Forms of responsibility in international criminal law
1. Introduction 2. Joint criminal enterprise 3. Superior responsibility 4. Complicity and aiding and abetting 5. Planning, instigating and ordering 6. Concurrent convictions and sentencing 7. Conclusion 8. Annexes.
Revival of Customary Humanitarian Law
In March 2005, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) released a report identifying, on the basis of empirical data concerning state practice and opinion gathered from nearly fifty countries plus nearly forty recent armed conflicts, those principles of international humanitarian law that now enjoy the status of customary law.l An observer might ask whether this ambitious and unprecedented effort was not a bit anachronistic. In an era when international legal principles are increasingly codified in multilateral conventions, the overall importance of customary law has arguably eroded.2 Moreover, when customary law is applied today, the methods used to determine its content are increasingly relaxed, particularly with respect to the establishment of state practice. The modem approach to customary law, it is said, relies principally on loosely defined opiniojuris and/or inference from the widespread ratification of treaties or support for resolutions and other "soft law" instruments; thus, it is more flexible and open to the relatively rapid acceptance of new norms.3 The ICRC's approach, in contrast, takes a traditional form, while remaining open to a wide variety of manifestations in practice. In my view, the ICRC's project is highly relevant today. Extensive scholarship addresses various aspects of modem debates over the identification, application, and legal force of customary norms, and my discussion here will not attempt to encompass them all. I shall limit myself to the observation that, at least in the field of humanitarian law, customary law continues to thrive and to depend in significant measure on the traditional assessment of both state practice and opiniojuris. In particular, international criminal tribunals-especially the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)-have developed a rich jurisprudence elucidating customary principles of humanitarian law. The approach taken by these tribunals is necessarily rigorous and, in a sense, conservative. Criminal courts are bound to respect the principle of nullum crimen nullapoena sine lege (or the legality principle): a defendant may be convicted only on the basis of legal rules that were clearly established at the time
Community refinement of glaucoma referrals
AbstractAim To describe a Manchester-based glaucoma referral refinement scheme designed to reduce the number of false-positive referrals to the hospital eye service. To report on the first years results of this scheme and its financial costs to the NHS.Methods Patients with suspected glaucoma, instead of being referred to their GP and then on to the hospital eye service, were referred to a group of specially trained community optometrists working to an agreed set of referral criteria. Those patients who did not meet the referral criteria were returned to the referring optometrist, while those who met the referral criteria were referred directly to Manchester Royal Eye Hospital. The patient's GP was informed in all cases.Results The number of suspect glaucoma cases referred to the Manchester Royal Eye Hospital was reduced by 40%. This figure is close to the percentage of false-positive referrals measured at Manchester Royal Eye Hospital prior to the onset of this study. The information accompanying referral has been improved and the scheme produces a small financial cost saving to the NHS of approximately £17 per patient.Conclusion Community refinement of suspect glaucoma offers some important benefits over the current referral pathway.