TO CAUSE OR NOT TO CAUSE, THAT IS THE QUESTION THE PROSECUTORIAL STANDARD FOR INCITEMENT AT INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW By Jennifer Johanna Schuetze Institute of Comparative Law Faculty of Law McGill University, Montreal February 2005 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Laws (LL.M.) © Jennifer Schuetze 2005 Library and Bibliothèque et 1+1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l'édition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada Your file Votre référence ISBN: 0-494-12684-1 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 0-494-12684-1 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans loan, distribute and sell th es es le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non­ sur support microforme, papier, électronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation. reproduced without the author's permission. ln compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privée, forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires from this thesis. ont été enlevés de cette thèse. While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination, their removal does not represent il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. any loss of content from the thesis. ••• Canada To my be/oved ABSTRACT The prosecutorial standard for incitement is subject to different approaches in the common law and civil law traditions respectively. The most crucial difference lies in the role attributed to the result as a definitional element of the offence. While the civil law generally characterizes proof of results as a pre­ requisite to liability, the common law views it as significant but not determinative of guilt. This divergence is expounded at the international level, which condones both approaches with respect to different crimes, employing the common law approach only to genocide and relegating aIl other crimes to the purview of the civil law approach. The practical effect is a focus on the gravit y of the substantive crime to which incitement attaches, rather than on the crucial role of incitement itself. This thesis will seek to elucidate the parameters of this debate with the aim of deconstructing and redrawing preconceived barri ers in international criminallaw. ABRÉGÉ Le standard de poursuite pour incitation est sujet à différentes approches entres les juridictions du droit civil du "common law" anglais. La différence cruciale est le rôle attribué au résultat en tant qu'élément constitutif du crime. Alors que le droit civil caractérise l'effet comme un prérequis, le "common law" l'interprète comme étant important mais pas indispensable. Cette divergence est accentuée au niveau international, où l'on applique les deux méthodes à des crimes différents, se référant au "common law" seulement lorsqu'il s'agit de génocide et au droit civil pour l'ensemble des autres crimes internationaux. En conséquence, l'emphase est mise non sur le rôle crucial que joue l'incitation dans l'accomplissement des crimes, mais plutôt sur la gravité des crimes à laquelle elle s'attache. Cette thèse a pour but d'élucider les paramètres de ce débat avec l'objectif de déconstruire des barrières établies dans la conceptualisation et défmition de l'incitation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of aIl, 1 would like to thank my wonderful supervisor Professor Patrick Healy for inspiring me to write on this unexplored area of the law and for guiding me through complex questions that arose in the process. A great "thank you" is equally attributable to Mark Antaki, who was always ready to lend an ear and provide intelligent feedback, as weIl as Carole Chan, Pavan DhiIlon, Maureen Duffy, Sébastien Jodoin and Michelle Toering Sanders, aIl of whom assisted in the editing and formatting process. My deepest gratitude goes to my dear parents, Hans and Heather, for their unconditional love and support, my three beloved brothers, Christopher, Benjamin and Jeremy, and my deeply cheri shed husband Philippe, to aIl of whom 1 dedicate this thesis, as a token of my love and affection. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 2 CHAPTER 1: PROSECUTING INCITEMENT AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.. ................................................. 8 1. CRIMINALIZING INCITEMENT GENERALL y ................................................................................... 8 A. The Anglo-Saxon Notion of Inchoate Liability and Equivalent Concepts in the Roman- Continental System ...................................................................................................... 8 i) Common Law Systems .. .......................................................................................................... 12 ii) Civil Law Systems .................................................................................................................... 15 Il. CRIMINALIZING INCITEMENT TO GENOCIDE .............................................................................. 20 A. Constitutive Elements ................................................................................................... 20 i) Special Intent ........................................................................................................................... 20 a) Public Place ...................................................................................................................... 23 b) Directness ......................................................................................................................... 25 ii) The Element of Causation ....................................................................................................... 27 a) The Genocide Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 27 b) The I.L.C. Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind .................. 32 B. National Approaches to the Crime of Incitement to Genocide ..................................... 34 i) Common Law Systems .. ...................... , ................................................................................... 34 a) Canada ............................................................................................................................. 34 b) The United States ............................................................................................................. 36 ii) Civil Law Systems .................................................................................................................... 37 a) France .............................................................................................................................. 37 b) Germany ........................................................................................................................... 38 C. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 40 CHAPTER Il: PROSECUTING INCITEMENT AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL ...................................... 41 1. INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE: FROM NÜRNBERG TO Now .................................................. .41 A. The International Military Tribunal at Nürnberg ............................................................ 41 B. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda .. ......................................................... 43 C. The International Criminal Court: Potential for Clarification? ....................................... 51 i) The Rome Statute Examined ................................................................................................... 51 a) Criminalizing Incitement under Article 25 ......................................................................... 51 b) Sources of Law under Article 21 ....................................................................................... 53 ii) Incitement against the Backdrop of the Complementarity Principle ......................................... 61 a) Complementarity in Practice ............................................................................................. 61 b) Differentiai Prosecutorial Standards for the Crime of Incitement ...................................... 63 D. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 69 CHAPTER III: THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO THE CRIMINALIZATION OF INCITEMENT ............... 70 1.