Cases Documents Abbreviations Foreword Introduction Context Analysis Chapter 1 - From monism to dualism 1.1 ãMonism: coordinating individual and State responsibility prior to World War II 1.1.1 ãThe dawn of criminal responsibility in international law: proposals for a universal criminal code (1860-1919) 1.1.2. ãInter-war coordination (1920-1939) 1.1.

2.1 ãTriggering initiatives within the League of Nations 1.1.2.2 ãEstablishing the Fundamental Principles of an International Legal Code for the Repression of International Crimes 1.1.2.3 ãIndividual initiatives for a comprehensive International Criminal Code 1.

1.2.4 ãThe ICLA''s Draft Statute for a Criminal Chamber of the PCIJ and the Global Repressive Code 1.2 ã Dualism: disjoining individual and State responsibility after World War II 1.2.1 ãBetween coordination and disjunction (1940-1960) 1.2.1.

1 ãPeace through law? UN procedures and the critical role of the Security Council 1.2.1.2 ãThe IMT, IMTFE, Nuremberg Principles and Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind 1.2.1.3 ãThe Genocide Convention and the proposals for an international criminal jurisdiction 1.2.

2 ãDefining aggression, State crimes and underlying concepts (1960-1980) 1.2.2.1 ãNon-institutional initiatives 1.2.2.2 ãPeremptory norms (jus cogens ), erga omnes obligations and State crimes 1.2.

2.3 ãState crimes under Article 19 of the ILC''s 1980 Draft Articles on State Responsibility 1.2.3 ãCodifying dualism (1980-2001) 1.2.3.1 ãThe ICLA''s Project for a comprehensive International Criminal Code 1.2.

3.2 ãAchieving the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind 1.2.3.3 ã Ad hoc international and hybrid tribunals 1.2.3.4 ãAchieving the Statute of the International Criminal Court 1.

2.3.5 ãFrom ''State crimes'' to ''serious breaches of peremptory norms'' in the ILC''s Draft Articles on State Responsibility 1.2.4 ãGenocide, aggression and terrorism still in search of identity (2001-2018) 1.2.4.1 ãGenocide in the jurisprudence of the ICJ: the ''second death'' of State crimes? 1.

2.4.2 ãAggression and terrorism: developments in the ICC Statute and beyond Chapter 2 - Breach of a primary norm: offence 2.1 ã Core substantive elements of the offence 2.1.1 ãThe obligations breached by State aggravated offences 2.1.1.

1 ãSerious breaches of peremptory norms ( jus cogens ): 2001 DASR 40 2.1.1.2 ãLinking jus cogens and erga omnes obligations: VCLT and VCLTIO Article 53 and 2001 DASR 40, 42, 48 and 54 2.1.1.3 ãSerious breaches of erga omnes obligations: 1996 DASR 19 and 40 2.1.

1.4 ãFundamental obligations 2.1.1.5 ã Jus cogens , erga omnes obligations and State responsibility in international case law 2.1.2 ãIndividual criminal responsibility, jus cogens and erga omnes obligations 2.1.

2.1 ãFrom criminals to crimes: erga omnes responsibility in the ICC Statute 2.1.2.2 ã Erga omnes responsibility in the case law 2.1.3 ãState aggravated responsibility, individual criminal responsibility, jus cogens and (non-severable) erga omnes obligations 2.1.

3.1 ã(Non-severable) erga omnes obligations as jus cogens 2.1.3.2 ãState aggravated offences and individual criminal offences as breaches of (non-severable) erga omnes obligations 2.2 Attribution of responsibility 2.2.1 ãDual conduct 2.

2.1.1 ãAttributing aggravated responsibility to the State based on conduct of its organs or agents: absolute identity? 2.2.1.2 ãIndividual responsibility for international crimes: mens rea 2.2.2 ãAttributing individual criminal conduct to the State 2.

2.2.1 ãIndividual mens rea versus State objective responsibility? 2.2.2.2 ãIndividual and State mens rea ? 2.2.2.

3 ãAssessing State fault on a case-by-case basis under the ILC''s DASR 2.3 ã Dual erga omnes offences 2.3.1 ãAggression 2.3.1.1 ãState conduct as a basis for individual conduct (and vice-versa) 2.3.

1.2 ãLeadership and mens rea 2.3.1.3 ãSelf-Defence as a dual excuse 2.3.2 ãCore war crimes 2.3.

2.1 ãIndividual conduct as a basis for collective responsibility 2.3.2.2 ãSystemically proving individual mens rea 2.3.3 ãCore crimes against humanity 2.3.

3.1 ãSystemic conduct 2.3.3.2 ãSystemically proving individual mens rea 2.3.4 ãGenocide 2.3.

4.1 ãIndividual genocidal conduct without State responsibility? 2.3.4.2 ãCollective specific intent as a basis for individual intent (and vice-versa) 2.3.5 ãTerrorism 2.3.

5.1 ãPolitical or ideological purpose as a distinguishing material element 2.3.5.2 ãSpecific intent and collective responsibility Chapter 3 - Secondary norms: dispute settlement, sanctions and enforcement 3.1 ãSecondary and tertiary implications of dual erga omnes offences 3.1.1 ãState aggravated responsibility 3.

1.1.1 ãInstitutionalised and non-institutionalised (compulsory) universal invocation of responsibility: 2001 DASR 41(1), 42(b), 48(1)(b) and 59 3.1.1.2 ãNon-punitive erga omnes sanctions? 2001 DASR 28-39 and UN Charter Articles 39-42 3.1.1.

3 ãInstitutionalised and non-institutionalised universal enforcement: 2001 DASR 41(1), 54 and 59 3.1.1.4 ãRejecting compulsory jurisdiction 3.1.1.5 ãPunitive erga omnes sanctions? 1996 DASR 41-46 and 52 3.1.

1.6 ãUniversal punitive enforcement? 1996 DASR 53 3.1.2 ãIndividual criminal responsibility 3.1.2.1 ã(Compulsory) universal jurisdiction and complementary international adjudication 3.1.

2.2 ã( Erga omnes ) imprisonment, fines and forfeiture 3.1.2.3 ãDomestic enforcement 3.2 ã Procedural intersections 3.2.1 ãSystemic patterns and inter-temporality 3.

2.2 ãThe limits of UN procedures 3.2.2.1 ãChapter VII procedures: political and enforcement action for State aggravated responsibility? 3.2.2.2 ãThe limited role of consensual jurisdiction, particularly the International Court of Justice 3.

2.2 ãDecentralised State action under general international law 3.2.3 ãA controversial practice 3.2.3.1 ãBosnian genocide 3.2.

3.2 ãHumanitarian crises in Kosovo, Libya and Syria 3.2.3.3 ãIraq wars 3.2.3.4 ãCounter-terrorism in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq 3.

2.4 ãState and individual immunities as a bar to domestic jurisdiction? 3.2.4.1 ãState and individual immunities? 3.2.4.2 ãIntersections 3.

2.5 ã Ad hoc criminal jurisdictions: victors'' justice? 3.2.5.1 ãPower and organic dependence 3.2.5.2 ã Ex post jurisdictions 3.

2.6 ãThe independence of the International Criminal Court 3.2.6.1 ãPermanency as a guarantee of independence? 3.2.6.2 ãThe UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court 3.

2.6.3 ãJurisdictional autonomy over aggression? Conclusion Antinomies Ways forward Bibliography Index.