본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

JCE이론의 주요 내용과 그에 대한 비판

The Elements of Joint Criminal Enterprise and the Critique of Them

박미경|최태현
법학연구원 (Legal Research Institute of Korea University)|2014.06|법학논총 (The Legal Studies Institute of Chosun University)|제31권 제2호|pp. 173-205

0

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

죄형법정주의ICTY공동범죄집단JCE공동목적책임개인의 형사책임원칙Joint Criminal Enterprise(JCE)common purpose liabilityprinciple of individual culpabilityprinciple of nullun crimen sine lege
주제분류법학

초록

In international criminal law, common purpose responsibility is best known as ‘joint criminal enterprise’(JCE) under the ICTY jurisprudence. This article mainly deals with the notion and forms of the JCE concept as well as its objective and subjective elements, which have predominantly been adopted in the case law of the ICTY and presents some criticisms on the concept, which might be raised in the course of applying it. Since the ICTY Statute does not provide for the concept of JCE, the Appeals Chamber based its findings on customary international law and subsumed it within the meaning of ‘committing’ stipulated in Article 7(1) of the ICTY Statute. At the ICTY, an individual criminal responsibility theory was constructed along similar lines to the common design concept, at least in its early jurisprudence. In Furundžija case the notion of JCE was relied upon as ‘co-perpetration’ involving a group of persons pursuing a common design to commit crimes where ‘the accused participated in an integral part of the torture and partook of the purpose behind the torture’. It was the Appeals Chamber in Tadić case that further developed the JCE liability theory and that, on the basis of national and international precedents, formulated the elements of the JCE. To date, Tadić case is regarded as a leading case on the JCE and its impact on international prosecutions of core crimes has been impressive, although criticism was never far away. The JCE doctrine has been met with some criticisms, particularly from scholars and defence lawyers for its legal basis. In Tadić case the defence insisted that the JCE doctrine infringed upon the principle of nullun crimen sine lege. Criticism has furtherbeen voiced as to its scope of application. The concept of JCE, especially the extended form of it, has encountered criticisms for its potential to violate the principle of individual culpability. The extended form of JCE could result in guilt by association of criminal liability because the liability might be attributed to low-level members of the JCE for all the crimes perpetrated by the enterprise. Additionally, objections to the JCE doctrine have been prompted by its vague definitions of objective and subjective elements.

Abstract

In international criminal law, common purpose responsibility is best known as ‘joint criminal enterprise’(JCE) under the ICTY jurisprudence. This article mainly deals with the notion and forms of the JCE concept as well as its objective and subjective elements, which have predominantly been adopted in the case law of the ICTY and presents some criticisms on the concept, which might be raised in the course of applying it. Since the ICTY Statute does not provide for the concept of JCE, the Appeals Chamber based its findings on customary international law and subsumed it within the meaning of ‘committing’ stipulated in Article 7(1) of the ICTY Statute. At the ICTY, an individual criminal responsibility theory was constructed along similar lines to the common design concept, at least in its early jurisprudence. In Furundžija case the notion of JCE was relied upon as ‘co-perpetration’ involving a group of persons pursuing a common design to commit crimes where ‘the accused participated in an integral part of the torture and partook of the purpose behind the torture’. It was the Appeals Chamber in Tadić case that further developed the JCE liability theory and that, on the basis of national and international precedents, formulated the elements of the JCE. To date, Tadić case is regarded as a leading case on the JCE and its impact on international prosecutions of core crimes has been impressive, although criticism was never far away. The JCE doctrine has been met with some criticisms, particularly from scholars and defence lawyers for its legal basis. In Tadić case the defence insisted that the JCE doctrine infringed upon the principle of nullun crimen sine lege. Criticism has furtherbeen voiced as to its scope of application. The concept of JCE, especially the extended form of it, has encountered criticisms for its potential to violate the principle of individual culpability. The extended form of JCE could result in guilt by association of criminal liability because the liability might be attributed to low-level members of the JCE for all the crimes perpetrated by the enterprise. Additionally, objections to the JCE doctrine have been prompted by its vague definitions of objective and subjective elements.

참고문헌 (44)

  1. Bantekas, Ilias, "International Criminal Law" (2010), Hart
  2. Boas, Gideon, "Forms of Responsibility International Criminal Law" (2007), Cambridge University Press
  3. Cassese, Antonio, "International Criminal Law" (2008), Oxford University Press
  4. Damgaard, Ciara, "Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes" (2008), Springer
  5. Schabas, William A, "An introduction to the International Criminal Court" (2007), Cambridge University Press
  6. Werle, Gerhard, "Principles of international Criminal Law" (2009), T.M.C. Asser Press
  7. 권오곤, "국제 형사재판과 한국 형사재판의 비교법적 고찰", 인권과 정의, (359), pp.15~53 (2006), 대한변호사협회
  8. 설일영, "공동범죄집단(Joint Criminal Enterprise) 법리 연구 : ICTY의 판례를 중심으로", 인도법논총, (30) (2008)
  9. Badar, Mohamed Elewa, "Just convict everyone! - joint perpetration: from Tadic to Stakic and back again", International Criminal Law Review, 6, pp.293~ (2006)
  10. Cassese, Antonio, "The Proper Limit of Individual Responsibility under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise", Journal of International Criminal Justice, 5, pp.109~ (2007)
  11. Danner, Allison Marston, "Guilty Associations: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility, and the Development of International Criminal Law", California Law Review, 93, pp.75~ (2005)
  12. Gustafson, Kartina, "The Requirement of an ‘Express Agreement’ for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability: A Critique of Brđanin", Journal of International Criminal Justice, 5, pp.134~ (2007)
  13. Haffajee, Rebecca L, "Prosecuting Crimes of Rape and Sexual Violence at the ICTR: The Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise Theory", Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 29, pp.201~ (2006)
  14. Meierhenrich, Jens, "Conspiracy in International Law", Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2, pp.341~ (2006)
  15. Ohlin, Jens David, "Three Conceptual Problems with the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise", Journal of International Criminal Justice, 5, pp.69~ (2007)
  16. Van der Wilt, Harmen, "System Criminality in International Law" (2009), Cambridge University Press
  17. Van Sliedregt, Elies, "Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convincing Individuals for Genocide", Journal of International Criminal Justice, 5, pp.184~ (2007)
  18. 竹村仁美, "国際刑事法におけるJCE(Joint Criminal Enterprise)の概念(1)", 一橋法学, 6(2) (2007)
  19. 佐藤宏美, "共同犯罪集團(Joint Criminal Enterprise)の法理と慣習国際法", 国際法外交雜誌, 111(4) (2013)
  20. 後藤啓介, "日本刑法における共謀共同正犯と国際刑法における『正犯』概念に関する一考察――中核犯罪の『黒幕』とされる者は如何なる概念によって捕捉されるべきか", 法学政治学論究, (87) (2010)
  21. "Prosecutor v. Blagojević and Jokić, IT-02-60-T, Judgment of 17 January 2005", ~ (2005)
  22. "Prosecutor v. Brđanin, IT-99-36-T, Judgment of 1 September 2004", ~ (2004)
  23. "Prosecutor v. Brđanin, IT-99-36-A, Judgment of 3 April 2007", ~ (2007)
  24. "Prosecutor v. Furundžija, IT-95-17", 1-A, Judgment of 21 July 2000, 2000
  25. "Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez, IT-95-14", 2-T, Judgement of 26 February 2001, 2001
  26. "Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, IT-00-39-T, Judgment of 27 September 2006", ~ (2006)
  27. "Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, IT-00-39-A, Judgment of 17 March 2009", ~ (2009)
  28. "Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, IT-97-25-T, Judgment of 15 March 2002", ~ (2002)
  29. "Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, IT-97-25-A, Judgment of 17 September 2003", ~ (2003)
  30. "Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., IT-98-30", 1-T, Judgment of 2 November 2001, 2001
  31. "Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., IT-98-30", 1-A, Judgment of 28 February 2005, 2005
  32. "Prosecutor v. Limaj et al., IT-03-66-A, Judgement of 27 September 2007", ~ (2007)
  33. "Prosecutor v. Milan Martić, IT-95-11-T, Judgement of 12 June 2007", ~ (2007)
  34. "Prosecutor v. Morina Forfana and Allieu Kondewa, SCSL-2004-04-14-T, Judgement of 2 August 2007", ~ (2007)
  35. "Prosecutor v. Mucić et al., IT-96-21-T, Judgment of 16 November 1998", ~ (1998)
  36. "Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana, ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Judgment of 13 December 2004", ~ (2004)
  37. "Prosecutor v. Ordanić, IT-99-37-AR72, Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanić’s Motion Challenging Jurisdiction – Joint Criminal Enterprise of 21 May 2003", ~ (2003)
  38. "Prosecutor v. Simba, ICTR-01-76-T, Judgment of 13 December 2005", ~ (2005)
  39. "Prosecutor v. Simić et al., IT-95-9-T, Judgement of 17 October 2003", ~ (2003)
  40. "Prosecutor v. Stakić, IT-97-24-T, Judgment of 31 July 2003", ~ (2003)
  41. "Prosecutor v. Stakić, IT-97-24-A, Judgment of 22 March 2006", ~ (2006)
  42. "Prosecutor v. Tadić, IT-94-1-A, Judgment of 15 July 1999", ~ (1999)
  43. "Prosecutor v. Vasiljević, IT-98-32-T, Judgment of 29 November 2002", ~ (2002)
  44. "Prosecutor v. Vasiljević, IT-98-32-A, Judgment of 25 February 2004", ~ (2004)

관련 논문AI추천

ICTY 판례에 의해 확립된 JCE이론의 법적 성격박경규서울시립대학교 법학연구소 · 서울법학2016 · 제23권 제3호국제형사법에 있어서의 정범의 개념-국제형사재판에 있어서의 ‘공동범죄계획’ 및 ‘공동범죄실행’의 개념을 중심으로-김성규법학연구소 · 외법논집2014 · 제38권 제2호공동정범의 주관적 구성요건과 소위 ‘오상공동정범’김성룡법학연구소 · 일감법학2014 · 제29호국제형사법상 정범과 공범 구분에 대한 법경제학적 분석과 시사점민한빛법학연구원 · 법학논고2022 · 제78호공동정범의 구성요건과 본질적 기여에 대한 새로운 검토권영법안암법학회 · 안암법학2014 · 제44호공동정범의 이론구성에 관한 비교법적 연구류전철한국비교형사법학회 · 비교형사법연구2016 · 제18권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (17건)

日本民法における連帯債務規定の改正 - 相互保証理論による批判的検討 -深川裕佳pp. 1-23일본민법(채권관계)의 개정동향과 보험계약이지연pp. 25-36日本統治時期台湾における笞刑について後藤武秀pp. 37-51재판중계의 법적 쟁점 해소를 위한 방안 연구김형일, 한동섭pp. 53-72프랑스 참심재판의 개혁과 시사점김택수pp. 73-95
원문 보기