Cases Documents Abbreviations Foreword Introduction Context Analysis Chapter 1 - From monism to dualism 1.1 Monism: coordinating individual and State responsibility prior to World War II 1.1.1The dawn of criminal responsibility in international law: proposals for a universal criminal code (1860-1919) 1.1.2.Inter-war coordination (1920-1939) 1.1.
2.1Triggering initiatives within the League of Nations 1.1.2.2Establishing the Fundamental Principles of an International Legal Code for the Repression of International Crimes 1.1.2.3Individual initiatives for a comprehensive International Criminal Code 1.
1.2.4The ICLA''s Draft Statute for a Criminal Chamber of the PCIJ and the Global Repressive Code 1.2 Dualism: disjoining individual and State responsibility after World War II 1.2.1Between coordination and disjunction (1940-1960) 1.2.1.
1Peace through law? UN procedures and the critical role of the Security Council 1.2.1.2The IMT, IMTFE, Nuremberg Principles and Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind 1.2.1.3The Genocide Convention and the proposals for an international criminal jurisdiction 1.2.
2Defining aggression, State crimes and underlying concepts (1960-1980) 1.2.2.1Non-institutional initiatives 1.2.2.2Peremptory norms (jus cogens ), erga omnes obligations and State crimes 1.2.
2.3State crimes under Article 19 of the ILC''s 1980 Draft Articles on State Responsibility 1.2.3Codifying dualism (1980-2001) 1.2.3.1The ICLA''s Project for a comprehensive International Criminal Code 1.2.
3.2Achieving the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind 1.2.3.3 Ad hoc international and hybrid tribunals 1.2.3.4Achieving the Statute of the International Criminal Court 1.
2.3.5From ''State crimes'' to ''serious breaches of peremptory norms'' in the ILC''s Draft Articles on State Responsibility 1.2.4Genocide, aggression and terrorism still in search of identity (2001-2018) 1.2.4.1Genocide in the jurisprudence of the ICJ: the ''second death'' of State crimes? 1.
2.4.2Aggression and terrorism: developments in the ICC Statute and beyond Chapter 2 - Breach of a primary norm: offence 2.1 Core substantive elements of the offence 2.1.1The obligations breached by State aggravated offences 2.1.1.
1Serious breaches of peremptory norms ( jus cogens ): 2001 DASR 40 2.1.1.2Linking jus cogens and erga omnes obligations: VCLT and VCLTIO Article 53 and 2001 DASR 40, 42, 48 and 54 2.1.1.3Serious breaches of erga omnes obligations: 1996 DASR 19 and 40 2.1.
1.4Fundamental obligations 2.1.1.5 Jus cogens , erga omnes obligations and State responsibility in international case law 2.1.2Individual criminal responsibility, jus cogens and erga omnes obligations 2.1.
2.1From criminals to crimes: erga omnes responsibility in the ICC Statute 2.1.2.2 Erga omnes responsibility in the case law 2.1.3State aggravated responsibility, individual criminal responsibility, jus cogens and (non-severable) erga omnes obligations 2.1.
3.1(Non-severable) erga omnes obligations as jus cogens 2.1.3.2State aggravated offences and individual criminal offences as breaches of (non-severable) erga omnes obligations 2.2 Attribution of responsibility 2.2.1Dual conduct 2.
2.1.1Attributing aggravated responsibility to the State based on conduct of its organs or agents: absolute identity? 2.2.1.2Individual responsibility for international crimes: mens rea 2.2.2Attributing individual criminal conduct to the State 2.
2.2.1Individual mens rea versus State objective responsibility? 2.2.2.2Individual and State mens rea ? 2.2.2.
3Assessing State fault on a case-by-case basis under the ILC''s DASR 2.3 Dual erga omnes offences 2.3.1Aggression 2.3.1.1State conduct as a basis for individual conduct (and vice-versa) 2.3.
1.2Leadership and mens rea 2.3.1.3Self-Defence as a dual excuse 2.3.2Core war crimes 2.3.
2.1Individual conduct as a basis for collective responsibility 2.3.2.2Systemically proving individual mens rea 2.3.3Core crimes against humanity 2.3.
3.1Systemic conduct 2.3.3.2Systemically proving individual mens rea 2.3.4Genocide 2.3.
4.1Individual genocidal conduct without State responsibility? 2.3.4.2Collective specific intent as a basis for individual intent (and vice-versa) 2.3.5Terrorism 2.3.
5.1Political or ideological purpose as a distinguishing material element 2.3.5.2Specific intent and collective responsibility Chapter 3 - Secondary norms: dispute settlement, sanctions and enforcement 3.1 Secondary and tertiary implications of dual erga omnes offences 3.1.1State aggravated responsibility 3.
1.1.1Institutionalised and non-institutionalised (compulsory) universal invocation of responsibility: 2001 DASR 41(1), 42(b), 48(1)(b) and 59 3.1.1.2Non-punitive erga omnes sanctions? 2001 DASR 28-39 and UN Charter Articles 39-42 3.1.1.
3Institutionalised and non-institutionalised universal enforcement: 2001 DASR 41(1), 54 and 59 3.1.1.4Rejecting compulsory jurisdiction 3.1.1.5Punitive erga omnes sanctions? 1996 DASR 41-46 and 52 3.1.
1.6Universal punitive enforcement? 1996 DASR 53 3.1.2Individual criminal responsibility 3.1.2.1(Compulsory) universal jurisdiction and complementary international adjudication 3.1.
2.2( Erga omnes ) imprisonment, fines and forfeiture 3.1.2.3Domestic enforcement 3.2 Procedural intersections 3.2.1Systemic patterns and inter-temporality 3.
2.2The limits of UN procedures 3.2.2.1Chapter VII procedures: political and enforcement action for State aggravated responsibility? 3.2.2.2The limited role of consensual jurisdiction, particularly the International Court of Justice 3.
2.2Decentralised State action under general international law 3.2.3A controversial practice 3.2.3.1Bosnian genocide 3.2.
3.2Humanitarian crises in Kosovo, Libya and Syria 3.2.3.3Iraq wars 3.2.3.4Counter-terrorism in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq 3.
2.4State and individual immunities as a bar to domestic jurisdiction? 3.2.4.1State and individual immunities? 3.2.4.2Intersections 3.
2.5 Ad hoc criminal jurisdictions: victors'' justice? 3.2.5.1Power and organic dependence 3.2.5.2 Ex post jurisdictions 3.
2.6The independence of the International Criminal Court 3.2.6.1Permanency as a guarantee of independence? 3.2.6.2The UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court 3.
2.6.3Jurisdictional autonomy over aggression? Conclusion Antinomies Ways forward Bibliography Index.