This thesis is designed to dissect the interpretations and implementation of ‘command responsibility’ in international criminal law. It closely examines the development of command responsibility as a norm under international criminal law. It then scrutinises the consistency of interpreting and implementing this doctrine under the current jurisprudence and case-law of various international criminal courts and tribunals. Unlike other forms of criminal responsibility, command responsibility was developed through judges’ interpretations following the post-Second World War trials, which formed the customary nature of this doctrine. In these trials, judges established the unique nature and requirements of command responsibility and then it was successfully implemented as a sui generis form of liability. Recently, however, this doctrine was vaguely codified under various international statutes, without taking into account its unique creation and development. This resulted eventually in the current inconsistent application of command responsibility under international criminal law. This is primarily because of the recent deviation from its customary nature. Such inconsistency raises therefore two questions: (a) whether the current interpretation and implementation of command responsibility be accurate; and (b) whether this has had an impact on its effectiveness as a form of individual criminal responsibility in international criminal law. This thesis argues that the current interpretations and implementation of command responsibility are inconsistent with its purpose of creation in international criminal law. It therefore analyses the precise nature of command responsibility. It then scrutinises the reasons for, and the impact of, the current controversial and inconsistent implementation of command responsibility by various international criminal courts and tribunals. This thesis examines the extent of such inconsistency and its impact on this doctrine’s future in international criminal law and concludes with a new prospective direction.
Permanent link to this resource: https://doi.org/10.24384/zsjz-n073
Alsharidi, Bader Mohammed
Supervisors: Sedman, Dawn ; Cheyne, Ilona
Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesSchool of Law
Year: 2016
Published by Oxford Brookes UniversityAll rights reserved. Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.