaiton for Warrant??of Arrest) ICC-01/04-01/06 9910 Feb 2006), para330.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/7(1 Oct 2008), para484.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/7(1 Oct 2008), para488.1 UNSC 'Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security council Resolution 808 (1993)' (3 May 1993) UN Doc S/25704, para29.2 UNSC 'Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security council Resolution 808 (1993)' (3 May 1993) UN Doc S/25704, para29.1《前南规约》第2条规定了严重违反《日内瓦公约》的行为。2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para143.3 Lamb S. Nullum Crimen sine lege A Cassese [C]//Gaeta P, Jones J. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:A Commentary. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002:742.4 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para94.5 Prosecutor v Strugar (Decision on Interlocutory Appeal) ICTY-01-42-AR72 (22 Nov 2002), paras9,10,13.6 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction---Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTY-99-37-AR72 (21 May 2003), para9.7 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction---Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTY-99-37-AR72 (21 May 2003), para21.8 Prosecutor v Handzihasanovic (Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Challenging Jurisdiction in Relation to Command Responsiblility) ICTY-01-47-AR72 (23 Jul 2003), para32.9 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para62.1前南法庭Galic案的上诉判决第82段,从表面上看似乎背离了这种对罪刑法定原则的新释义,因为这一段提到有约束力的条约法禁止的行为和规定的刑事责任可成为为国际刑事法庭管辖权的基础。但这只是形式上而非实质上的,因为在同一段中,上诉庭又强调,实践中国际刑事际法庭一直认为谈到的条约规定也是对习惯的宣告。2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para185.3 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para187.4 Tadic案的上诉判决,撤销了审判庭对Tadic在1992年6月14日杀害Jaskici村5名非塞尔维亚人的无罪判决。上诉判决根据扩张的共同犯罪体形式,将Tadic定位为杀人行为的共同正犯,并将对他的刑罚从7年提高到20年。上诉庭认为,从1992年5月开始,通过实施不人道的行为清除Prijedor地区非塞尔维亚人的共同犯罪目的开始实施。虽然共同犯罪目的不包括杀害非塞尔维亚人,但杀人常常导致的结果是清除Prijedor地区的非塞尔维亚人。1992年6月14日对Jaskici村的攻击,贯彻了这种共同犯罪目的。在这次攻击中,有5名非塞尔维亚人被杀害(4人头部中弹)。通过对Jaskici村的攻击,实现共同犯罪目的的可预见到的结果是,非塞尔维亚人会被杀害。Tadic是攻击Jaskici村军事团体的一员,在攻击的过程中,他虽然没有杀人,但他狠狠地打了Jaskici村的人。通过对Jaskici村的人实施非人道行为,他参加到这场攻击中,意图推进清除Prijedor地区非塞尔维亚人的共同犯罪目的。他也认识到,他所在的武装团体的行为很可能导致这种杀人结果,但他情愿冒险加入到这场攻击中。详见Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), paras230-232; Prosecutor v Tadic (Judgment in Sentencing Appeals) ICTY-94-1-A (26 Jan 2000), para76.5 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), note 73。6 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), paras220,226-228.'Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para226.1 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), paras190,192,220,226,229.2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para191.3 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para192.4 Sliedregt E V. Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice.2007. (51:184-207.5 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para190.6 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para220这些陈述导致了不确定性,即是否前南法庭上诉庭真的将共同犯罪体概念或共同目的理论视为引起主犯刑事责任并可列入了《前南规约》第7条第1款)的“犯下”。从Kvocka案的判决可看出这种不确定性：“必须承认,共同犯罪体的责任形式似乎存在一种内在的矛盾。正如我们讨论的那样,它一方面要求只需知道而非共同具有犯罪意图就明确允许通过协助煽动对犯罪进行出力协助；而在其他场合,Tadic案定义参加犯罪时用的是具有共同意图,而并没有明确这种情况只限于共同正犯。”7 Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para373.1 Kordic案在关于“犯下”的简要次标题中的第376段指出：“任何直接实施都需要在明知的前提下以自己的身体动静实施《前南规约》规定的犯罪行为。”Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on Motion by Momir Talic for Provisional Release) ICTY-99-36-T (28 Mar 2001), paras40-45.3 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on Motion by Momir Talic for Provisional Release) ICTY-99-36-T (28 Mar 2001), para43.4 Prosecutor v Krstic (Trial Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), para643.5 Prosecutor v Krstic (Trial Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), para601.6 Prosecutor v Krstic (Trial Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), paras642-643正如审判庭指出的那样：“在Tadic案的上诉判决中,上诉庭提到共同目的概念作为负共犯责任的一种,第二审判庭以此为据,界分“犯下”与第7条第1款规定的共同目的责任。不过,第二审判庭认为Tadic案上诉判决的评注不是判决的审判理由(ratio decidendi)之组成部分,而且第二审判庭不相信Tadic案的特性化意味着参加共同犯罪体便自动将被告人的责任降低到《前南规约》第4条第5款规定的“共谋灭绝种族”。在Celebici上诉案判决中,上诉庭再次确定第7条第1款的语言含义为,第7条第1款规定的责任是直接正犯和共犯。在Kordic和Cerkez案中,审判庭认为,第7条第1款列出的各种参与形式可被划分为主要正犯和共犯。简言之,审判庭认为拒绝认定参加了严重犯罪和处于领导层的共同灭绝种族团体成员以共同正犯状态,是没有道理的。似乎很明确,共犯责任意味着相对于直接或主要正犯责任的次要的参与形式。审判庭认为,这种区别与第4条第3款规定的“灭绝种族”与“共谋灭绝种族”的界分是一致的。面对案件,出现的问题可以总结为,犯罪体的参与者可被精确地认定为直接或主要的正犯,抑或是共犯传统角色中的次要人物。7 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Judgment) ICTY-97-25-T (15 Mar 2002), paras75-77.1 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Judgment) ICTY-97-25-T (15 Mar 2002), paras 73-77.Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction---Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTY-99-37-AR72 (21 May 2003), paras 20,21,29,31.Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction---Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTY-99-37-AR72 (21 May 2003), para17.4 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction---Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTY-99-37-AR72 (21 May 2003), para17.5 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction---Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTY-99-37-AR72 (21 May 2003), para29.1 Haan V. The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2005, (5):167-201.2 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Judgment) ICTY-97-25-T (15 Mar 2002), para78.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para433.4 Haan V. The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2005, (5):167-201.1 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), paras462-463,464-4672 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), para468.3 Karemera v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Jurisdictional Appeals:Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTR-98-44-AR75.2 (12 April 2006), para13.4 Gacumbitsi v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Responsibility of the Appellant for Committing Genocide) ICTR-2001-64-(7 Jul 2006), para158.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras333-338; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/7 (1 Oct 2008), para483.2 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 Apr 2007), paras410-414.3 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 Apr 2007), para412.4 Gacumbitsi v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Responsibility of the Appellant for Committing Genocide) ICTR-2001-64-(7 Jul 2006), paras16-18.1见《国际法院规约》第38条第1款第2项。2 Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru) [1950] ICJ Rep 266, para276.3 North Sea Continental Self Case (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands) [1969] ICJ Rep 14, para44.4 Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para98.5 Bassiouni M C. Introduction to International Criminal Law[M]. New York:Transnational Publisher,2003:222.6 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para224.7 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para220.8 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), paras222-223.1《罗马规约》是在1998年7月17日罗马外交都会上通过的,120票赞同,7票反对,21票弃权。2002年7月1日生效。截止2012年4月5日,有139个签字国,121个缔约国。2((1997年12月15日镇压恐怖爆炸公约》是由联合国大会52//164号决议通过的,2001年5月22日生效。目前有145个成员国。3 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para223.4 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para221.5 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para338; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/7 (1 Oct 2008), para483.6 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para337; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges)??ICC-01/04-01/7 (1 Oct 2008), paras478-480.1例如,《罗马规约》第25条第3款第1项用“伙同他人实施犯罪”表示共同正犯。2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para197.3 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para198.4 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para198.5 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para199.6 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para202.7 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), paras205-207.8 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para200.9 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para202.1 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), paras210-213.2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para197.3 Gillies P. Criminal Law[M].4th ed. North Ryde:LBC Information Services,1997:173.4 Gillies P. Criminal Law[M].4th ed. North Ryde:LBC Information Services,1997:175.5 Smith J C, Hogan B. Criminal Law [M].11th ed. London:Butterworths,2005:168.6 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para215.7 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para216.8 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para217.9 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para217.10 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para219.11 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para219.12 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para219.13 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para219.14 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para219.15 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para219.16 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para219.17见《意大利刑法典》第110条。1 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para201.2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para190.3 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para191.1 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para225.2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para225.3 Gillies P. Criminal Law[M].4th ed. North Ryde:LBC Information Services,1997:157-158; Smith J C, Hogan B. Criminal Law [M].11th ed. London:Butterworths,2005:167-168.4 Gillies P. Criminal Law[M].4th ed. North Ryde:LBC Information Services,1997:157-158; Smith J C, Hogan B. Criminal Law [M].11th ed. London:Butterworths,2005:167-168.5转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:61.1例如,见1985年2月22日、1985年5月31日、1986年5月13日和1994年10月4日西班牙最高法院的判决。2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/7(1 Oct 2008), paras484-485.3 Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:62.4 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para224.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on Prosecution's Application for Warrant of Arrest) ICC-01/04-01/06 9910 Feb 2006), para96.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para62.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/7(1 Oct 2008), para509.3例如,Prosecutor v Gacumbitsi (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-2001-64-A (7 Jul 2006),para204.1 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 Apr 2007), paras410-413.1 Cassese A. International Criminal Law[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003:180.2001年2月20日前南法庭上诉庭Delalic等案的判决强调,在主要或直接责任的情况下,被告人自己实施相关的作为或不作为,其对犯罪的参加是必不可少的,必须直接实质地影响犯罪的实施。详见:Prosecutor v Delalic et al (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-96-21-A, para345.2 Prosecutor v Milosevic (Croatia:Second Amended Indictment) ICTY-02-54-T (28 Jul 2004), para5.3 Fletcher G P. Rethinking Criminal Law[M].2nd ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000:575-576.1 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeal Chamber Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction) ICTY-94-1-A (15 Oct 1995), paras79-84; Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para80.2总体而言,近年来在战争罪方面,存在两个发展趋势：一是模糊国际性武装冲突与国内性武装冲突之间的界限；另一个是承认违反与国际人道法文件基本条款的行为导致刑事责任的产生。许多国内武装冲突的条款内容都来源于国际性武装冲突的规定。因此,在成立国际刑事法院的罗马外交会议上,有消除二者之间区别的提议,但没有得到多数代表的通过。详见:Hebel V H, Robinson D. Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court [C]//LEE R S. The International Criminal Court:The Making of the Rome Statute. The Hague:Kluwer, 1999:125.1国际刑事法院第一预审庭发现, Lubanga认识到确定事实状况的伊图里地区发生的国内性武装冲突(2002年8月初至2003年6月2日)和国际性武装冲突(2003年6月2日至2003年底)。详见:Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para406.2根据《罗马规约》的规定,恐怕只有第8条第1款和第17条第1款第4项规定的严重性门槛是管辖语境要件,因为犯罪的严重性是实施管辖的真正客观条件,不影响犯罪的成立,只是调查和起诉的必要条件,否则法院不能实施管辖。3 Smith J C, Hogan B. Criminal Law [M].11th ed. London:Butterworths,2005:112-113.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras351-352.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras351-352.3就一级直接故意而言,行为人意在实现犯罪既遂要求的结果,但至于犯罪既遂状况下的结果能否实现却在所不问。例如,持枪杀人,即便因距离较远无法射中目标,仍然属于一级直接故意杀人罪。4在二级直接故意的情况下,行为人的认识因素占主导地位,行为人认识到其行为几乎确定无疑将导致某种结果的产生而不管其在情感上能否接受。例如,丈夫用剧毒杀癌症晚期的妻子,虽然此时丈夫对妻子的死亡悲痛欲绝。5 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras351-352.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras352-353.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras529-530.3 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para251.4 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para355.1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:76.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para355.3 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para355.4见《罗马规约》第8条第2款第2项第26目和相应的《犯罪要件》条款规定。1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para358.2 Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para375.3 Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para375; Prosecutor v Martic (Judgment) ICTY-95-11-T (12 Jun 2007), para57; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para261; Prosecutor v Strugar (Judgment) ICTY-01-42-T (31 Jan 2005), paras235-236.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para255.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para353; Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para287.3 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para353.1 Prosecutor v Galic (Judgment) ICTY-98-29-T (5 Dec 2003), paras54-55.2 Prosecutor v Strugar (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-01-42-A (17 Jul 2008), paras270-271.3 Prosecutor v Galic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-29-A (30 Nov 2006) paras522-523.1 Fletcher G P. Rethinking Criminal Law[M].2nd ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000:421.2 Kuger I. Two Concepts of Omission[J]. Criminal Law Forum,2003,(4):421-447.3 Smith J C, Hogan B. Criminal Law [M].11th ed. London:Butterworths,2005:76; Duttwiler将这种不作为称为"proper crimes of omission”,详见:Duttwiler M. Liability for Omissions in International Criminal law[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2006, (6):1-61.4贾宇.刑法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2009：81.5 Smith J C, Hogan B. Criminal Law [M].11th ed. London:Butterworths,2005:77.6防止结果发生的行为,在某种条件下具有规范等价性,因为没有实施防止结果发生的行为与引起禁止结果的行为一样,具有可责性。但问题是,证明其正当性的条件是什么,却具有广泛的争议性。详见:Fletcher G P. Rethinking Criminal Law[M].2nd ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000:611,628-631.1 Smith J C, Hogan B. Criminal Law [M].11th ed. London:Butterworths,2005:77.2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para188.3有学者认为,虽然知道条约法只有有限的不作为规定,且《罗马规约》没有不作为的一般规定,关于不作为的习惯法也缺乏法的确信(opinion iuris),但是国际刑事法院能够适用不作为犯罪概念,因为当存在法定的作为义务时,法的一般原则认可不作为等价于作为。详见:Muttwiler M. Liability for Omissions in International Criminal law[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2006,6(1):1-61.4例如, Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para192; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para381; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para112.1根据国际红十字会的观点,必须界分上级不作为犯罪的主犯刑事责任、参加第三方犯罪的从犯刑事责任和《罗马规约》第28条、《前南规约》第7条第3款和《卢旺达规约》第6条第3款规定的上级故意或过失违反监管和约束下级义务的责任。详见:Sandoz Y, Swinarski C, Zimmermann B. ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 [C]. Geneva:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1987:1011.2 Prosecutor v Oric (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-03-68-A (3 July 2008), para43其他案件的判决也强调,当权者仅仅出现在犯罪现场,便可能成立协助煽动行为。详见:Prosecutor v Kayishema (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-95-1-A (1 Jun 2001, para201; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A(29 Jul 2004), para47; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Judgment) ICTY-97-25-T(15 Mar 2002), para89.3 Blaskic案的判决指出,未处罚已发生的犯罪,意味着可根据第7条第3款和第7条第1款认定指挥官的责任。详见:Prosecutor v Blaskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14-T (3 Mar 2000), paras337-339.1 Prosecutor v Kamuhanda and Kubura (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-02-47-A (22 Apr 2008), para30.2 Prosecutor v Oric (Judgment) ICTY-03-66-T (30 Nov 2005), para281.3 Prosecutor v Oric (Judgment) ICTY-03-66-T (30 Nov 2005), para281.4 Prosecutor v Oric (Judgment) ICTY-03-66-T (30 Nov 2005), paras169-170.5 Prosecutor v Oric (Judgment) ICTY-03-66-T (30 Nov 2005), para176.6 Prosecutor v Galic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-29-A (30 Nov 2006) para176.7 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para42; Prosecutor v Galic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-29-A (30 Nov 2006) para176.1 Prosecutor v Akayesu (Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T (2 Sep 1998), para693-694.2 Prosecutor v Oric (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-03-68-A (3 July 2008), paral8有学者将上级的不作为责任(被动的上级责任)和上级的命令责任(积极的上级责任)视为同一个事物的两面性。详见:Green LC. Superior Orders and Command Tesponsibility[J]. Canadian Yearbook of International Law,1989, (5):167-201.3 Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-47-T (15 Mar 2006), para66.1 Prosecutor v Oric (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-03-68-A (3 July 2008), para21.2 Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-47-T (15 Mar 2006), para125.3 Prosecutor v Strugar (Judgment) ICTY-01-42-T (31 Jan 2005), para373.4 Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-47-T (15 Mar 2006), para125.5 Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-47-T (15 Mar 2006), para126.6 Prosecutor v Delalic et al (Appeal Chamber Judgment) ICTY-96-21-A (2001 Feb 2001), para303.7 Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-47-T (15 Mar 2006), para90.8 Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-47-T (15 Mar 2006), para76.1 Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:91-92.Prosecutor v Ntagerura (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-99-46-A (7 Jul 2006), para372; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para48; Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para85; Prosecutor v Blagojevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-02-60-A (9 May 2007), para172.3 Triffterer O. Causality, A Separate Element of the Doctrine of Superior Responsibility as Expressed in Article 28 Rome Statute[J]. Leiden Journal of International Law,2002,15:179-205.4 Prosecutor v Kordic (Appeal Chambers Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para27; Prosecutor v Blaskic??(Judgment) ICTY-95-14-T (3 Mar 2000), para278.1 Prosecutor v Oric (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-03-68-A (3 July 2008), para20.2 Prosecutor v Oric (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-03-68-A (3 July 2008), paras90-91.1 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), paras67-69.2例如, Celebici案上诉判决第198段写道：“只要上级对下级的有效控制达到能够阻止下级犯罪或者处罚下级已经实施犯罪的程度,如果上级没有运用这种控制能力,上级将对犯罪负刑事责任。”祥见Prosecutor v Delalic et al(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-96-21-A (20 Feb 2001), para198.另见:Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), paras67-69; Prosecutor v Halilovic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-01-48-A (16 Oct 2006), para66.Halilovic案的上诉判决还特别强调,认定是否有效控制只需要从被告人是否有能力开始旨在开启刑事诉讼程序的调查即可；没有实际处罚能力不能仅仅从被告人没有开始调查或没有开始采取措施准备调查上判断。详见:Prosecutor v Halilovic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-01-48-A(16 Oct 2006), paras177-179.3 Prosecutor v Strugar (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-01-42-A (17 Jul 2008), paras253-254.1 Williamson J A. Command Responsibility in the Case Law of the international Criminal Tribunal Tribunal[J]. Criminal Law Forum,2003,13(3):365-384.2 Prosecutor v Strugar (Judgment) ICTY-01-42-T (31 Jan 2005), para73.3 Prosecutor v Kamuhanda (Judgment) ICTR-95-54A-T (22 Jan 2004), para601.4 Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-47-T (15 Mar 2006), para144.5 Prosecutor v Strugar (Judgment) ICTY-01-42-T (31 Jan 2005), para4206 Prosecutor v Strugar (Judgment) ICTY-01-42-T (31 Jan 2005), para375.7 Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-47-T (15 Mar 2006), para151.8 Prosecutor v Strugar (Judgment) ICTY-01-42-T (31 Jan 2005), para374.9 Prosecutor v Bagilishema (Judgment) ICTR-95-01A-T (7 Jun 2001), para50.1 Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic (Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Challenging Jurisdiction in Relation to Command Responsibility) ICTY-01-47-AR72 (23 Jul 2003), para50.2 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para723 Meloni C. Command Responsibility:Mode of Liability for the Crimes of Subordinates or Separate Offence of the Superior?[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):619-637.4例如,协助煽动要求“实质影响" (substantial effect),教唆要求“明确的出力因素" (clear contributing factor)从逻辑上看,在这种事实情况下,上级未履行阻止职责引起从犯刑事责任或派生责任,并不必然与其他形式的从犯刑事责任诸如协助煽动或教唆的因果关系相同。1 Ambos K. Superior Responsibility[C]. Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones J. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:A Commentary. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002:857.2 Prosecutor v Delalic et al (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-96—21-A (20 Feb 2001), para241; Prosecutor v Bagilishema (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-95-01A-A (7 Jul 2002), paras35-42; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para151; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para62; Prosecutor v Oric (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-03-68-A (3 July 2008), para51; Prosecutor v Strugar (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-01-42-A (17 Jul 2008), para297.3 Prosecutor v Strugar (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-01-42-A (17 Jul 2008), para304.1 Prosecutor v Strugar (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-01-42-A (17 Jul 2008), paras299-300.2 Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-47-T (15 Mar 2006), para185.3 Prosecutor v Halilovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-48-T (16 Nov 2005), para65; Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic??(Judgment) ICTY-01-47-T (15 Mar 2006), para75.1 Prosecutor v Halilovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-48-T (16 Nov 2005), para54.2 Prosecutor v Halilovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-48-T (16 Nov 2005), para78.Meloni C. Command Responsibility:Mode of Liability for the Crimes of Subordinates or Separate Offence of the Superior?[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):619-637.1 Eser A. Individual Criminal Responsibility[C]//Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones J. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:A Commentary. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002:791.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para333.3 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para333.4 Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:218.5 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on Motion by Momir Talic for Provisional Release) ICTY-99-36-T (28 Mar 2001), paras410-414.6 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on Motion by Momir Talic for Provisional Release) ICTY-99-36-T (28 Mar 2001), para448.1 Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:111.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para495.3 Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:71.4第32条第1款规定,事实错误只在否定构成犯罪所需的一般心理要件时,才可以作为排除刑事责任的理由。总体而言,一般心理要件包括一级直接故意(dolus directus in the first degree)、二级直接故意(dolus??directus in the second degree)和未必故意(dolus eventualis)。这样,只有对犯罪客观要件的认识错误,才能否定行为人的故意,才是《罗马规约》规定的相关因素,而证明行为正当或者合法的理由方面的事实情形,不是《罗马规约》规定的相关因素。根据《罗马规约》的规定,过失行为一般不会导致刑事责任的产生,因此无论错误源于行为人没有尽到足够的注意还是其他原因,行为人的任何事实错误都能否定行为人的故意。第32条第2款规定,法律错误只在否定构成犯罪所需的一般心理要件时,才可作为排除刑事责任的理由。同样关于排除刑事责任事由的事实情形——《罗马规约》第31条规定的患有精神病或精神不健全、醉态、正当防卫、威胁,也不能否定行为人的故意。1《罗马规约》第33条规定：“(一)某人奉政府命令或军职或文职上级命令行事而实施本法院管辖权内的犯罪的事实,并不免除该人的刑事责任,但下列情况除外：1.该人有服从有关政府或上级命令的法律义务；2该人不知道命令为不法的；和3.命令的不法性不明显。(二)为了本条的目的,实施灭绝种族罪或危害人类罪的命令是明显不法的。”关于排除刑事责任事由的事实情形——《罗马规约》第31条规定的患有精神病或精神不健全、醉态、正当防卫、威胁,不能否定行为人的罪过。2值得注意的是,《罗马规约》第25条第3款第1项采用的是,不管被当作工具的人是否负刑事责任的间接正犯概念。在正文中提到的飞行员不知情而投放有毒炸弹的例证中,飞行员的上级控制了飞行员的意志,即使飞行员不能根据《罗马规约》第32条和第33条为自己辩护,根据《罗马规约》第25条第3款第1项的规定,上级还是要作为间接正犯负刑事责任。详见:Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:218.3 Prosecutor v Erdemovic (Judgment) ICTY-96-22-T (29 Nov 1996), para2.1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:115.2 Prosecutor v Erdemovic (Appeal Chamber Judgment) ICTY-96-22-A (7 Oct 1997), paral9.1 Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:116.1《西班牙刑法典》第28条和第29条规定,教唆犯和对犯罪的必要出力者与正犯或主犯的刑罚相同。2 Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:118.3转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:119.4转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:119.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras515-516.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras515-517.3转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:120.1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:121.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras500-518.3转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:121.4转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:121.5 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras496-497.6 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para741.7 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para743.1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:122.2转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:122-123.3 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras498-499.4 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras511-514.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras515-518.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para518.3 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para518.4转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:125.5 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para527.6 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras538-539.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para510.2《日内瓦公约第一附加议定书》第86条规定了不作为的责任：“一、缔约各方和冲突各方应取缔有作为义务而不作为所引起的严重破坏各公约或本议定书的行为,并采取必要措施制止有作为义务而不作为所引起的任何其它破坏各公约或本议定书的行为。二、部下破坏各公约或本议定书的事实,并不使其上级免除按照情形所应负的刑事或纪律责任,如果上级知悉或有情报使其能对当时情况作出结论,其部下是正在从事或将要从事这种破约行为,而且如果上级不在其权力内采取一切可能的防止或取缔该破约行为的措施。”；第87条规定了司令官的职责：“一、缔约各方和冲突各方应要求军事司令官,防止在其统率下的武装部队人员和在其控制下的其它人破坏各公约和本议定书的行为,于必要时制止这种行为并向主管当局报告。二、为了防止和制止破约行为,缔约各方和冲突各方应要求司令官,按照其负责地位,保证在其统率下的武装部队人员了解其依据各公约和本议定书所应负的义务。三、缔约各方和冲突各方应要求任何司令官,在了解其部下或在其控制下的其它人将从事或已经从事破坏各公约或本议定书的行为时,采取防止违反各公约或本议定书的必要步骤,并于适当时对各公约或本议定书的违犯者采取纪律或刑事行动。”3 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para509, quoting from Bemba Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅢDecision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/05-01/08-14-TEn (10 Jun 2008), para78.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras504-505.1关于判决的完整报告和英文版文本,见American Society of International Law. International Legal Materials. 1987,26 (2).1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:130-132.2见《罗马规约》第7条,《前南规约》第5条,《卢旺达规约》第3条。3见《罗马规约》第8条,不过,《前南规约》和《卢旺达规约》并没有关于大规模的门槛要求。1 Attorney General v Adolf Eichmann (1968) 36 ILR 18.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para334.3 Ambos K. Article 25. Individual Criminal Responsibility[C]//Triffterer O. Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Baden-Baden:Nomos,1999:480.4 Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:71.1 Ambos K. Article 25. Individual Criminal Responsibility[C]//Triffterer O. Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Baden-Baden:Nomos,1999:491; Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:76.2命令作为一种刑事责任形式也得到了习惯国际法的承认(详见:Cassese A. International Criminal Law[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003:194.),不过, Cassese认为,命令不是从犯刑事责任的一种,而是犯罪的准备行为,不论犯罪行为是否实施,都将引起刑事责任。然而,两个特别法庭的案例法并不支持他的这一观点,因为刑事责任的承担要求犯罪命令得到实施。详见Kamuhanda v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-99-54A-A (19 Sep 2005),para185; Gacumbitsi v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-2001-64-A (7 Jul 2006), para185.Ponte C D. Investigation and Prosecution of Large-Scale Crimes at the International Level. The Experience of the ICTY[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2006, (4):539-558.4 Duttwiler M. Liability for Omissions in International Criminal law[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2006, (6):1-61.1 Gacumbitsi v Prosecutor ()Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-2001-64-A (7 Jul 2006),para182.21994年胡图族的青年男子组建了Interahamwe恐怖组织,专门针对图西族实施灭绝种族的行为,试图推翻图西族控制的政府和建立胡图族控制政府。3 Semanza v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-97-20-A (20 May 2005), para361.4 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para660.5 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para281.6 Canada v Brigadefuhrer Kurt Meyer (1950)in United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reprots of Trial of War Criminal, Vol IV,108.7根据联合国安理会1994年5月27日发布的1992年依据联合国安理会780号决议进行的专家委员会的最后报告第17段,推断实施犯罪命令存在的相关因素包括：不法行为的次数、卷入犯罪部队的数量和身份、卷入的后勤力量、行为发生的广度、行为的战术速度、相似不法行为的做法,卷入的官员和人员、上级当时所处的位置。1被称为Jokers(疯人)一支准军事部队的名称。2 Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), para365.3 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14-T (3 Mar 2000), para282.4 Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-16-T (14 Jan 20002001), paras 827,8625 Prosecutor v Akayesu (Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T (2 Sep 1998), paras693-694.6 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14-T (3 Mar 2000), para278.7例如, Prosecutor v Kamuhanda and Kubura (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-02-47-A (22 Apr 2008), para75; Gacumbitsi v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-2001-64-A (7 Jul 2006),para185事实上,这种因果关系并不要求负命令责任的高级军政上级对以自己的身体动静实施犯罪的人有着严格意义上的直接命令权,只要犯罪行为的实施是贯彻其命令即可。8 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para42; Prosecutor v Kordic (Appeal Chambers Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para30.1 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para42.2 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14-T (3 Mar 2000), paras278,282; Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T(31 Jul 2003), para445.3 Semanza v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-97-20-A (20 May 2005), para352.4转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:139.1 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14-T (3 Mar 2000), para282; Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T(31 Jul 2003), para445.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para518.Roxin持有这样的观点。转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:141.3转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:142.4这里用“唆使”而非“教唆”,只是笔者为尊重汉语版的《罗马规约》中的用语。实际上,对英文instigation的对应翻译,笔者更倾向于用教唆,这样比较符合我国刑法规定和刑法理论中的用法。5 Eser A. Individual Criminal Responsibility[C]// Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones J. The Rome Statute of the??International Criminal Court:A Commentary. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002:795.1例如, Prosecutor v Kordic (Appeal Chambers Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para27; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14-T (3 Mar 2000), para280.2 Prosecutor v Akayesu (Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T (2 Sep 1998), para482.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Decision on the Defence Rule 98 bis Motion for Judgment of Acquittal) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Oct 2002), para107.4 Prosecutor v Oric (Judgment) ICTY-03-66-T (30 Nov 2005), para272.5 Prosecutor v Kamuhanda (Judgment) ICTR-95-54A-T (22 Jan 2004), para593; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14-T (3 Mar 2000), paras270,0; Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para387.6 Prosecutor v Oric (Judgment) ICTY-03-66-T (30 Nov 2005), para273.7 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14-T (3 Mar 2000), paras270,277,280.1 Akayesu案的上诉判决第474-483段,推翻了审判庭要求教唆必须直接公开进行的判决部分。详细内容见：Prosecutor v Akayesu (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-4-A (1 Jun 2001)), paras474-483.2例如, Prosecutor v Kayishema (Judgment) ICTR-95-1-T(21 May 1999), para200; Semanza v Prosecutor (Judgment) ICTR-97-20-T (15 May 2003), para381.3 Prosecutor v Oric (Judgment) ICTY-03-66-T (30 Nov 2005), para273.4 E Van Sliedregt也赞同间接教唆,虽然她认为间接教唆更接近计划,详见:Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003：83；Eser也主张间接教唆,详见:Eser A. Individual Criminal Responsibility[C]//Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones J. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:A Commentary. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2002:796.1 Prosecutor v Kordic (Appeal Chambers Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para27.2 Prosecutor v Oric (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-03-68-A (3 July 2008), para271.3 Prosecutor v Kordic (Appeal Chambers Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para32.4 Prosecutor v Kordic (Appeal Chambers Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para325 Semanza v Prosecutor (Judgment) ICTR-97-20-T (15 May 2003), para388.1 Prosecutor v Oric (Judgment) ICTY-03-66-T (30 Nov 2005), para279.Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:218.3 Prosecutor v Kordic (Appeal Chambers Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), p26.4 Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:79.5 Prosecutor v Akayesu (Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T (2 Sep 1998), para480; Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para386.6 Prosecutor v Bagilishema (Judgment) ICTR-95-01A-T (7 Jun 2001), para30.7 ICL. Draft Code of Crimes against Peace and Security of Mankind, Art 2, commentary para 14.1 Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:80.2 Prosecutor v Kordic (Appeal Chambers Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para26.3 Blaskic案的判决曾经提出过这种要求,详见Prosecutor v Blaskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14-T (3 Mar 2000), para278.4 Prosecutor v Kordic (Appeal Chambers Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para26.5这种标准足以推导出未必故意(dolus eventualis)的存在,从而符合《罗马规约》第30条规定的“故意和明知”要求。1 Prosecutor v Kordic (Appeal Chambers Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para31.2 Prosecutor v Kordic (Appeal Chambers Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para31.3 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), paras83-84.1除了澳大利亚以外,共同犯罪体的参与者,均被视为共犯而非共同正犯。详见:Smith J C, Hogan B. Criminal Law [M].11th ed. London:Butterworths,2005:168-169.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para326; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para520.3 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para327.1 Haan V. The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2005, (5):167-201.2一旦审判庭发现,排除合理怀疑地证明了指控的犯罪已经实施,出现的问题则为,是否一种或多种犯罪不是共同犯罪体共同目的的组成部分,而是：(1)共同犯罪体共同目的实现的自然和可预见的结果；(2)完全超出了共同犯罪体的范围。详见:Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T(27 Sep 2006), para 1096.3正如审判庭Krnojelac案判决所言,审判庭感到满意的是,在Tadic案的上诉判决中,界分这两种形式的唯一根据是案件处理的事务,即二战时期的集中营。详见:Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Judgment) ICTY-97-25-T (15 Mar 2002), para78.4这种情况特别容易发生的情形是,在种族清洗过程中,村民被用枪指着强行迁徙而被杀害。1根据前南法庭审判庭的判决,在得到越来越多犯罪报告的情况下,波斯尼亚塞族领导人并没有停止歧视性的强行迁徙计划,相反却坚持进行地域征服和人口重组,结果在波斯尼亚塞族羁押所的初期阶段,共同犯罪体的共同犯罪计划在歧视性的驱逐和强行迁移过程中展开,很快共同犯罪体的成员包括被告人都认识到共同犯罪计划的实施事实上包括扩张的犯罪。审判庭认为,接受这种扩张的犯罪方式并坚持实施这种犯罪,所发出的信号是,要通过这种新的犯罪实现共同犯罪目的。这样,这些犯罪便在法庭针对的犯罪期间变成了共同犯罪体的核心犯罪。详见:Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para1098, paras1100-1118, para1124.2 Prosecutor v Kvocka et at (Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-T (2 Nov 2001), para307.3 Prosecutor v Kvocka et at (Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-T (2 Nov 2001), para307.4 Dachau集中营建于1933年,是纳粹的第一个集中营。5 Prosecutor v Kvocka et at (Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-T (2 Nov 2001), para307.6 Prosecutor v Krstic (Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), p621.1例如Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para227; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para96.2例如Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para227; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para81.3例如Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para227.4 Prosecutor v Furundzija (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-A (21 Jun 2000), para114.1 Prosecutor v Furundzija (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-A (21 Jun 2000), para120.2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para203.3 Prosecutor v Kvocka et at (Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-T (2 Nov 2001), para320.4 Haan V. The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2005, (5):167-201.5 Prosecutor v Kvocka et at (Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-T (2 Nov 2001), para268.6 Prosecutor v Kvocka et at (Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-T (2 Nov 2001), paras 326-327.1 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 86.2 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para120.3 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para118.4 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Judgment) ICTY-97-25-T (15 Mar 2002), paras170、187.5 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para96.6 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para364.1 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 227; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 31; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), paras 97-98.Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 227; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 31; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), paras 97-98.3 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 192; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 81; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 112.4 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), paras 112,187.5 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 113.6 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 114.7 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 229.8 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction——Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTY-99-37-AR72 (21 May 2003) para 20.1 Gustafson K. The Requirements of an "Express Agreement" for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability:A Critique of Branin[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):134-158不过,也有不同的主张,认为在有为实行共同犯罪计划出力的程度要求时,其程度必须是重大的或不可或缺的,详见Ohlin J D. Three Conceptual Problems with the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2007, (5):60-90.2 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Judgment) ICTY-97-25-T (15 Mar 2002), para 75.3 Prosecutor v Kvocka et at (Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-T (2 Nov 2001), paras 308-309.4 Prosecutor v Kvocka et at (Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-T (2 Nov 2001), para 309.5 Prosecutor v Kvocka et at (Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-T (2 Nov 2001), para 309.6 Prosecutor v Kvocka et at (Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-T (2 Nov 2001), para 309.7 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 159.8 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 998.1 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 97.2 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 98.3 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 98.4 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 104.5 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 104.6 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002), para 67.7 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 100.8 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Judgment) ICTY-99-36-T (1 Sep 2004), para 263.9 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 883.10 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 430.1 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 100.2 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 278.3 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 102.4 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 228.5例如,共同犯罪体的成员在形成了共同的杀人计划后,虽然每个人的分工可能不同,但每个人都意在杀人。详见Bogdan A. IndividualCriminalResponsibility in the Execution of a "Joint Criminal Enterprise" in the Jurisprudence of the Ad hoc International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2006, (6):63-120; Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 97.6 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 32.7 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), paras 204,220,228.8 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 228.9 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 228.10 Fletcher G P. Rethinking Criminal Law[M].2nd ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000:575-576.1 Prosecutor v Furundzija (Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-T (10 Dec 1998), para 257; Prosecutor v Furundzija (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-A(21 Jul 2000), para 118.2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 269.3 Prosecutor v Jelisic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-10-A (5 July 2001), para 49.4 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 102.5 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 106.6 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 100; Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 106.7 Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para 827.8 Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para 831.9 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Judgment) ICTY-99-36-T (1 Sep 2004), para 430.10 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 890.11 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 890.1 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 893.2 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 365.3 Haan V. The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2005,(5):167-201.1 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 228.2 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 82.3 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 365.4 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002), para 68.5 Haan V. The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2005, (5):167-201.6 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 111; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 110.1 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 110.2 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 284.3 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 285-286.4 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 97.5 Haan V. The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2005, (5):167-201.1 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 96.2 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 90.3 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 228.1 Prosecutor v Krstic (Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), para 616.2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), paras 204,220,228; Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), paras 99-101; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 83; Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 65; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para 33; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 78; Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), paras 881,890; Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 265.3 Prosecutor v Martic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-11-A (8 Oct 2008), para 83.4 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 83.5 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), paras 100-101.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 352-355.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 352-353; Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 298.3 Caremera v Pr osecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Jurisdictional Appeals:Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTR-98-44-AR72.5 (12 Apr 2006), para 14.4 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para 33.5 Prosecutor v Martic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-11-A (8 Oct 2008), para 84.1 Prosecutor v Krstic (Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), para 616.2 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 99.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 99.4 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), paras 100-101.5 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on Motion for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98bis) ICTY-99-36-R77 (19 Mar 2003), para 30.1 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on Motion for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98bis) ICTY-99-36-R77 (19 Mar 2003), paras 55-57.2 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on Motion for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98bis) ICTY-99-36-R77 (19 Mar 2003), para 57.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 530.4 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on on Interlocutory Appeal) ICTY-99-36-A (19 Mar 2004), para 10.1 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on on Interlocutory Appeal) ICTY-99-36-A (19 Mar 2004), paras 5-7.2 Rwamakuba v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide) ICTR-98-44-AR72.4 (22 Oct 2004), paras 10,14,31.3 Smith J C, Hogan B. Criminal Law [M].11th ed. London:Butterworths,2005:166.4共犯的心理状态不同于正犯的心理状态,正犯参与犯罪从概念上就不同于共犯参与犯罪。正犯亲自实施犯罪,共犯不亲自实施犯罪,所以从物理行为上就能界分正犯与共犯。二者在心理状态上也表现出多方面的不同。最为明显的是,普通法系不要求共犯具有实施犯罪的意图,与此同时,大部分犯罪要求正犯要么有物理伤害的故意,要么至少有行为构成或引起伤害发生的目的。进一步而言,共犯刑事责任作为普通法系的一种理论,要求共犯有有罪心态,即便尚不属于犯罪的罪过。详见:Gillies P. Criminal Law[M].4th ed. North Ryde:LBC Information Services,1997:155.5 Ambos K. Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility [J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2007, (5):159-183; Smith J C, Hogan B. Criminal Law [M].11th ed. London:Butterworths,2005:179.1 Sliedregt E V. Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):184-207.Sliedregt E V. Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):184-207.3 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 227.1 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), paras 190-192.2 Haan V. The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2005, (5):167-201.3 Cassese A. The Proper Limits if Individual Responsibility under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):109-133.4 Gustafson K. The Requirements of an "Express Agreement" for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability:A Critique of Branin[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):134-158.5 Sliedregt E V. Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice.2007. (5):184-207.6 Gillies P. Criminal Law[M].4th ed. North Rvde:LBC Information Services.1997:173-175.7 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), paras196-220.1 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Judgment) ICTY-97-25-T (15 Mar 2002), para 83.2 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 83.3 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 117-118.4 Prosecutor v Furundzija (Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-T (10 Dec 1998), para 111.5 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 111.1 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 445.Danner A M, Martinez J S, Guilty Associations:Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility and the Development of International Criminal Law[J]. California Law Review,2005,93(1):75-169.Cassese A. The Proper Limits if Individual Responsibility under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):109-133.4 Prosecutor v Kvocka et at (Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-T (2 Nov 2001), para 309.5 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 159.6 Prosecutor v Furundzija (Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-T (10 Dec 1998), para 267.7 Prosecutor v Furundzija (Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-T (10 Dec 1998), para 267.8 Prosecutor v Furundzija (Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-T (10 Dec 1998), para 266.9 Prosecutor v Furundzija (Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-T (10 Dec 1998), para 270.1 Prosecutor v Furundzija (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-A (21 Jun 2000), para 118.2被告人个人通过下列行为参与了共同犯罪计划的实施：(1)当这7名穆斯林男人被关押在Vilina Vlas酒店时,被告人用枪指着他们,阻止他们逃跑；(2)押送他们到Drina河河岸,用抢指着他们防止他们逃跑；(3)在7位穆斯林被枪决前,和另外3名罪犯一起站在这些穆斯林的背后,并用枪指着他们。Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002), paras 206,208,209,254.Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002), paras 251-252.1 Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-16-T (14 Jan 2000), paras 480-490; Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), paras 77,243.2 Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICT Y-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), para 243.3 Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICT Y-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), para 243.1 Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), para 243.2前南法庭上诉庭还推翻了1993年4月16日当波斯尼亚-克罗地亚武装部队攻击Ahmici村庄时对Zoran Kupreskic和Mirjan Kupreskic迫害罪的认定,不过,上诉庭对此的解释比较模糊。详见:Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), para 243.3 Ambos K. Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2007,(5):159-183.4 Ponte C D. Investigation and Prosecution of Large-Scale Crimes at the International Level. The Experience of the ICTY[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2006, (4):539-558.1 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), paras 987,992,1115; Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 19.上诉庭推翻了审判庭的判决,因为上诉庭认为,检察官未在各种修订后的起诉书中恰当地适用以共同犯罪体为基础的共同正犯概念,祥见Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 74这样,上诉庭将部分协助煽动定罪改为参加共同犯罪体的基本形式的共同正犯。详见Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), paras 189-191.2 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 984.3 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 992.4 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 160.5 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 160.1 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 188-191.2 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 991.3 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 987.4 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 992.5 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 74.6 Danner A M, Martinez J S, Guilty Associations:Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility and the Development of International Criminal Law[J]. California Law Review,2005,93(1):75-169.1 Cassese A. The Proper Limits if Individual Responsibility under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):109-133.O'Rourke A. Joint Criminal Enterprise and Brdanin:Misguided Overcorrection[J]. Harvard International Journal, 2006,47:307-325.3 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Judgment) ICTY-99-36-T (1 Sep 2004), para 1050.4 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Six Amended Indictment) ICTY-99-36-T (9 Dec 2003), para 27(2).5 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Judgment) ICTY-99-36-T (1 Sep 2004), para 263.6 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Judgment) ICTY-99-36-T (1 Sep 2004), para 350.1 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Judgment) ICTY-99-36-T (1 Sep 2004), para 345.2 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Judgment) ICTY-99-36-T (1 Sep 2004), para 345.3 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), paras 83-84.4 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 160.5 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), paras 262,264,344,347.6 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 350.7 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), paras 351-352.1 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), paras 353-354.2 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 354.3 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 355.1 Gustafson K. The Requirements of an "Express Agreement" for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability:A Critique of Branin[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5):134-158.1 Gustafson K. The Requirements of an "Express Agreement" for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability:A Critique of Branin[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007 (5):134-158.1 Cassese A. The Proper Limits if Individual Responsibility under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice.2007. (5):109-133.Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:351.3 Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:200.4 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para883.1 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para884.Wilt H V D. Joint Criminal Enterprise:Possibilities and Limitations[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2007, (5):91-108.Wilt H V D. Joint Criminal Enterprise:Possibilities and Limitations[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2007, (5):91-108.4 Wilt H V D. Joint Criminal Enterprise:Possibilities and Limitations[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2007, (5):91-108.5 Wilt H V D. Joint Criminal Enterprise:Possibilities and Limitations[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2007, (5):91-108.6 Wilt H V D. Joint Criminal Enterprise:Possibilities and Limitations[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2007, (5):91-108.7 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 439.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 62.2 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), paras 126-131.3 Rwamakuba v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide) ICTR-98-44-AR72.4 (22 Oct 2004), para 25.4 Rwamakuba v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide) ICTR-98-44-AR72.4 (22 Oct 2004), para 25.5 Rwamakuba v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide) ICTR-98-44-AR72.4 (22 Oct 2004), para 24.1 Karemera v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Jurisdictional Appeals:Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTR-98-44-AR72.5 (12 Apr 2006), para 11.Karemera v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Jurisdictional Appeals:Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTR-98-44-AR72.5 (12 Apr 2006), para 14.3 Karemera v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Jurisdictional Appeals:Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTR-98-44-AR72.5 (12 Apr 2006), para 15.4 Karemera v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Jurisdictional Appeals:Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTR-98-44-AR72.5 (12 Apr 2006), para 13.5 Karemera v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Jurisdictional Appeals:Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTR-98-44-AR72.5 (12 Apr 2006), paras 13-14.6 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 423.7 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 424.8 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 424.9 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 418.10 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 410.1 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 410.2 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), paras 410-411.3 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 371.4 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 378.5 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 367.6 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 367.1 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para406.2 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 407以前南法庭上诉庭之见, Krnojelac案的上诉判决和Vasiljevic案的上诉判决都没有最终解决是否以自己的身体动静实施犯罪的人必须与被告人一样是同一共同犯罪体的组成部分。Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 404.4 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 413.Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), paras 413-414.Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 418.1 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), para 436.2 Prosecutor v Martic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-11-T (12 Jun 2007), para 438在这一点上, Martic案的上诉判决完全赞同审判庭的判决,详见:Prosecutor v Martic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-11-A (8 Oct 2008), para 68.3 Rwamakuba v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide) ICTR-98-44-AR72.4 (22 Oct 2004), paras 15-25; Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), paras 395-404.1 US v Altstoetter (1947) in Trial of the Major War Criminals? Before the International Military Tribunal under Control Council Law No 10, Vol III (US Government Printing Office,1951) 954, paras 11,23.2 US v Altstoetter (1947) in Trial of the Major War Criminals? Before the International Military Tribunal under Control Council Law No 10, Vol III (US Government Printing Office,1951) 954, para 1081.3 US v Altstoetter (1947) in Trial of the Major War Criminals? Before the International Military Tribunal under Control Council Law No 10, Vol III (US Government Printing Office,1951) 954, paras 1155-1156.4 US v Altstoetter (1947) in Trial of the Major War Criminals? Before the International Military Tribunal under Control Council Law No 10, Vol III (US Government Printing Office,1951) 954, paras 1155-1156.1 Rwamakuba v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide) ICTR-98-44-AR72.4 (22 Oct 2004), para 19.2 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), paras 126-131.Rwamakuba v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint??Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide) ICTR-98-44-AR72.4 (22 Oct 2004), para 20. Rwamakuba v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide) ICTR-98-44-AR72.4 (22 Oct 2004), para 29.2 Prosecutor v Bagilishema (Judgment))ICTR-95-01A-T (7 Jun 2001),para 33; Prosecutor v Kajelijeli (Judgment) ICTR-98-44A-T (1 Dec 2003), para 766; Prosecutor v Kamuhanda (Judgment) ICTR-95-54A-T (22 Jun 2004)), para 597; Prosecutor v Furundzija (Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-T (10 Dec 1998), para 249; Prosecutor v Aleksovski (Judgment) ICTY-95-14/1-T (25 Jun 1999), para 61; Prosecutor v Limarac (Judgment) ICTY-96-23-T and ICTY-96-23/1-T (22 Feb 2001), para 391; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Judgment) ICTY-97-25-T (15 Mar 2002), para 88; Prosecutor v Oric (Judgment) ICTY-03-68-T (30 Jun 2006), para 282.1 Rwamakuba v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide) ICTR-98-44-AR72.4 (22 Oct 2004), para 24.2《纽伦堡宪章》第6条第3款规定：“违反人道罪：即在战前或战时,对平民施行谋杀、歼灭、奴役、放??逐及其他任何非人道行为；或基于政治的、种族的或宗教的理由,而为执行或有关于本法庭裁判权内之任何犯罪而作出的迫害行为,至于其是否违反犯罪地之国内法则在所不问。凡参与上述任何罪行之共同计划或阴谋之领导者、组织者、教唆者与共谋者,对于任何人为实现此种计划而作出的一切行为均应负责。”《东京宪章》第5条第3款规定：“违反人道罪：指战争发生前或战争进行中针对任何平民人口之杀害、灭种、奴役、强迫迁徙,以及其他不人道行为,或基于政治上或种族上的理由而进行旨在实现有关本法庭管辖范围内任何罪行的迫害行为,不论这种行为是否违反行为地国家的国内法。凡参与上述任何罪行之共同计划或阴谋之领导者、组织者、教唆者与共谋者,对于任何人为实现此种计划而作出的一切行为均应负责。”根据这些规定,参与前文提到的犯罪的共同计划或共谋的领导者、组织者、教唆者和同谋者,对他人实施犯罪计划的所有行为都需要负刑事责任。2 Prosecutor v Furundzija (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-A (21 Jul 2000), paras 117-118; Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 111.3例如,罪状3描述道：“所指控的战争罪由被告人和其他人实施,对于其他人实施的行为被告人需负责(根据《纽伦堡宪章》第6条第3款的规定),只要在共同的目的和共谋的形成和实现过程中,所有被告人都作为领导者、组织者、教唆者和同谋者参与其中,其他人实施所指控的战争罪意在实现共同的目的,以及共谋实施指控的战争罪。”详见:Indictment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Count 3 PtⅧ(US Government Printing Office), at 43。罪状4描述的是危害人类罪,使用了同样的语言。详见:Indictment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Count 4 Pt X (US Government Printing Office), at 65.4 Pinkerton案以一种从未有过的姿态扩张了美国法中的共谋概念,详见:Pinkerton v United States,328 US 640 (1946).1 Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para 838; Prosecutor v (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para 3.2 Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para 829.3 Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para 828.4 Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para 827.5 Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para 827.6 Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para 829.1 Prosecutor v Krstic (Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), paras 328-332.2 Prosecutor v Krstic (Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), paras 291-296.3 Prosecutor v Krstic (Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), para 612.4 Prosecutor v Krstic (Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), para 617.5 Prosecutor v Krstic (Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), para 619.1 Prosecutor v Krstic (Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), para 633.2 Prosecutor v Krstic (Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001), paras 616,617,633.Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision On Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration, Separate Opinion of Judge Bonomy)) ICTY-05-87-PT (22 Mar 2006), para 11.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (First Amended Indictment) ICTY-97-24-I (23 Jun 1998), para 27.2 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 623 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), paras 64-104.4 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 469.5 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 324.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 73.2 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 78.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 92.4 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), paras 75-76.5 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 364.6 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 477.7 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 377.8 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 593.9 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 498.10 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 83.11 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), paras 93-97.1 Olasolo H. Reflections on the Treatment of the Notions of Control of the Crime and Joint Criminal Enterprise in the Stakic Appeal Judgment'[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2007, (7):143-162.2 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras741,743,774.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 364,377,477,498,593; Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), paras 68,69 80-83.1 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 875.2 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 875.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 62.4 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision On Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration) ICTY-05-87-PT (22 Mar 2006), paras 10-11.1 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration) ICTY-05-87-PT (22 Mar 2006), para 23.2 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration, Separate Opinion of Judge Bonomy) ICTY-05-87-PT (22 Mar 2006), para 13.3 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration, Separate Opinion of Judge Bonomy) ICTY-05-87-PT (22 Mar 2006), para 13.4 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 1085.5 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 1090.6 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 119.7 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 1120.1 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Consolidated Amended Indictment) ICTY-00-39-T (7 Mar 2002), para 7另见Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 1079.Prosecution Final Trial Brief in the Krajisnik Case, para 3另见Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 1080.3 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 873.4 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 883.1 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 1087.2 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 1123.3 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 1086.1还有学者认为,适用传统的共同犯罪体概念于高级军政上级走向了集体刑事责任。详见Badar M E. Just Convict Everyone!—Joint Perpetration from Tadic to Stakic and Back Again[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2006, (6):293-302.1 Stakic案的判决和Vasiljevic案的上诉判决适用的是犯罪控制概念。1 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 126.2 Semanza v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-97-20-A (20 May 2005), para 357; Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), para 473; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para 215; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 29; Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 21; Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend) ICTY-99-36-T (26 Jun 2001), para 10; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Decision on Preliminary Motion on Form of the Amended Indictment) ICTY-97-25-T (11 Feb 2000), para 60.3 Semanza v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-97-20-A (20 May 2005), para 357; Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), para 473; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para 228; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A(17 Sep 2003), para 138; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 86; Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 21.4 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 21; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 41.5 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), paras 29,41; Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 21; Prosecutor v Furundzija (Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-T (10 Dec 1998), para 147; Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), para 165; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 131; Prosecutor v Kordic(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para 142; Prosecutor v Ruzindana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-95-1-A (1 Jun 2001), para 303.6 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 115.7 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 117.1 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 28.2 Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), paras 89-114; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 132; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 28.3 Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), para 28.4 Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), para 132; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 28.5 Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), para 92; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A(17 Sep 2003), para 132; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 28.6 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 22; Gatcumbitsi v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-2001-64-A (7 Jul 2006), paras 163,167; Prosecutor v Ntagerura (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-99-46-A (7 Jul 2006), paras 24,28; Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), paras 116-117; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), paras 28,42; Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 66值得注意的是, Tadic上诉判决的第230-232段指出,被告人对Jaskici村庄杀死5人的行为负共同犯罪体的扩张形式的刑事责任,即使这种形式的共同犯罪体和其他形式的共同犯罪体均未在起诉书中明确提出。在??Furundzija案中,虽然在指控酷刑罪时,起诉书既没有提到基于共同犯罪体的共同正犯行为,也没有提到其他的共同正犯行为理论,但是检察官在庭审时称,根据《前南规约》第7条第1款的规定,被告人意图参加犯罪,且其行为有助于犯罪实施,此时不必要求被告人参加到以自己的身体动静实施犯罪的人的行列来推进犯罪,其刑事责任便可认定。据此,鉴于被告人参加了共同犯罪体,审判庭认定被告人是实施酷刑行为的共同正犯。Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), paras 24,28; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), paras 116-117; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), paras 28,42; Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 66; Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 22.2 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), para 29; Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), para 114; Prosecutor v Kordic(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para 142; Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 24.3 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002), para 63; Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 106.4 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 24.5 Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), para 92.1 Prosecutor v Ntagerura (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-99-46-A (7 Jul 2006), para 30; Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), paras 114,122; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 132; Prosecutor v Kordic(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para 142; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 35; Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 24.2 Niyitegeka v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-14-A (9 Jul 2004), paras 199-200.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 66.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 66; Prosecutor v Stakic (Fourth Amended Indictment) ICTY-97-24-PT (10 Apr 2002), para 26.2 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 66.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Fourth Amended Indictment) ICTY-97-24-PT (10 Apr 2002), paras 28-29.4 Prosecutor v Simba (Judgment) ICTR-01-76-T (13 Dec 2005), paras 391-396.5 Prosecutor v Simba (Judgment) ICTR-01-76-T (13 Dec 2005), paras 394-396.6 Prosecutor v Simba (Amended Indictment) ICTR-01-76-1 (10 May 2004), para 14; Prosecutor v Simba (Judgment) ICTR-01-76-T (13 Dec 2005), para 402.1 Prosecutor v Simba (Judgment) ICTR-01-76-T (13 Dec 2005), para 393.2 Prosecutor v Kordic(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para 138.3 Prosecutor v Kordic(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para 137.4 Prosecutor v Kordic(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para 139.5 Prosecutor v Kordic(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para 140.6 Prosecutor v Kordic(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para 140.7 Prosecutor v Kordic(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), paras 144,147.1 Prosecutor v Kordic(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para 148.2 Prosecutor v Kordic(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para 42.3 Prosecutor v Kordic(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), para 43.4 Prosecutor v Kordic(Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004), paras 44-53.1 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), paras 448,483-484.2 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), paras479-481.3 Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-16-T (14 Jan 2000), paras 480-490; Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), paras 77,243.4 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), para 95.5 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), para 243.1 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), paras 93,99.2 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), para 99.3 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), paras 117-192.4 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), para 125.1 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 32.2 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 34.J Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 37.4 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 38.5 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 39.6 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 45.1 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), paras 52-56.2 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 67.3 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 118.4 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 120.1 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 118.2 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), paras 120-121.3 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 122.4 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 119.5如果被告人不具有实施这些犯罪的故意,如将KP Dom监狱羁押的某些非塞族人迁移出Foca地区,且他从未认识到共同正犯的故意,也未对犯罪的实施产生实质影响,那么妥当的做法是用协助煽动指控犯罪。详见Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 123.1 Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 123.1 Katganga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Three Defence's Requests Regarding the Prosecution's Amended Charging Document) ICC-01/04-01/07 (25 Jun 2008), paras 23-27.2 Katganga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Three Defence's Requests Regarding the Prosecution's Amended Charging Document) ICC-01/04-01/07 (25 Jun 2008), paras 17-18.3例如, Prosecutor v Ntagerura (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-99-46-A (7 Jul 2006), para 370; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), paras 45-46.1 Prosecutor v Blagojevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-02-60-A (9 May 2007), para 137.2 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 134.3 Prosecutor v Akayesu (Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T (2 Sep 1998), paras 705.4 Prosecutor v Tadic (Judgment) ICTY-94-1-T (7 May 1997), paras 680,684.5 Prosecutor v Ntagerura (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-99-46-A (7 Jul 2006), para 372; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para 48; Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 85; Prosecutor v Blagojevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-02-60-A (9 May 2007), para 127.6不过,犯罪后的帮助行为,旨在确保不受处罚或让以自己的身体动静实施犯罪的人受益,并非帮助完成已经完成的犯罪。详见:Prosecutor v Tadic (Judgment) ICTY-94-1-T (7 May 1997), para 677; Prosecutor v Delalic et al (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-96-21-A, paras 327-328.7 Prosecutor v Oric (Judgment) ICTY-03-68-T (30 Jun 2006), para 285.8 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 284-287.1 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 102.2 Prosecutor v Kvocka et at (Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-T (2 Nov 2001), para 285.3 Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003), para 160.4 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 91.5 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 86.6 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), para 370; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para 46; Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 102; Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 86.7 Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), para 370.1 Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003:93.Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A(17 Sep 2003), para 52; Prosecutor v Krstic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-33-A (19 Apr 2004), para 140.3不过,两个特别法庭上诉庭依据“知道”要求界分《前南规约》第7条第1款和《卢旺达规约》第6条第1款规定的协助煽动灭绝种族行为与《前南规约》第4条第3款第5项和《卢旺达规约》第2条第3款第5项规定的共谋灭绝种族行为。两个特别法庭上诉庭认为,共谋比协助煽动的行为范围广,因此,共谋灭绝种族行为要求的帮助灭绝种族的行为必须具有全部或局部灭毁灭目标人群的特定意图,才能导致刑事责任的产生,相关的高级军政上级也必须在灭绝意图的刺激下实施自己的行为。详见:Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004), paras 500-501.4 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 90.1 Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 90.2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 229.3 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction——Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTY-99-37-AR72 (21 May 2003) para 20.4 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 102.1 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 102.2 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 102.3 Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006), para 885.4 Ambos K. Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2007, (5):159-183.5 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para 33.1 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para 33.1 Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Judgment) ICTY-97-25-T (15 Mar 2002), paras487-488,493.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 332; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 332.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 342; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 521,525.3 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 342,347; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 525.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 332,342,347; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 525.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 347; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 488,525.3在确认Lubanga逮捕令的决定中,国际刑事法院第一预审分庭指出,基于共同控制的共同正犯行为概念,体现在《罗马规约》第25条第3款第1项中,可适用于检察官逮捕令申请中指控的Thomas Lubanga Dyilo Katanga在犯罪中的角色。详见:Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on Prosecution's Application for Warrant of Arrest) ICC-01/04-01/06 (10 Feb 2006), para 96.另见:Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 340-341; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 488,520, 521.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 342,347; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 525.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 333-334; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 482-483.3 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on Prosecution's Application for Warrant of Arrest) ICC-01/04-01/06 (10 Feb2006), para 78; Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para320; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 485-486.4 Prosecutor v Ntagerura (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-99-46-A (7 Jul 2006), para 370; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), paras 45-46.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 337; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 483.2 Fletcher G P, Ohlin J D. Reclaiming Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the Darfur Case[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2005, (3):539-561.3 Fletcher G P, Ohlin J D. Reclaiming Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the Darfur Case[J], Journal of International Criminal Justice,2005, (3):539-561.1 Prosecutor v Ntagerura (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-99-46-A (7 Jul 2006), para 370; Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para 46.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 337; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 483.Fletcher G P, Ohlin J D. Reclaiming Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the Darfur Case, Journal of International Criminal Justice,2005, (3):539-561.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para337.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 329,335,337,338,334; Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para227-228; Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001), para 772.3 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 343-345; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 522-523.4 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 346-348; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 478-491.5 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 349-367.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 343; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 522.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 344; Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 470-477.3 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 344; Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 496.4 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 227; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 31; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), paras 81,96; Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006), para 158.1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:275.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on Prosecution's Application for Warrant of Arrest) ICC-01/04-01/06 (10 Feb 2006), para 105; Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 248.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 347; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 525.2 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 228; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 84.3转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:277.4转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:277.1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:278.原文出自:Roxin C. Taterschaft und Tatherrschaft[M].7th ed. Berlin:Gruyter,2000:294.2转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:278.原文出自:Roxin C. Taterschaft und Tatherrschaft[M].7th ed. Berlin:Gruyter,2000:299.3转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:278.4转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:279.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 526; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 348.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 349; Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 495.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 353.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 353-354.3这种标准最初由检察官在Kordic案中提出,详见:Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001), para 375.4 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 361.5 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 361.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 362.2 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 496.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 487.4 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 349.5 Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999), para 228; Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003), para 32; Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005), para 82.1 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004), para 33.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 349; Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 495.3 Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 April 2007), paras 5-7.4 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 367; Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 538-539; Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 397-398.5转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:285.1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:285.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 515-518.1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:287.2转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:287.1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:287-288.原文出自:Cepeda A P. Criminalidad en la Empresa:Problemas de Autoria y Participacion[J]. Revista Penal,2002, (9):106-121.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 348.1转引自H Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:289.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 167-237.2直到刚果民主军2003年6月2日撤出伊图里地区,刚果的武装冲突才从国际型武装冲突变成了国内武装冲突。详见:Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 220,236,237.3 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 249-2674 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 368.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 373.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 375.3 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 374.4尽管在对Lubanga逮捕令的决定中,国际刑事法院第一预审分庭认为,鉴于Lubanga与刚果爱国阵线/RP和FPLC其他成员之间的层级关系,与有理由相信,《罗马规约》第25条第3款第1项所规定的间接正犯行为概念,与检察官申请中提到的基于共同控制的共同正犯行为概念一起,都可适用于检察官申请中罗列的Lubanga在犯罪中的角色。详见:Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on Prosecution's Application for Warrant of Arrest) ICC-01/04-01/06 (10 Feb 2006), para 9.5 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 377-378.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 377.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 397-383.3 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 383.4 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 398.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 409.2 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 409.3 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial ChamberⅠDecision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), paras 410.1 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002), para 46.2 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002), paras 99-102.1 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002), paras 104-111.2 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002), paras206; Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 129.3 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002), paras 210-211,238-239.4 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002), para 208.5 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002), para 234.6 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002), para 209.7 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 131.1 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 131.2 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 128.3 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 126.4 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 129.5 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), paras 129,131.6 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 131.7 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 40.8 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 27.9 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 32.1 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), paras 32,34.2 Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004), para 100.1 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision On Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration, Separate Opinion of Judge Bonomy)) ICTY-05-87-PT (22 Mar 2006), para 25.2 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision On Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration, Separate Opinion of Judge Bonomy)) ICTY-05-87-PT (22 Mar 2006), para 7.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (22 Mar 2006), para 62.Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision On Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration, Separate Opinion of Judge Bonomy)) ICTY-05-87-PT (22 Mar 2006), paras 40-41.3 Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision On Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration, Separate Opinion of Judge Bonomy)) ICTY-05-87-PT (22 Mar 2006), para 40.4 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 540-582.5 Bemba Case (Pre-Trial Chamber III Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/005-01/08-14-TEn (10 Jun 2008), paras 69-84.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 490-493.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 469.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 86-101.2 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 818-826.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 490.4 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 482-490.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 493-494.2 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 482.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 469.4 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 470-477.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 470.2 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 472-477.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 490.4 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 478-482.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 44-46.2 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 86-101.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 93-99.4 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 469.5 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 483.6 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 377-401.7 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 402-408.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 490.2 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 906.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 490.4 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 498.5 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 492-494.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 495-497.2 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 250.3 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 496.4 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), paras 497-498.5 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 498.1 Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003), para 743.2 Bemba Case (Pre-Trial Chamber III Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/005-01/08-14-TEn (10 Jun 2008), paras 45,68.3 Bemba Case (Pre-Trial Chamber III Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/005-01/08-14-TEn (10 Jun 2008), paras 69-72.4 Bemba Case (Pre-Trial Chamber III Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/005-01/08-14-TEn (10 Jun 2008), paras 74-76.5 Bemba Case (Pre-Trial Chamber III Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/005-01/08-14-TEn (10 Jun 2008), paras 72-74,826 Bemba Case (Pre-Trial Chamber III Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/005-01/08-14-TEn (10 Jun 2008), para 80.1 Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007), para 377.2 Bemba Case (Pre-Trial Chamber III Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/005-01/08-14-TEn (10 Jun 2008), paras 82-83.3 Bemba Case (Pre-Trial Chamber III Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/005-01/08-14-TEn (10 Jun 2008), paras 80-82.4 Bemba Case (Pre-Trial Chamber III Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/005-01/08-14-TEn (10 Jun 2008), paras 73,74,81.5 Bemba Case (Pre-Trial Chamber III Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/005-01/08-14-TEn (10 Jun 2008), paras 52-55,75-81,83.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 71-75.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 275-283,584.3 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 273,275.4 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 273,275,548-549.5 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 555-561.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 540-547.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 519.3 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 560.4 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 540-561.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 540-541.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 543.3 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 544.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 545.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 546.3 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 547.4 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 548-549.5 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 550-551.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 555.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 556.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 557.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 558.3 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 559.4 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 560.5 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 562.572.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 562.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 563.3 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 533-537.4 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 527-532.5 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 565.6 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 566.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 567-569.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), paras 570-571.1 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 251, fn 329.2 Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07 (1 Oct 2008), para 531.3根据权力组织结构体概念,德国联邦最高法院认定3名被告人都犯有谋杀罪,但是法院没有处理各个被告人之间的关系。鉴于他们同在国防委员会任职并共同控制着委员会,因此可认为他们是间接共同正犯。1转引自Olasolo H. The Criminal Responsibility of Senior Political and Military Leaders as Principal to International crimes[M]. Oxford and Portland:Oregon,2009:330.[1]Conde F M, Aran M G, Penal D. Parte Gerneral [M].5th ed. Valencia:Tirant lo Blanch,2002.[2]Rush P, Yeah S. Criminal Law Sourcebook[M]. Sydney:Butterworths,2001.[3]Snyman C R. Criminal Law [M]. Durban:Butterworths,1995.[4]Sliedregt E V. The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law[M]. Hague:TMC Asser Press,2003.[5]Kittichaisaree K. International Criminal Law[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2001.[6]Fletcher G P. Rethinking Criminal Law[M].2nd ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.[7]Smith J C, Hogan B. Criminal Law [M].11th ed. London:Butterworths,2005.[8]Gillies P. Criminal Law[M].4th ed. North Ryde:LBC Information Services,1997.[9]Cassese A. International Criminal Law[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003.[10]张明楷.外国刑法刚要[M].2版.北京：清华大学出版社,2007。[11]Bassiouni M C. Introduction to International Criminal Law[M]. New York:Transnational Publisher,2003.[12]贾宇.刑法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2009。[13]Roxin C. Taterschaft und Tatherrschaft[M].7th ed. Berlin:Gruyter,2000.[1]Eser A. Individual Criminal Responsibility[C]//Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones J. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:A Commentary. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002.[2]Ambos K. Article 25. Individual Criminal Responsibility[C]//Triffterer O. Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Baden-Baden:Nomos,1999[3]Lamb S. Nullum Crimen sine lege A Cassese [C]//Gaeta P, Jones J. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:A Commentary. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002.[4]Hebel V H, Robinson D. Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court [C]// LEE R S. The??International Criminal Court:The Making of the Rome Statute. The Hague:Kluwer,1999.[5]Sandoz Y, Swinarski C, Zimmermann B. ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 [C]. Geneva:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1987.[6]Ambos K. Superior Responsibility[C]. Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones J. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:A Commentary. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002.[1]United Nations Security Council (UNSC) 'Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992)'(27 May 1994) UN Doc S/ 1994/674.[2]UNSC'Annexes to the Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992)'(28 Dec 1994) UN Doc S/1994/674/Add 2 (Vol II).[3]UNSC 'Preliminary Report of the Independent Commission of Experts in accordance with Security Council Resolution 935 (1994)'(4 Oct 1994) UN Doc S/1994/1125.[4]UNSC 'Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 935 (1994)'(9 Dec 1994) UN Doc S/1994/1405.[5]UNSC 'Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993)'(3 May 1993) UN Doc s/25704.[1]Sliedregt E V. Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide [J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5).[2]Haan V. The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2005, (5).[3]Kuger I. Two Concepts of Omission[J]. Criminal Law Forum,2003,(4).[4]Duttwiler M. Liability for Omissions in International Criminal law[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2006, (6).[5]Muttwiler M. Liability for Omissions in International Criminal law[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2006,6(1).[6]Green L C. Superior Orders and Command Tesponsibility[J]. Canadian Yearbook of International Law,1989, (5).[7]Triffterer O. Causality, A Separate Element of the Doctrine of Superior Responsibility as Expressed in Article 28 Rome Statute[J]. Leiden Journal of International Law,2002,15.[8]Williamson J A. Command Responsibility in the Case Law of the international Criminal Tribunal Tribunal[J]. Criminal Law Forum,2003,13(3).[9]Meloni C. Command Responsibility:Mode of Liability for the Crimes of Subordinates or Separate Offence of the Superior?[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5).[10]Ponte C D. Investigation and Prosecution of Large-Scale Crimes at the International Level. The Experience of the ICTY[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2006, (4).[11]Gustafson K. The Requirements of an "Express Agreement" for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability:A Critique of Branin[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5).[12]Bogdan A. IndividualCriminalResponsibility in the Execution of a "Joint Criminal Enterprise" in the Jurisprudence of the Ad hoc International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2006, (6).[13]Ambos K. Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility [J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5).[14]Cassese A. The Proper Limits if Individual Responsibility under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise [J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5).[15]Danner A M, Martinez J S, Guilty Associations:Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility and the Development of International Criminal Law[J]. California Law Review, 2005,93(1).[16]O'Rourke A. Joint Criminal Enterprise and Brdanin:Misguided Overcorrection[J]. Harvard International Journal,2006,47.[17]Wilt H V D. Joint Criminal Enterprise:Possibilities and Limitations [J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (5).[18]Olasolo H. Reflections on the Treatment of the Notions of Control of the Crime and Joint Criminal Enterprise in the Stakic Appeal Judgment'[J]. International Criminal Law Review,??2007, (7).[19]Badar M E. Just Convict Everyone!—Joint Perpetration from Tadic to Stakic and Back Again[J]. International Criminal Law Review,2006, (6).[20]Fletcher G P, Ohlin J D. Reclaiming Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the Darfur Case[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2005, (3).[21]Cepeda A P. Criminalidad en la Empresa:Problemas de Autoria y Participacion [J]. Revista Penal,2002, (9).[22]Kadish S H. Complicity, Cause and Blame:A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine[J]. California Law Review,1985,73(2)[23]Hamdorf K. The Concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise and Domestic Modes of Liability for Parties to a Crime:A Comparison of German and English Law[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice,2007, (1)[1]Charles Ghankay Taylor (Indictment) SCSL-03-01-I (3 Mar 2003).[2]Attorney General v Adolf Eichmann (1968) 36 ILR 18.[3]Prosecutor v Tadic (Judgment) ICTY-94-1-T (7 May 1997).[4]Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeal Chamber Decision on the Defence bemMotion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction) ICTY-94-1-A (15 Oct 1995).[5]Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999).[6]R v Johns (1978) 1 NSEWLR 282.[7]R v McAuliffe (1995) 69 AKHR 6211.[8]R v Powell, R v English (1997) 4 ALL ER 545.[9]R v Hyde (1991) 1 QB 134.[10]R v Anderson, R v Morris (1996) 2 QB 110.[11]Pinkerton v United States,328 US 640 (1946).[12]State of Connecticut v Diaz 679 A/2d 902 (1996).[13]Prosecutor v Stakic (Fourth Amended Indictment) ICTY-97-24-PT (10 Apr 2002).[14]Prosecutor v Stakic (Decision on the Defence Rule 98 bis Motion for Judgment of Acquittal)??ICTY-97-24-T (31 Oct 2002).[15]Prosecutor v Stakic (Judgment) ICTY-97-24-T (31 Jul 2003).[16]Prosecutor v Stakic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-24-A (22 Mar 2006).[17]Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction---Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTY-99-37-AR72 (21 May 2003).[18]Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Decision On Ojdanic's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction:Indirect Co-Perpetration, Separate Opinion of Judge Bonomy)) ICTY-05-87-PT (22 Mar 2006).[19]Prosecutor v Milutinovic (Third Amended Joinder Indictment) ICTY-05-87-PT (21 Jun 2006).[20]Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on Prosecution's Application for Warrant of Arrest) ICC-01/04-01/06 9910 Feb 2006).[21]Lubanga Case (Pre-Trial Chambr I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06 (29 Jan 2007).[22]Prosecutor v Kordic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T (26 Feb 2001).[23]Prosecutor v Kordic (Appeal Chambers Judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-A (17 Dec 2004).[24]Prosecutor v Krstic (Judgment) ICTY-98-33-T (2 Aug 2001).[25]Prosecutor v Krstic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-33-A (19 Apr 2004).[26]Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Decision on Preliminary Motion on Form of the Amended Indictment) ICTY-97-25-T (11 Feb 2000)[27]Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Judgment) ICTY-97-25-T (15 Mar 2002)[28]Prosecutor v Krnojelac (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-97-25-A (17 Sep 2003)[29]Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Judgment) ICTY-98-32-T (29 Nov 2002)[30]Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004)[31]Prosecutor v Vasiljevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen) ICTY-98-32-A (25 Feb 2004)[32]Prosecutor v Blaskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14-T (3 Mar 2000)[33]Prosecutor v Blaskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-14-A (29 Jul 2004)[34]Prosecutor v Kvocka et at (Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-T (2 Nov 2001)[35]Prosecutor v Kvocka (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-30/1-A (28 Feb 2005)[36]Prosecutor v Simic (Judgment) ICTY-95-9-T (17 Oct 2003).[37]Prosecutor v Simic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-9-A (28 Nov 2006)[38]Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on Motion by Momir Talic for Provisional Release) ICTY-99-36-T (28 Mar 2001).[39]Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend) ICTY-99-36-T (26 Jun 2001).[40]Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on Motion for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98bis) ICTY-99-36-R77 (19 Mar 2003)[41]Prosecutor v Brdanin (Six Amended Indictment) ICTY-99-36-T (9 Dec 2003)[42]Prosecutor v Brdanin (Decision on on Interlocutory Appeal) ICTY-99-36-A (19 Mar 2004)[43]Prosecutor v Brdanin (Judgment) ICTY-99-36-T (1 Sep 2004).[44]Prosecutor v Brdanin (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-99-36-A (3 Apr 2007)[45]Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Consolidated Amended Indictment) ICTY-00-39-T (7 Mar 2002)[46]Prosecutor v Krajisnik (Judgment) ICTY-00-39-T (27 Sep 2006).[47]Prosecutor v Martic (Judgment) ICTY-95-11-T (12 Jun 2007)[48]Prosecutor v Martic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-11-A (8 Oct 2008).[49]Prosecutor v Martic (Appeals Chamber Judgment, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the individual criminal responsibility of Milan Martic) ICTY-95-11A (8 Oct 2008).[50]Prosecutor v Ntakirutimana (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-10-A (13 Dec 2004).[51]Prosecutor v Simba (Amended Indictment) ICTR-01-76-1 (10 May 2004).[52]Prosecutor v Simba (Judgment) ICTR-01-76-T (13 Dec 2005).[53]Prosecutor v Gacumbitsi (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-2001-64-A (7 Jul 2006).[54]Gacumbitsi v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Responsibility of the Appellant for Committing Genocide) ICTR-2001-64-(7 Jul 2006).[55]Katanga and Ngudjolo Case (Pre-Trial Chamber I Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/7(1 Oct 2008).[56]Prosecutor v Strugar (Decision on Interlocutory Appeal) ICTY-01-42-AR72 (22 Nov 2002).[57]Prosecutor v Strugar (Judgment) ICTY-01-42-T (31 Jan 2005).[58]Prosecutor v Strugar (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-01-42-A (17 Jul 2008).[59]Prosecutor v Handzihasanovic (Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Challenging Jurisdiction in Relation to Command Responsibility) ICTY-01-47-AR72 (23 Jul 2003).[60]Prosecutor v Galic (Judgment) ICTY-98-29-T (5 Dec 2003).[61]Prosecutor v Galic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-98-29-A (30 Nov 2006).[62]Prosecutor v Oric (Judgment) ICTY-03-66-T (30 Nov 2005).[63]Prosecutor v Oric (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-03-68-A (3 July 2008).[64]Prosecutor v Kamuhanda and Kubura (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-02-47-A (22 Apr 2008).[65]Prosecutor v Akayesu (Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T (2 Sep 1998).[66]Prosecutor v Akayesu (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-96-4-A (1 Jun 2001).[67]Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic (Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Challenging Jurisdiction in Relation to Command Responsibility) ICTY-01-47-AR72 (23 Jul 2003).[68]Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-47-T (15 Mar 2006).[69]Prosecutor v Delalic et al (Appeal Chamber Judgment) ICTY-96-21-A (2001 Feb 2001).[70]Prosecutor v Ntagerura (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-99-46-A (7 Jul 2006).[71]Prosecutor v Blagojevic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-02-60-A (9 May 2007).[72]Prosecutor v Kamuhanda (Judgment) ICTR-95-54A-T (22 Jan 2004).[73]Kamuhanda v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-99-54A-A (19 Sep 2005).[74]Prosecutor v Kamuhanda and Kubura (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-02-47-A (22 Apr 2008).[75]Prosecutor v Bagilishema (Judgment) ICTR-95-01A-T (7 Jun 2001).[76]Prosecutor v Bagilishema (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-95-01A-A (7 Jul 2002).[77]Prosecutor v Halilovic (Judgment) ICTY-01-48-T (16 Nov 2005)[78]US v Altstoetter (1947) in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal under Control Council Law No 10, Vols III (US Government Printing Office,1951).[79]United States v Greifelt et al (1948) in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal under Council Law No 10, Vols IV and V (US Government Printing Office,1951).[80]Prosecutor v Erdemovic (Judgment) ICTY-96-22-T (29 Nov 1996).[81]Prosecutor v Erdemovic (Appeal Chamber Judgment) ICTY-96-22-A (7 Oct 1997).[82]Semanza v Prosecutor (Judgment) ICTR-97-20-T (15 May 2003).[83]Semanza v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTR-97-20-A (20 May 2005)[84]Canada v Brigadefuhrer Kurt Meyer (1950)in United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reprots of Trial of War Criminal, Vol IV.[85]Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-16-A (23 Oct 2001).[86]Prosecutor v Kupreskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-16-T (14 Jan 2000).[87]Prosecutor v Kayishema (Judgment) ICTR-95-1-T (21 May 1999).[88]Prosecutor v Furundzija (Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-T (10 Dec 1998).[89]Prosecutor v Furundzija (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-17/1-A (21 Jun 2000).[90]Prosecutor v Jelisic (Appeals Chamber Judgment) ICTY-95-10-A (5 July 2001).[91]Caremera v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Jurisdictional Appeals:Joint Criminal Enterprise) ICTR-98-44-AR72.5 (12 Apr 2006).[92]Rwamakuba v Prosecutor (Appeals Chamber Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide) ICTR-98-44-AR72.4 (22 Oct 2004).[93]Bemba Case (Pre-Trial Chamber III Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/005-01/08-14-TEn (10 Jun 2008).[94]Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru) [1950] ICJ Rep 266.[95]North Sea Continental Self Case (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands) [1969] ICJ Rep 14.[96]Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) [1986] ICJ Rep 14.