Description
(Short description)
The objective of the author is to verify whether the dominant approach - resulting from the transposition of Roxin's Organisationsherrschaftslehre at the ICC - constitutes a feasible solution in the interpretation and application of article 25 (3)(a), third alternative, of the Rome Statute, or whether it is preferable to rely on different approaches inspired by other legal systems, such as the Italian system.
(Text)
The book analyses indirect perpetration within the meaning and interpretation of article 25(3)(a), third alternative, of the Rome Statute from a comparative perspective. Through a critical analysis, Giulia Lanza examines the control over the organization theory, adopted by the majority to interpret the provision. The objective of the author is to verify whether the dominant approach - resulting from the transposition of Roxin' s Organisationsherrschaftslehre at the ICC - constitutes a feasible solution in the interpretation and application of article 25 (3)(a), third alternative, of the Rome Statute, or whether it is preferable to rely on different approaches inspired by other legal systems, such as the Italian system. The author concludes that the reliance on the Organisationsherrschaftslehre constitutes an important step in the path towards the development of autonomous ICL doctrine regarding indirect perpetration.
(Table of content)
A. Introduction
The Problem - Objective of the investigation - Methodology - Terminology
B. The Organisationsherrschaftslehre
Context and origin - The Organisationsherrschaftslehre as an autonomous form of indirect perpetration - Alternative solutions to the Organisationsherrschaftslehre
C. Towards the application of the control over the organisation theory at the ICC
The premises of the adoption of the Organisationsherrschaftslehre at the ICC - The interpretation and application of art. 25(3)(a), third alternative, ICCSt - The theoretical foundations of the control over the organisation theory
D. The application of the Organisationsherrschaftslehre in domestic jurisdictions
General remarks - Concluding observations on the application of the Organisationsherrschaftslehre - Conclusion
E. An Italian approach to art. 25(3)(a), third alternative, ICCSt
The prosecution and punishment of leaders in collective contexts in the Italian legal system - The Katangaand Ngudjolo case and the Italian legal system
Conclusion
Bibliography
Table of cases
Index
(Author portrait)
Giulia Lanza studied law at the University of Verona (Italy). In 2010 and 2011 she worked at the ICTY and at the ICC as a legal assistant. In 2014 she was admitted to the Italian Bar Association. She spent several research periods abroad, in particular in Göttingen, at the Institute of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and International Criminal Law, Department for Foreign and International Criminal Law and in London, at the Department of Law of the University of Middlesex. In 2018, she earned a European PhD ("Doctor Europaeus") in European and International Legal Studies according to a cotutelle agreement between the University of Verona and the Georg-August Universität Göttingen. She has been a research associate in Criminal Law at the Department of Law of the University of Verona. Her main fields of research are criminal law, international criminal law, humanitarian law, cybercrime and cyberwarfare.
