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.