Complicity in international criminal law: A fragmented law in need of a new approach By Patrick Lamarre A thesis submitted to the Graduate Program in Law in conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Master of Laws Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada September, 2015 Copyright © Patrick Lamarre, 2015 Abstract Since the advent of the concept of complicity in international crimes in the years following the end of World War 2, the international jurisprudence has had difficulties in conclusively establishing the content of this concept. To that effect, the ICTY, ICTR, SCSL, STL, and the ICC’s jurisprudence contain complicated, unresolved issues that need to be addressed in order to safeguard coherence in ICL. An example of the results of these issues is the discrepancy between the outcome in the cases of Charles Taylor and of Momcilo Perisic where, for essentially the same conduct, the former was convicted and sentenced to 50 years in prison while the latter was acquitted of all charges. In the current situation of on-going legitimacy deficit of international criminal law, this problem must be tackled efficiently. To do so, in this paper, I identified the issues of complicity in ICL and tried to find solutions for them through a proposed definition of the concept of complicity which could be incorporated in the statutes of international criminal tribunals or in the international jurisprudence. According to my proposition, an aid, assistance, or support that has a substantial effect on the commission of the crime by the perpetrator given while the accomplice knew or was wilfully blind that the crime was being committed or that the perpetrator wanted to commit the crime and that, in the normal course of events, it was almost inevitable that the crime would be committed would be the new legal standard for complicity in ICL. I argue that this definition would settle many grave problems currently afflicting complicity such as the lack of legal certainty and the discrepancies in the outcomes among ICL judgments. I conclude the thesis by observing that, given that we are at the outset of a new world order, the international ii community should take this opportunity to set out clearly the content of complicity, a concept which is likely to receive increasingly widespread application in the future. iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my family and my friends who provide on a daily basis a wholesome environment conducive to productive and good-quality intellectual work. I would also like to thank the educational institutions that I attended over the years, Baie- Comeau College, Laval University, and Queen’s University, which gave me the tools to be able to think about our world in a more informed fashion. Warm thanks also to Professor Sharry Aiken and other persons involved in the correction of this work for taking the time to read this thesis and to provide advice so that my work be of the best quality possible. Further, I wish to extend sincere thanks to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario for the care given to education in their public policies and for the financial support they furnish to the said educiational institutions and to myself which transforms this concern in concrete results. Finally, I would like to thank every person who, at one point or another in my life, refused me something or made negative comments towards my work or myself. These refusals and negative observations have prompted me to implement changes in my life so that I become a better person and gave me the daily dose of motivation necessary to try to excel at everything that I do. iv Table of contents Abstract ............................................................................................................ ii-iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ iv List of Abreviations ........................................................................................... ix 1. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1-16 2. CHAPTER 2: THE LAW ON COMPLICITY IN ICL ............................ 17-129 2.1. Complicity in customary international law ......................................... 17-51 2.1.1. Preliminary observations .............................................................. 17-19 2.1.2. Jurisprudence of the post-WW2-era tribunals .............................. 19-31 2.1.2.1. Before WW2 .......................................................................... 19-20 2.1.2.2. After WW2............................................................................. 20-31 2.1.2.2.1. The International Military Tribunal ............................ 22-24 2.1.2.2.2. The judgments issued by other post-WW2-era courts 24-31 2.1.3. International treaties...................................................................... 31-34 2.1.4. Other international instruments..................................................... 34-37 2.1.5. Custom assessed by contemporary international tribunals ........... 37-39 2.1.6. Analysis, opinion, and conclusion on the custom ......................... 39-51 2.2. Complicity at the contemporary international criminal tribunals .. 51-129 2.2.1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 51 2.2.2. The ICTY and ICTR ..................................................................... 51-79 2.2.2.1. Background information ........................................................ 51-54 2.2.2.2. Preliminary observations on the law ...................................... 54-56 v 2.2.2.3. The objective element ............................................................ 56-60 2.2.2.4. The subjective element .......................................................... 60-63 2.2.2.5. Analysis of main issue: specific direction requirement ......... 64-79 2.2.2.5.1. The basic tension......................................................... 64-66 2.2.2.5.2. The three approaches .................................................. 66-73 2.2.2.5.2.1. The restrictive approach: SD required ................. 66-69 2.2.2.5.2.2. The liberal approach: SD not required ................. 69-72 2.2.2.5.2.3. The median approach: the direction requirement 72-73 2.2.2.5.3. Provisional outcome of the debate on SD ................... 73-79 2.2.3. The Special Court for Sierra Leone .............................................. 80-93 2.2.3.1. Background information ........................................................ 80-82 2.2.3.2. The law................................................................................... 82-86 2.2.3.2.1. The objective element ................................................. 82-84 2.2.3.2.2. The subjective element ............................................... 84-86 2.2.3.3. Analysis of main issue: recklessness-based mental element . 86-93 2.2.4. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon ............................................... 93-102 2.2.4.1. Background information ........................................................ 93-94 2.2.4.2. The law................................................................................... 95-98 2.2.4.2.1. The objective element .................................................... 97 2.2.4.2.2. The subjective element .................................................. 98 2.2.4.3. Analysis main issue: content of the subjective element ........ 98-102 2.2.5. The International Criminal Court................................................ 102-129 2.2.5.1. Background information ...................................................... 102-107 vi 2.2.5.2. The law................................................................................. 108-117 2.2.5.2.1. Overview ................................................................... 108-109 2.2.5.2.2. Article 25(3)c): aid to a non-group perpetrator ......... 109-111 2.2.5.2.2.1. General remark....................................................... 109 2.2.5.2.2.2. Objective element .............................................. 110-111 2.2.5.2.2.3. Subjective element ................................................. 111 2.2.5.2.3. Article 25(3)d): aiding a group crime ....................... 112-117 2.2.5.2.3.1. General remark....................................................... 112 2.2.5.2.3.2. Objective element .............................................. 112-115 2.2.5.2.3.3. Subjective element ............................................. 115-117 2.2.5.3. Analysis of the main issues: threshold AR and MR 25(3)d) 118-129 3. CHAPTER 3: SCHOLARSHIP AND INSTITUTIONAL VIEWS ....... 130-180 3.1. Preliminary observations ....................................................................... 130-132 3.2. Some institutions’ views ........................................................................ 132-142 3.2.1. Commentaries on the institutional views .................................... 139-142 3.3. The authors’ views ................................................................................. 142-176 3.3.1. Views of the main authors in the field of ICL ............................ 142-156 3.3.1.1. At the ad hoc tribunals ......................................................... 142-149 3.3.1.2. At the ICC ............................................................................ 150-156 3.3.1.2.1. Article 25(3)c): general complicity provision ........... 150-153 3.3.1.2.2. Article 25(3)d)i)-ii): contribution to a group crime .. 153-156