Command Responsibility Sample Clauses

Command Responsibility. Six tribunals relied on the doctrine of command responsibility to convict military and civilian defendants of crimes committed by their subordinates. Article II(2) of Law No. 10 did not expressly include command responsibility as a mode of participation; the tribunals derived the availability of that mode from international law. In the Medical case, for example, Tribunal I held that “[t]he law of war imposes on a military officer in a position of command an affirmative duty to take such steps as are within his power and appropriate to the circumstances to control those under his command for the prevention of acts which are violations of the law of war.”74 None of the tribunals, however, identified the precise “law of war” – conventional or customary – that justified imposing criminal responsibility on a military commander who failed to properly supervise his subordinates, much less on a civilian superior. Instead, they simply cited ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1946, for the existence of the mode of participation.75 The tribunals‟ failure to discuss the conventional or customary basis for command responsibility is surprising, given how often they stressed the need to take a conservative approach to international law. It is also troubling, because a number of scholars have convincingly argued that – in the words of ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ – “there had existed nothing like a custom of command responsibility prior to the Yamashita case.” 76 A vague notion of command responsibility existed in Articles 1 and 43 of the Hague Regulations, in Article 10 of the 1907 Hague Convention (X) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention, and in Article 26 of the 1929 Convention for the Amelioration of 68 Ministries, Powers Dissent, XIV TWC 874-75. 69 Id. at 472-73. 70 Id. at 875, Powers Dissent. 71 Einsatzgruppen, IV TWC 580. 72 See, e.g., Ministries, XIV TWC 625. 73 Einsatzgruppen, IV TWC 572; see also ▇▇▇▇, V TWC 1011; High Command, XI TWC 543-44. 74 Medical, II TWC 207. 75 See, e.g., ▇▇▇▇, V TWC 1011. 76 Bing Bing Jia, The Doctrine of Command Responsibility Revisited, 3 CHINESE J. INT’L L. 1, 12 (2004). the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. None of those Conventions, however, imposed criminal liability for breaches of those provisions. Moreover, although the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War endorsed such criminal liability after World War I, that endorsement –...

Command Responsibility. Except for the circumstances described in Subparagraphs 2.f, 2.g and 2.h hereinabove, command responsibility shall be determined as follows: a. When an officer is acting outside of the jurisdictional area of such officer’s agency pursuant to this Agreement, such officer’s agency shall have command responsibility over the officer’s actions, until such time as command responsibility is transferred to another agency pursuant hereto. b. When an arrest is made by an officer acting outside of the jurisdictional area of such officer’s agency pursuant to this Agreement for criminal activities that occurred outside of the jurisdictional area of such officer’s agency, then, upon arrival of an officer from the agency in whose jurisdictional area the crime occurred, that arriving officer shall assume command responsibility for the arrestee, property, and criminal investigation. c. When an officer of one agency enters the jurisdictional area of another agency for the purpose of continuing a criminal investigation, or pursuing a subject, arising from an offense that occurred within the jurisdictional area of such officer’s agency, such officer’s agency shall retain command responsibility for such officer. d. The foregoing notwithstanding, should an emergency arise while an officer is acting outside of the jurisdictional area of such officer’s agency, such as injury to the officer, a hostage situation, a barricaded suspect, or any other emergency, the shift commander of the agency in whose jurisdictional area the emergency is occurring shall, upon arrival, have command responsibility for the emergency and all officers at the scene of the emergency until the emergency is resolved. The determination of when an emergency exists shall be within the discretion of the shift commander for the agency in whose jurisdictional area the emergency occurs.

Command Responsibility. The incident commander shall be in command of the incident and a responding party’s equipment and personnel shall be under the immediate supervision of the officer in charge of those responding units.

Command Responsibility. The NMTs have had a profound effect on the development of command responsibility. To begin with, the judgments helped establish the doctrine in both conventional and customary international law. The delegates to the 1977 Diplomatic Conference in Geneva included command responsibility in Article 87 of the First Additional Protocol – the first conventional recognition of command responsibility144 – in part because of the Hostage case.145 The ILC cited Hostage and High Command as a reason to include “responsibility of the superior” in the 1996 Draft Code of Crimes.146 And in Čelebići, the ICTY Trial Chamber cited Hostage, High Command, and the Medical case to establish the customary existence of command responsibility147 and relied on Flick to extend command responsibility “to individuals in non-military positions of superior authority.”148 The ICTY has also consistently relied on the judgments to define the elements of command responsibility: (1) the existence of a superior/subordinate relationship; (2) the superior’s awareness of his subordinates’ crimes; and (3) the superior’s failure to prevent or punish his subordinates. a. Superior/Subordinate Relationship b. Mens Rea