INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE CRIMINAL LAW SERIES doc

INTERNATIONAL
AND
COMPARATIVE
CRIMINAL
LAW
SERIES
Diane Amann
Professor of Law
University of California
School of Law
Davis, CA, USA
Christopher L. Blakesley
Cobeaga Law Firm Professor of Law
William S. Boyd School of Law
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA
Roger S. Clark
Board of Governors Professor
The State University of New Jersey
Rutgers School of Law
Camden, NJ, USA
John Dugard
Member, International Law Commission,
Geneva; Emeritus Professor of Law,
University of Witwatersrand, South
Africa; and Professor of Public
International Law, University of Leiden,
The Netherlands
Albin Eser
Professor of Criminal Law, Albert
Ludwig University; Director, Max-

Planck Institute for International and
Comparative Criminal Law
Freiburg, i. B., Germany
Alfredo Etcheberry
Professor of Criminal Law,
National University of Chile; President,
Chilean Lawyers’ Association, Santiago,
Chile
Jordan Paust
Professor of Law
University of Houston Law Center
Houston, TX, USA
Mario Pisani
Professor of Criminal Procedure
Faculty of Law, University of Milan
Milan, Italy
William Michael Reisman
Myres S. McDougal Professor of
International Law and Jurisprudence,
Yale Law School
New Haven, CT, USA
Leila Sadat
Professor of Law
Washington University in St. Louis
School of Law
St. Louis, MO, USA
Michael P. Scharf
Professor of Law and Director of
the Frederick K. Cox International
Law Center

Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH, USA
Kuniji Shibahara
Professor Emeritus
University of Tokyo, Faculty of Law
Tokyo, Japan
Brigitte Stern
Professor of International Law
University of Paris I
Panthéon, Sorbonne
Paris, France
Otto Triffterer
Professor of International Criminal Law
and Procedure, Faculty of Law,
University of Salzburg
Salzburg, Austria
Editorial Board
Series Editor
M. Cherif Bassiouni
President, International Human Rights Law Institute, DePaul University
President, International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences, Siracusa, Italy,
President, International Association of Penal Law, DePaul University
Professor of Law, DePaul University, Chicago, IL, USA
DEFENSES
IN CONTEMPORARY
INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL LAW
Second Edition
GEERT-JAN ALEXANDER KNOOPS
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Knoops, Geert-Jan Alexander
Defenses in contemporary international criminal law / G.J. Alexander
Knoops. — 2nd ed.
p. cm. — (International and comparative criminal law series)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-57105-158-5
1. Defense (Criminal procedure). 2. International offenses.
I. Title.
K5455.K59 2007
345'.0544—dc22
2007045734
Copyright © 2008 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishers, IDC
Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior
written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for
internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees
are paid directly to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
Manufactured in the United States of America
“I pray that the world will have taken even greater steps toward
democracy and the guarantee of human rights, and that dignity
will have become the universally accepted value of mankind.”
(Chaim Herzog, in Living History at XIII).
“. . . and they shall judge the people a righteous judgment.”
(Deut. 16:18)
“Ultimately, if the ICC (and the system of ICL; GJK)
saves but one life, as it is said in the Talmud, it will be

as if it saved the whole of humanity.”
(M. Cherif Bassiouni, in Preface to Commentary
on the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court (Otto Triffterer, ed.)

To my beloved wife Carry: “Far beyond rubies is her value”
(Proverbs 31: 10-31).
To my beloved family.
To peace.

ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Biographical Note. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi
Preface by M. Cherif Bassiouni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxix
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxi
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxiii
Chapter I: Methodology for Determining a Uniform System of
International Criminal Law Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 The Rationale of Defenses in International Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 Nature of International Criminal Law and Mens Rea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Criminal Law. . . . . . . . 18
5 Susceptibility of Defenses in International Criminal Law to Domestic
Criminal Law Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6 Applicability of Domestic Classification of Defenses to International
Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7 Defenses in International Criminal Law Derived from National Laws
of the World’s Legal Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

8 Legal Methodology to Identify International Criminal Law Defenses . . . . . 24
Chapter II: International Criminal Law Defenses Originating from
Customary International Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1 Evolutionary Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2 Command Responsibility and the Defense of Superior Orders . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.1 Expression of Principle of Individual Criminal Responsibility . . . . . 33
2.2 Command Responsibility and Superior Orders: Correlative
Concepts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.3 The General Scope of the Defense of Superior Orders:
The Law of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.4 The Specific Scope of the Defense of Superior Orders
Within the ICC: Conception of Mens Rea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.5 The Applicability of the Defense of Superior Orders to
Civilians in International Armed Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.6 Concurrence of Duress and Superior Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Defenses in Contemporary International Lawx
3 The Defense of Duress: Transmitting Morality and Mens Rea . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2 Duress as Defense to Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity . . . . . 50
3.3 Institutionalizing Duress as a Defense Before International
Criminal Tribunals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4 The Concept of Sovereign Immunity and Heads of State Defenses . . . . . . . 60
4.1 Exclusion of Any Exonerative Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.2 Counterpart to the (Non-)Defense of Superior Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Chapter III: International Criminal Law Defenses Originating from
Comparative Criminal Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
1 Individual Self-Defense in International Criminal Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
1.1 New Aspects and the Special Nature of Self-Defense in
International Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

1.2 Contemporary Criminal Law as a Source of Self-Defense to
War Crimes Indictments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
1.2.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
1.2.2 The Implementation of Self-Defense Laws in International
Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
1.2.3 The Self-Defense Doctrine in American Law Versus
Common Law and Civil Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
1.2.3.1 The Controversy Between the Subjective and
Objective Approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
1.2.3.2 The Principle of “(No) Retreat”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
1.2.4 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
1.3 The International Criminal Law Status of Self-Defense . . . . . . . . . . . 72
1.3.1 The Argument of Independent Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
1.3.2 The Argument of Customary International Law Status . . . . . 73
1.3.3 Codificatory Problems of the Scope of Article 31(1)(c) . . . . 75
1.3.4 Self-Defense to War Crimes and Military Necessity . . . . . . . 76
2 The Defenses of Necessity and Prevention of Crime in International
Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.2 The Common Law Approach to the Defense of Necessity:
Relevance for International Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.2.1 Necessity in International Crimes: Duress of
Circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.2.2 War Crimes and Choice of Evils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2.2.3 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
2.3 The Common Law Approach on the Defense of Prevention of Crime:
Relationship to Self-Defense in International Criminal Law . . . . . . . 90
2.3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
2.3.2 The Use of Force in the Course of Preventing Crime:
Exonerative Status as to War Crimes Charges? . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Table of Contents xi
2.4 The Defense of Necessity to Torturous Interrogation Methods . . . . . 92
2.4.1 Necessity: Balancing Jus Cogens Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
2.4.2 Necessity: Exces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2.4.3 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3 The Defense of Consent to Sexual Assault and Mistake of Fact . . . . . . . . . . 101
4 Interdisciplinary Defenses in International Criminal Law:
Mental Disease or Defect and Toxicological Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.1 Comparative Criminal Law and Interdisciplinary Relationships . . . . 105
4.2 Mental Disease or Defect and International Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.3 The Case Law of the ICTY Regarding Mental Disease or Defect . . . 112
4.4 Neurotoxicology and Toxicological Defenses as New Collateral
Sources and Content of International Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.4.1 Introduction: A Neurotoxicological Framework . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.4.2 Neurotoxicological Interrelationships with International
Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.4.3 Intoxication Otherwise than by Alcohol or
Dangerous Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.4.4 Intoxication Causing Mental Disease or Defect . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.4.5 Intoxication Induced with the Intention of
Committing Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.4.6 The Interpretation of the Intoxication Defense
by the ICTY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.4.7 Summary: Individual Assessment of Neurotoxicological
Defenses to International Crimes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5 Genetic Defenses and Neurobiological Relationships to the Defense of
Duress to International Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Chapter IV: The Diverging Position of Criminal Law Defenses
Before the ICTY and ICC: Contemporary Developments . . . . 127

1 Introduction: The Lack of Cohesion Relating to the Admissibility of
Defenses Before International and Hybrid Criminal Tribunals . . . . . . . . . . . 127
2 Criminal Law Defenses Within the Laws of the ICC and
ICTY Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
2.1 The Defense of Heads of State Immunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
2.2 Superior Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
2.3 The Defense of Duress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
2.4 The Defense of Necessity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
2.5 Military Necessity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
2.6 Self-Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
2.7 The Self-Defense of Intoxication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
2.7.1 General Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
2.7.2 ICC Statutory Intoxication—Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
2.8 Mental Defect and Diminished Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Defenses in Contemporary International Lawxii
2.8.1 The ICTY Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
2.8.2 ICC Statutory Mental Disease—Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
2.8.3 The Interrelationship of and Concurrence Between Mental
Disease—Intoxication Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
2.9 The Defense of Mistake of Fact and Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3 Conclusions: Towards a Cohesive and Equal Application of International
Criminal Law Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Chapter V: Individual and Institutional Command Responsibility
and the International Regulation of Armed Conflicts. . . . . . . . 147
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
2 Command Responsibility: Concurrence of State Responsibility and
Individual Superior Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
3 Contemporary Jurisprudential Developments on Superior Responsibility
within the Law of ICTY and ICTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
3.1 International Criminal Law Criteria for Command

Responsibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
3.2 ICTY-ICTR Case Law on the Issue of Superior’s Physical Proximity
to the Crime Scene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
3.2.1 Impact on Criterion for Superior Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . 153
3.2.1.1 Effective Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
3.2.2.2 Knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
3.2.2 Superior’s Physical Presence as a Psychological Factor for
Superior Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
3.2.3 Superior’s Physical Location: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
3.3 The Blas

ki´c ICTY Appeals Chamber Ruling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
4 The Relevant Command Structure of Multinational Military Operations. . . 161
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
4.2 Alignment of United Nations and NATO with International
Humanitarian Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
4.3 Multinational Command Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
5 The Legal Basis of Institutional Liability to War Crimes in Multinational
Military Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
6 Simultaneous Individual Command Responsibility for War Crimes in
Multinational Military Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
7 Criminal Responsibility and Various Forms of Multinational
Military Mandates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
8 The Nature of the Rules of Engagement: Basis for Superior Responsibility
and/or Exoneration to War Crimes in Multinational Operations? . . . . . . . . . 172
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
8.2 Multinational Rules of Engagement: Direct Sources of Customary
International Law or the Law of the Soldier?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.3 Multinational Rules of Engagement and Superior Responsibility . . . 177
8.4 Multinational Rules of Engagement and Criminal (Superior)

Exoneration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Table of Contents xiii
8.5 The Transformation of Rules of Engagement into (International)
Criminal Law Norms: The Case of Prosecutor v. Eric O . . . . . . . . . 180
8.6 Multinational Rules of Engagement in Maritime (Law Enforcement)
Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
8.7 Multinational Rules of Engagement and Principles of Legality:
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
9 Summary and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Chapter VI: International Criminal Law Defenses and the International
Regulation of Armed Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
2 Defenses of Duress and Superior Orders Under ICTY and ICTR
Jurisprudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
2.1 The Restrictive Approach on Duress of the Ad Hoc Tribunals . . . . . . 192
2.2 Superior Orders and Moral Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
2.2.1 Superior Responsibility as Prerequisite to the Defense of
Superior Orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
2.2.2 Superior Responsibility and Imputed Liability. . . . . . . . . . . . 198
2.2.3 Interaction of Superior Orders and Duress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
3 The Principles of Legality and the Rationae Materiae of Supranational
Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
4 The Concept of Justifications and Excuses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
5 The Principle of Individuality and Mens Rea: Inductive Method . . . . . . . . . 205
6 The Principle of Equal Application as to Legal Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
7 Absence of a Specific Rule of International Criminal Law;
Prevalence of the General Rule on Duress in Case of Killing . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
8 Duress as a Defense to War Crimes: Free Will and Policy
Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
9 Concurrence of the Defense of Superior Orders and

Supranational Mandates as to Multinational Peacekeeping and
Enforcement Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
10 The Concept of Individual Self-Defense in U.N. and NATO
Military Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
10.2 The Concept of Self-Defense in Multinational Rules of
Engagement of United Nations and NATO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
10.3 Use of Force During Multinational Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
10.4 Use of Force and the Spectrum of Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
10.5 Nature of Multinational Rules of Engagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
10.6 Rules of Engagement Principles as to Self-Defense by
Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
10.7 Controlling the Use of Force and (Individual) Self-Defense
Through Multinational Rules of Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
10.8 Summary and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Defenses in Contemporary International Lawxiv
11 Necessity and Prevention of Crime: Mindful Defenses in the Realm of
Multinational Military Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
11.2 Necessity and Prevention of Crime: Limiting Military Obedience
and the Basis for Military Peace and Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . 224
11.3 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
12 Concluding Remarks: The Principles of Reasonableness, Fairness
and Good Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Chapter VII: Self-Defense by States and Individuals in the Law of War . . . 229
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
2 The Use of Force by States and the New Concept of “Forcible
Humanitarian Intervention” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
3 The Use of Force by States and the Rule of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

3.2 Contextual or Absolutist Approach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
3.3 Forcible Humanitarian Intervention as Contextual Exception . . . . . . 234
3.4 Legal Requirements of Humanitarian Forcible Intervention as
Contextual Exception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
3.5 The Kosovo Intervention: Evidence of Opinio Juris? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
3.6 States’ Use of Force to Redress Gross Violations of Human Rights:
A Debatable New Norm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
4 The Concept of Anticipatory Self-Defense as a Contextual Element of
Humanitarian Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
5 Exculpation by Individual Self-Defense in International Criminal Law:
Synchronic and Supportive Developments After 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5.2 International Criminal Law and the Inclusion or Exclusion of
Individual Self-Defense to War Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
6 The Contextual Model and the Subjective Nature of Self-Defense. . . . . . . . 244
7 Conclusions and Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
8 Critical Remarks or Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Chapter VIII: Contemporary and New Technical Issues of International
Criminal Law Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
1 Introduction: The Individual as a Subject of International Law
Ensuring Procedural Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
2 The Procedural Role of the Principle of Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
3 The Principles of Fairness Before the ICTY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
3.2 Fair Trial and the Threshold of Article 14 of the ICCPR. . . . . . . . . . . 254
3.3 Fair Trial and Equality of Arms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
3.4 Fair Trial and Principles of Non-Discriminatory Protection . . . . . . . . 256
3.5 Fair Trial and Moral Integrity of the Criminal Justice Process . . . . . . 256
3.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Table of Contents xv

4 The Principle of Fairness and Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
5 Admissibility and Burden of Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
6 The Rights of Effective Participation and Legal Representation:
Independent Safeguards of Fair Trial Under Article 6(1) of the ECHR
and Article 21(2) of the ICTY Statute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
6.2 Previous Case Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
6.3 The Case of T. and V. v. United Kingdom: Adoption of Another
View on the Principle of “Effective Participation”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
6.4 The Origin of Effective Participation in the Right to Adversarial
Proceedings; Distinction from Effective Legal Assistance . . . . . . . . . 268
6.5 Effective Participation: Further Independent Assessment Based upon
Functional or Teleological Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
6.6 The Right to Legal Assistance in the Jurisprudence of the ICTY
and ICTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
6.7 Implementation of the Principle of Effective Participation in a
Broader Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
6.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
7 Contemporary Scientific Methods for Establishing Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
7.1 The Present Method for Judging Duress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
7.2 Neurobiological View on Mental Resistance or Mental
Compulsion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
7.3 Direct Genetic Influences on Duress? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
7.4 Genetic Defenses to International Crimes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
7.4.1 An Aggressive Component in Affective Offenses:
Genes for Aggression? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
7.4.2 Molecular Genetics of Affective Crimes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
7.4.3 Genetic Defenses and (International) Affective Crimes. . . . . 285
7.5 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
8 Expansion of Scientific Expert Witnesses Regarding International

Criminal Law Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
9 Raising International Criminal Law Defenses for Mitigating Purposes . . . . 291
Chapter IX: A New Concept of International Due Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
1 The International Rule of Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
2 International Due Process: Both Principle and Cornerstone for
International Criminal Law Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
3 The Position of the Defense Lawyer in International Criminal Law as
Part of International Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
3.2 Statutory International Defense Assignments and the
Rule of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
3.3 International Political Defense Borders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
3.4 International Code of Conduct for Defense and Prosecution:
Sequel to International Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
Defenses in Contemporary International Lawxvi
3.5 Towards a New Perception of the Position of the International
Criminal Defense Counsel: Implications of His or Her Role in
Ensuring Legal Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
4 Towards an Inductive Law-Finding Method Regarding International
Criminal Law Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
4.2 Prevalence of the Law of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
4.3 Conclusion: Exclusion of a General Rule of Non-Application of
Certain International Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
xvii
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
ALL ER All England Reports
AMF Allied Command Europe Mobile Force (NATO)

A
M. J. INT’L L. American Journal of International Law
Art. Article
BRIT. Y.B. INT’L L. British Yearbook of International Law
Conf. Conference
DCC Dutch Criminal Code
DMCC Dutch Military Criminal Code
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
European Court European Court of Human Rights
ed. Editor
eds. Editors
et al. and others
et seq. et sequitur (“and what follows”)
Doc. Document
1988 Drug Convention United Nations Convention Against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances opened for signature at Vienna Dec.
20, 1988, U.N. Doc. E/CONF. 82/15, reprinted
in 28 I.L.M. 493 (1989)
G.A. Res. (U.N.) General Assembly Resolution
G.A. (U.N.) General Assembly
GAOR (U.N.) General Assembly Official Records
ICC International Criminal Court
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
ICC Statute Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court, A/Conf.183/9 (July 17, 1998
ICJ International Court of Justice
ICJ Reports International Court of Justice Reports
ICL International Criminal Law

ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia
ICDAA International Criminal Defence Attorneys
Association
Id. idem (“the same”)
Defenses in Contemporary International Lawxviii
IHL International Humanitarian Law
ILC International Law Commission
I.L.M. International Legal Materials
I.L.R. International Law Reports
IMT International Military Tribunal; see also:
Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal
IMTFE International Military Tribunal for the Far East
at Tokyo
KFOR Kosovo Force
LJIL Leiden Journal of International Law
MND SE Multinational Division South East
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Nuremberg War Crimes
Tribunal The International Military Tribunal at
Nuremberg, created by the Agreement for the
Prosecution and Punishment of Major War
Criminals of the European Axis (Aug. 8, 1945)
(see also IMT)
NGO non-governmental organization
NILR Netherlands International Law Review
NJ Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (Dutch

jurisprudence)
No. number
Nos. numbers
para. paragraph
paras. paragraphs
PCIJ Statute Statute of the Permanent Court of International
Justice
POW prisoner of war
Preparatory Committee
Report Report of the Preparatory Committee on
the Establishment of an International Criminal
Court, Vols. I. U.N. GAOR, 51st Sess. Supp. No.
22, 212
-
93 U.N. Doc. A/51/22 (1996)
QRF Quick Reaction Force in Somalia.
Res. Resolution
RNLMC Royal Netherlands Marine Corps
ROE Rules of Engagement
RPE Rules of Procedure and Evidence
SC Security Council
SCSL Special Court for Sierra Leone
sess. session
SNO Statement of No Objection
Supp. Supplement
Table of Abbreviations xix
Torture Convention Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
G.A. Res. 39/46 (Dec. 10, 1984)
U.N./UN United Nations

UNAMIR U.N. Assistance Mission for Rwanda
U.N. Doc. United Nations Document
UNESCO U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization
UNOSOM U.N. Operation in Somalia
UNPROFOR U.N. Protection Force
UNWC United War Crimes Commission
U.S. United States
v. versus
Vol. Volume
Vols. Volumes

xxi
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops (b.1960) is a Professor of (international)
criminal law at Utrecht University. He also practices international criminal law
and extradition law at Knoops and Partners Lawyers, Amsterdam, and has
appeared and appears as defense counsel before several international fora, such
as the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the ICTR, ICTY and
Special Court for Sierra Leone. Currently he is acting lead counsel before the
ICTY and the ICTR. Knoops is also admitted as defense counsel to the bar of
the International Criminal Court at the Hague. His academic books include
Defenses in Contemporary International Criminal Law (2001), Surrendering
to International Criminal Courts: Contemporary Practice and Procedure (2002),
An Introduction to the Law of International Criminal Tribunals: A Comparative
Study (2003), Theory and Practice of International and Internationalized
Criminal Proceedings (2005), Redressing Miscarriages of Justice: Practice and
Procedures in (Inter)national Criminal Cases (2006) and Practice and Policies
of Modern Peace Support Operations Under International Law (2006 co-edited
with Mrs Roberta Arnold).

His doctoral dissertation of 1998 titled “Duress and law-finding” (Leiden
University) relates to a comparative study on the (international) criminal law
defense of duress and the mental dimension of this defense. He was awarded
a second PhD degree in international law on October 11, 2004, at the National
University of Ireland; the thesis is titled The Prosecution and Defense of
Peacekeepers under International Criminal Law. Knoops holds the rank of
major (reserve) in the Royal Netherlands Marines Corps and was assigned as
military legal advisor in several international military exercises. He was
assigned in October 2005 as expert consultant to the defense of Salim Hamdan,
which resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court judgment of June 26, 2006, in
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on the legality of the Military Commissions system in
the United States.

xxiii
PREFACE
The origins of international criminal law can be traced through its enforce-
ment mechanisms and substantive prescriptive norms. The former are rooted
in the practice of international extradition, which was first referred to in the
Old Testament in connection with an event that occurred in 1350
B.C., while the
first extradition treaty provision appeared in the 1268 B.C. Treaty of Peace
between Ramses II of Egypt and Hatusilli of the Hittites. The latter, substan-
tive prescriptive norms first emerged in the 1600s with the customary interna-
tional law prohibition of piracy. This was followed in the late 1800s by the
codification of the customary international law regulating armed conflicts, as
well as treaties prohibiting the international traffic in slaves. Since then, sub-
stantive international criminal law has come to encompass 25 categories of
crimes about which some 280 international treaties have been elaborated between
1815 and 2000.
The enforcement of international criminal law developed contemporane-

ously with the prescriptive development of substantive international criminal
law at the end of the 19th century. This body of law, which is also referred to
as interstate cooperation in penal matters, is evidenced by an extensive web of
specialized multilateral and bilateral treaties, as well as through specific pro-
visions in substantive international criminal law conventions. It presently encom-
passes several modalities, which are relied upon by states to enforce violations
of substantive international and domestic criminal law.
The essence of international criminal law enforcement is embodied in the
shorthand maxim aut dedere aut judicare. That maxim is predicated on the
assumption that states have an obligation to either prosecute or extradite those
individuals who commit international crimes and to assist states investigating
such crimes for eventual prosecution. In order to carry out their duty to pros-
ecute, states must domesticate international criminal law obligations by incor-
porating international crimes and enforcement obligations into their national
legislation. Furthermore, states have the duty to see to it that those who are
found guilty in accordance with a fair legal process also receive their just pun-
ishment. This reliance on states to enforce international criminal law is referred
to as the “indirect enforcement system,” which is embodied in substantive inter-
national criminal law conventions and reflected in customary international law.
Parallel to the “indirect enforcement system” which relies on national legal
systems, is the “direct enforcement system” whereby the international com-
munity establishes international investigatory and adjudicatory bodies to enforce
international criminal law. The “direct enforcement system” avoids the inter-
Defenses in Contemporary International Lawxxiv
mediation of national legal systems, but neither necessarily supplants nor replaces
them. The relationship between such internationally established bodies and
national legal systems is best expressed in the Statute of the International
Criminal Court (ICC) as a “complementary” one.
The first instances of a “direct enforcement system” were the International
Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (IMT) and the International Military Tribunal

for the Far East at Tokyo (IMTFE), respectively established in 1945 and 1946.
In these two historical manifestations of a “direct enforcement system” sub-
stantive international criminal law was applied directly to individuals by two
international judicial bodies that were established by some members of the
international community. Well over half a century later two international crim-
inal tribunals were established by the U.N. Security Council, respectively: the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 1993 and
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in 1994. Thereafter, it
became apparent that the international community would soon establish a per-
manent international criminal court, and that occurred with the signing of the
Rome Statute for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on July
17, 1998.
With the advent of these institutions, starting with the IMT and IMTFE,
international criminal law required a “general part” consisting, inter alia, of
principles of criminal responsibility and conditions of exonerations or defenses.
Resort to the “direct enforcement system” also required international criminal
law to have rules of procedure and evidence by which to conduct international
proceedings. These dimensions were not contained in international criminal
law because they were not needed in the context of the “indirect enforcement
system.” Indeed, the national laws of enforcing states usually contain the nec-
essary substantive norms, penalties and procedural rules, and thus have no need
to rely on international criminal law. Consequently, international criminal law
did not at first develop these aspects of its legal discipline. But these lacunae
became evident when, in application of the “direct enforcement system,” inter-
national criminal tribunals were established in the aftermath of certain con-
flicts. Thus, these lacunae had to be filled.
The IMT and the IMTFE Charters contained only a few norms relative to
the “general part,” and they had even fewer rules of procedure and evidence
applicable to these proceedings. The needed “general part” norms and the “pro-
cedural part” rules were developed by these tribunals in the course of ongoing

proceedings or as jurisprudential pronouncements. For obvious reasons, such
practice violates contemporary due process standards.
The ICTY and ICTR Statutes did not add much to what had been previ-
ously established in the Charters and jurisprudence of the IMT and IMTFE.
However, the ICTY and ICTR Statutes gave the judges the prerogative of devel-
oping rules of procedure and evidence applicable to their respective proceed-
ings. These statutes did not however delegate to the judges the prerogative of
adopting “general part” norms. But, since the two statutes did not “legislate”