THE CONCEPT OF MENS REA IN INTENATIONAL CRIMIMAL LAW2025|PDF|Epub|mobi|kindle电子书版本百度云盘下载

THE CONCEPT OF MENS REA IN INTENATIONAL CRIMIMAL LAWPDF格式电子书版下载

注意：本站所有压缩包均有解压码： 点击下载压缩包解压工具

1. Introduction1

Ⅰ The Mens Rea Enigma1

Ⅱ General Principles of Law4

A The Determination of General Principles of Law6

B The Process of Establishing a General Principle8

C Abstracting a Legal Principle from National Laws8

D Verifying whether the Principle is 'Generally Recognised'9

E Adapting the General Principle to the International Sphere10

F The Role of General Principles11

Ⅲ The Study12

2. From Vengeance to Mens Rea to Mentes Reae13

Ⅰ The Mental Requisites for Criminality in the Early Law13

Ⅱ The Babylonians - The Code of Hammurabi15

Ⅲ Ancient Hebrew Law15

Ⅳ The Athenians - The Epic Period16

Ⅴ Plato and Aristotle16

Ⅵ Roman Law - 'The Twelve Tables': Cicero17

Ⅶ The Irish - St Patrick's Time: Brehon Law19

Ⅷ Islamic Legal Tradition22

Ⅸ Early Medieval Period22

Ⅹ Old Dutch Statutes23

ⅩⅠ Leges Henrici Primi23

ⅩⅡ Bracton25

ⅩⅢ Dolus and Culpa26

ⅩⅣ Early Critiques of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law of England27

ⅩⅤ General Remarks29

3. Mens Rea in the Common Law of England and Wales, Australia and Canada31

Ⅰ Introduction31

A The Sources of Criminal Law: Common Law versus Statute32

Ⅱ Mens Rea Standards in Common Law Systems33

Ⅲ Intention33

A Smith - The 'Objective' Test35

B Hyam -The 'Probability Test36

C Moloney -The 'Natural Consequence' Test37

D Hancock and Shankland - The 'High Probability' Test39

E Nedrick - The 'Virtual Certainty' Test40

F Woollin - Adhering to the 'Virtual Certainty' Test41

G The Meaning of Intention in the Criminal Law of Ireland43

H The Meaning of Intention in the Criminal Law of Australia45

I The Meaning of Intention in the Criminal Law of Canada46

J A Schematic Review of the Meaning of Intention in Common Law Jurisdictions49

Ⅳ Recklessness50

A Cunningham - Subjective Recklessness52

B Caldwell/Lawrence - Objective Recklessness54

C R v G and Another -The Fall of Objective Recklessness56

D A Schematic Review of the Meaning of Recklessness in Common Law Jurisdictions58

Ⅴ Knowledge or Awareness as to Circumstances59

A Does 'Knowledge' have a Precise Definition in the Criminal Law of England?60

B The Doctrine of 'Wilful Blindness' in England and Canada61

C A Schematic Review of the Meaning of Knowledge in Common Law Jurisdictions63

Ⅵ Further Principles of Mens Rea64

A Specific Intent versus Ulterior Intent64

Ⅶ Negligence66

A Are there Degrees of Negligence?68

Ⅷ Accessorial Liability68

A Parties to the Commission of Crimes - Principal and Accessory68

B Secondary Participation - Aiding, Abetting, Counselling or Procuring70

C Joint Enterprise79

Ⅸ Mistake as Denial of Mens Rea91

Ⅹ Conclusion94

4. Mens Rea in the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code98

Ⅰ Introduction98

Ⅱ Background of the Code99

Ⅲ The Culpability Provisions of the Model Penal Code: In General100

Ⅳ Degrees of Culpability under the Model Penal Code102

A 'Purposely'104

B 'Knowingly'107

C 'Recklessly'112

D Negligence116

Ⅴ The Model Penal Code Element Analysis119

Ⅵ Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law120

A Ignorance or Mistake vis-a-vis Culpability Requirement121

B Belief that One is Committing a Different Crime122

C Belief in Legality of Conduct123

Ⅶ Mens Rea of Accomplice Liability124

A The Full Mens Rea Approach125

B Liability for Crimes of Recklessness and Negligence126

C Liability of the Accomplice vis-à-vis the Principal Perpetrator127

Ⅷ Conclusion and General Remarks127

5. Mens Rea in German and French Criminal Law130

Ⅰ Introduction130

Ⅱ The German Three-stage Structure of Criminal Offences131

A Straftatbestand - The Legal Elements of the Offence131

B Rechtswidrigkeit - Unlawfulness, Wrongfulness or Illegality131

C Schuld- Culpability/Guilt132

Ⅲ Vorsatz or Dolus in German Criminal Law135

A Absicht or Dolus Directus of the First Degree136

B Dolus Directus of the Second Degree or Dolus Indirectus138

C Bedingter Vorsatz or Dolus Eventualis139

Ⅳ Fahrlassigkeit or Negligence145

Ⅴ Grounds of Excluding Vorsatz or Schuld146

A The Basic Distinction between Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law147

B Tatbestandsirrtum or Mistake of Fact148

C Mistake of Law151

Ⅵ Taterschaft und Teilnahme (Perpetration and Participation)154

A Taterschaft (Perpetration)154

B Teilnahme (Secondary Participation)157

Ⅶ Mens Rea in French Criminal Law and other Romano Legal Systems160

A Intention (le dol)161

Ⅷ Negligence (la faute pénale)166

Ⅸ Complicity167

A The Requirement of a Principle Offence167

B The Act of Complicity (l'element matériel)168

C Mens Rea of Complicity (l'element moral)168

Ⅹ Conclusion and General Observations169

6. Mens Rea in Chinese and Russian Criminal Law172

Ⅰ Introduction172

Ⅱ Sources of Chinese Criminal Law172

Ⅲ Crimes and Criminal Responsibility in Chinese Criminal Law176

A Categories of Crimes in Chinese Criminal Law177

B Criminal Responsibility177

Ⅳ Negligence186

A Negligence by being Over Confident186

B Careless and Inadvertent Negligence187

Ⅴ Cognition Error188

A Mistake of Law188

B Mistake of Fact190

C Responsibility for a Crime Committed with Two Forms of Guilt in Russian Law192

Ⅵ Mens Rea of Joint Crimes under Chinese Criminal Law193

A The Intention of Enforcement194

B The Intention of Organisation194

C The Intention of Instigation194

D The Intention of Aiding a Crime195

Ⅶ Conclusion196

7. Mens Rea in Islamic Criminal Law198

Ⅰ Introduction to Islamic Law (Shari'a)198

Ⅱ The Application of Islamic Law in Muslim States Today199

Ⅲ Sources of Islamic Law - Shari'a and Fiqh200

A Quran201

B Sunnah202

C Consensus by Collective Reasoning (Ijma)203

D Analogical Deduction by Individual Reasoning (Qiyas)203

Ⅳ Categories of Crimes in Islamic Criminal Law204

Ⅴ The Leading Schools of Law (Madhahib)206

Ⅵ Criminal Responsibility under Islamic Law208

A The Material Element209

B Motive210

C Intent210

D Different Degrees of Homicide and their Definition211

E Standards used for Determining Intention215

F Summary of Jurists' Opinions216

Ⅶ Mistake220

A Mistake of Fact220

B Mistake of Law221

C Cases Similar to Mistake222

D Negligence as an Element of Mistake222

Ⅷ Participation in Crime223

A Direct Complicity225

B Complicity in Indirect Homicide228

C Causal Complicity228

D Ordering229

Ⅸ Conclusion230

8. Mens Rea in post-World War Ⅱ Trials, the Travaux Préparatoire of the Genocide Convention and the Work of the International Law Commission231

Ⅰ Introduction231

Ⅱ Mens Rea - Guilty Knowledge234

A Evidence - Facts from which Tribunals Infer Knowledge240

Ⅲ Common Plan or Conspiracy241

Ⅳ Membership of Criminal Organisations - Presumed Knowledge246

Ⅴ Persons Concerned in the Killing247

Ⅵ Complicity248

Ⅶ Responsibility of Commanders252

Ⅷ Mistake of Law and Mistake of Fact255

Ⅸ The Mens Rea of Genocide in the Drafting History of the 1948 Genocide Convention258

A The UN General Assembly and the ECOSOC Resolutions258

B The UN Secretary-General's Draft259

C The Ad Hoc Committee Draft260

D The General Assembly Sixth Committee263

E Analysis267

Ⅹ The Developing Law of Mens Rea through the Work of the International Law Commission268

A Codification of the Nuremberg Principles by the International Law Commission268

B The 1954 Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind269

C The 1991 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind270

D The 1996 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace andSecurity of Mankind277

E Analysis284

ⅩⅠ Conclusion and General Remarks285

9. Mens Rea of Crimes in the Jurisprudence of the the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda287

Ⅰ Introduction287

Ⅱ Special Intent or Primary Purpose Crimes289

A The Crime of Terror against the Civilian Population289

B Torture293

C Persecution as a Crime against Humanity295

D Taking Civilians as Hostages297

E Genocide299

Ⅲ Direct Intent Crimes, Dolus Eventualis and Gross Negligence Crimes302

A Rape - Direct Intent Crime (Intent and Knowledge)302

B Outrages upon Personal Dignity - Direct Intent Crime304

C Extermination - Direct Intent, Dolus Eventualis or Negligent Crime?306

Ⅳ Wilful Crimes311

A Wilful Killing311

B Wilfully Causing Great Suffering or Serious Injury to Body or Health316

C Destruction or Wilful Damage to Institutions Dedicated to Religion or Education317

Ⅴ Wanton Crimes319

A Unlawful and Wanton Extensive Destruction and Appropriation of Property320

B Wanton Destruction of Cities, Towns or Villages, or Devastation not Justified by Military Necessity321

Ⅵ Premeditated Crimes - Murder under Article 3(a) of the ICTR Statute322

Ⅶ General Remarks and Conclusion324

10. The Mens Rea of Perpetration and Participation in the Jurisprudence of the ICTY and ICTR326

Ⅰ Introduction326

Ⅱ Responsibility under Articles 7(1) and 6(1) of the ICTY and ICTR Statutes328

A Planning328

B Instigating330

C Ordering333

D Aiding and Abetting336

E Committing344

Ⅲ Responsibility under Articles 7(3) and 6(3) of the ICTY and ICTR Statutes366

A General Requirements under Articles 7(3) and 6(3) of the ICTY and ICTR Statutes366

Ⅳ General Remarks and Observations379

11. Mens Rea in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court382

Ⅰ Introduction382

Ⅱ Anatomy of Article 30 of the ICC Statute384

A Elements Analysis - Mental Elements and their Objects384

B Different Culpability Terms Defined in relation to each Objective Element385

Ⅲ Different Degrees of Mental Elements under Article 30387

A The Meaning of Intent387

B Intent in relation to Conduct388

C Intent in relation to Consequence - The First Alternative of Intent390

D Intent in relation to Consequence - The Second Alternative of Intent391

E The Meaning of Knowledge398

Ⅳ The Relationship between Article 30 and other Provisions of the ICC Statute401

A Article 30 vis-à-vis the Culpability Requirements stated in an Offence Definition401

B Article 30 vis-à-vis the Elements of Crimes403

C Article 30 vis-à-vis Individual Criminal Responsibility - Article 25405

D Article 30 vis-à-vis Superior Responsibility - Article 28412

E Article 30 vis-à-vis Mistake of Law and Mistake of Fact414

Ⅴ Conclusion416

12. General Conclusions and Recommendations418

Ⅰ A subjective test should be followed in ascertaining the guilt of the accused421

Ⅱ Culpability terms should be confined to three culpable mental states423

Ⅲ 'Special intent', 'dolus specialis', 'ulterior intent' or 'primary purpose' crimes require proof of dolus direct us of the first degree on the part of the accused426

Ⅳ Negligence or gross negligence does not satisfy the mens rea requirement for international crimes427

Ⅴ Actual knowledge and wilful blindness are blameworthy - constructive knowledge has no place in criminal law and should be abandoned427

Ⅵ Element analysis versus offence analysis428

Ⅶ The mens rea of accomplice liability requires proof of cognitive and volitional components429

Ⅷ The 'reasonably foreseeable' test of the extended form of joint criminal enterprise is fundamentally unjust431

Epilogue&Roger Clark433

Bibliography436

Index471