Attribution without Explanation: Reassessing the Analytical Appropriateness of Individual Responsibility for Understanding War Crimes

ZHAO Ziyu

Abstract

The article examines the doctrine of individual criminal responsibility in international criminal law, assessing its analytical appropriateness for explaining the causes of war crimes. The study finds that there are four prevailing modes of individual criminal responsibility, including direct perpetration, co-perpetration, indirect perpetration, and instigation or aiding and abetting. While effectively safeguarding justice in the international community, they tend to overlook the structural, institutional, and ideological factors underlying war crimes. To address this gap, the article introduces three analytical dimensions: structural awareness, causal depth, and narrative completeness. The analysis shows that the current individual-responsibility-centric framework is unable to fully reveal the influence of institutions, systems, or contexts in shaping atrocities, and in determining causation, subjective judgements and judicial constraints often lead to erroneous or overly simplified linkages, thereby weakening the capacity of international criminal law to advance justice, promote education, and foster reflection. It leads to the conclusion that individual-responsibility-centrism cannot construct a coherent and comprehensive understanding of mass violence. Accordingly, the article proposes a reform pathway grounded in individual criminal responsibility, integrated with multidisciplinary perspectives and an emphasis on universal justice, with the aim of promoting justice in the international community.

Keywords

International criminal lawInternational criminal courtIndividual responsibilityWar crimeIndividual responsibility centrism

References

  1. Shulzhenko N, Romashkin S. Types of individual criminal responsibility according to article 25(3) of Rome Statute[J]. Juridical Tribune — Review of Comparative and International Law, 2021, 11(1): 72–80.
  2. Minkova L G. A battle of ideas: modes of liability and mass atrocities[J]. Law & Social Inquiry, 2024, 49(1): 509-536.
  3. Goy B. Individual criminal responsibility before the international criminal court[J]. International Criminal Law Review, 2012, 12(1): 1-70.
  4. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court[Z/ OL]. (1998-07-17)[2025-10-28]. https://asp.icc-cpi.int/ sites/asp/files/asp_docs/Publications/Compendium/ RomeStatute-ENG.pdf
  5. Orozco L H D, SILVA SANTAULARIA N. Reflections on indirect (co-) perpetration through an organization[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2022, 20(3): 657–676.
  6. Heller K J. Retreat from Nuremberg: the leadership requirement in the crime of aggression[J]. European Journal of International Law, 2007, 18(3): 477-497.
  7. Schabas W A. The International Criminal Court: a Commentary on the Rome Statute[M]. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016: 566–569.
  8. Werle G. Individual criminal responsibility in article 25 ICC statute[J]. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2007, 5(4): 953-975.
  9. Kassab S. Justice in Syria: individual criminal liability for highest officials in the Assad regime[J]. Michigan Journal of International Law, 2018, 39(2): 294–295.
  10. ] Galand A S. Bemba and the individualisation of war: reconciling command responsibility under article 28 Rome Statute with individual criminal responsibility[J]. International Criminal Law Review, 2020, 20(4): 669- 700.