Symposium : The International Criminal Court

• Gaeta, P

Abstract

This paper endeavours to critically assess Article 33 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court on superior orders by comparing it with customary international law. The author notes that case law and the legal literature have never clarified the content of the customary rule on this matter. Two apparently conflicting approaches have emerged. The conditional liability approach, generally adopted by national legal systems, admits the plea as a complete defence, unless the subordinate knew or should have known the illegality of the order or unless the order was manifestly illegal. By contrast relevant international instruments prior to the Rome Statute have invariably taken the absolute liability approach, according to which obedience to orders is never a defence. The author contends that close scrutiny of national legislation and case law shows that the divergences in international practice are more apparent than real and that the customary rule on superior orders upholds the absolute liability approach. By adopting the conditional liability approach with regard to war crimes, Article 33 of the Rome Statute has departed from customary international law without any well-grounded reasons. This departure is all the more questionable since it is basically inconsistent with the codification of war crimes effected through Article 8 of the Rome Statute. This Article lays down an exhaustive list of war crimes covering acts that are unquestionably and blatantly criminal. It would therefore appear to be impossible to claim that orders to perpetrate any of those acts are not manifestly unlawful or that subordinates could not recognize their illegality.