abstract |
The Article sheds light on the German origins of indirect perpetration through an organisation and the theory of domination of/control over the crime. The different lines of thought that can be found in theory and jurisprudence are portrayed and contrasted. The essay finds that three versions of indirect perpetration through an organisation exist: a traditional approach, the jurisprudential version of the theory and the systemic approach. The article highlights the differences between those and explains central points of criticism on the three of them. It finds inter alia that the German jurisprudence is only vaguely akin to the traditional academic legal construct and is not strictly based on the same premise, ie on the theory of domination of the crime. It is argued that the inconsistency of the different approaches and the existing criticism on all of them should be considered. The unconvincing result of reproducing national doctrinal weaknesses can only be avoided if these details are recognized and acknowledged by the ICC and scholars in the current discussions on the interpretation of Art. 25 (3) Rome Statute. |