Joint criminal enterprise

Early usages The first usages of joint criminal enterprise doctrine have been identified in post-World War II cases in which the doctrine was used under the name common purpose (or joint enterprise), or without specific naming. However, the origins of the doctrine may also be influenced by the common law of England, which introduced the principle into criminal law in the U.K. and other Commonwealth nations such as Australia. A similar legal principle can also be found in Texas, United States, where it is known as the law of parties. However, the notion of collective liability and shared punishment for the actions of others, as if all perpetrated the same deed, may be much older; for instance, it was used to justify extermination of religious and cultural groups, such as the Albigensian "Heretics" and those who harbored them. The doctrine has also been used at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court uses a similar but different doctrine of co-perpetratorship, which some ICTY judges attempted to introduce instead of joint criminal enterprise. ICTY definition The first reference to joint criminal enterprise and its constituent elements was provided in the Tadić case of 1999 in Yugoslavia. Criticism Writing about this finding in the Journal of International Criminal Justice in 2004, Steven Powles—a barrister who appeared as defense counsel in matters before the ICTY and the Special Court for Sierra Leone—states that the Appeals Chamber was obliged to make this declaration because there was no specific mention of "joint criminal enterprise" in the court's statutes and that "this is not ideal [because] criminal law, especially international criminal law, requires clear and certain definitions of the various bases of liability, so as to enable the parties, both the prosecution and, perhaps more importantly, the defence to prepare for and conduct the trial." Critics have argued that joint criminal enterprise can lead to excessive legal process and punishments, that it lowers the evidential bar in favor of prosecution, and that it runs counter to the spirit of Blackstone's formulation. Supporters, however, argue that it ensures those contributing to or instigating a criminal act are properly held accountable for their involvement. ==Post-World War II trials==

In the aftermath of World War II, the courts established by the United Kingdom and the United States in Germany applied an early vision of the joint criminal enterprise doctrine in the trials against Nazis. ==Post-Yugoslav War trials==

The use of joint criminal enterprise as an actual criminal investigation and prosecution theory first appeared at the ICTY through a written proposal to Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte which had been developed and authored by American prosecutor Dermot Groome (at the time, the legal officer for the Bosnia case) and American Investigator John Cencich, head of the Milosevic investigation for crimes allegedly committed in Croatia. (Cencich provides an in-depth look at the actual development of the investigation and prosecution theory of the JCE in his doctoral dissertation at the University of Notre Dame, in the International Criminal Justice Review, and in his book, ''The Devil's Garden: A War Crimes Investigator's Story''.) Indictments to Serb leaders The ICTY prosecutor indicted Slobodan Milošević on three separate indictments which, upon appeal, were successfully considered as one indictment. As the prosecution had not used the same language in all three indictments, it was left to the Court of Appeal to decide if the alleged criminal enterprises in the three indictments were the same by determining what was common between the allegations. The ICTY Appeals count decided that: Milošević died during the trial, but he was still found to have been a part of a joint criminal enterprise in the verdicts against Milan Martić and Milan Babić, the latter of whom publicly admitted his own (and Milošević's) guilt. According to the ICTY prosecutor's indictment, Milutinović et al., Nikola Šainović, Nebojša Pavković, and Sreten Lukić, along with others, participated in a joint criminal enterprise to modify the ethnic balance in Kosovo in order to ensure continued control by the FRY and Serbian authorities over the province. On 26 February 2009, the court returned the following verdicts: • Nikola Šainović, "had substantial de facto powers over both the MUP and the VJ operating in Kosovo, and that he was the political co-ordinator of these forces. It is convinced that he made a significant contribution to the joint criminal enterprise and that, indeed, he was one of the most crucial members of that common enterprise. He was found guilty "of counts 1 to 5 of the Indictment, by commission as a member of a joint pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute". In May 2013, Jadranko Prlić and others were found guilty for taking part in the joint criminal enterprise with Tudjman for crimes committed in the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia against Muslims. However, on 19 July 2016, the Appeals Chamber concluded that the "Trial Chamber made no explicit findings concerning [Tuđman's] participation in the joint criminal enterprise and did not find [him] guilty of any crimes." In November 2017, the ICTY reaffirmed the first-instance verdict that Tudjman, as well as some other senior Croatian officials, had participated in a joint criminal enterprise with the defendants with the aim of persecuting Bosniaks. ==Rwandan genocide trials==

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was an international court established in November 1994 by the United Nations Security Council in order to judge people responsible for the Rwandan genocide and other serious violations of international law in Rwanda, as well as similar crimes committed by Rwandan citizens in nearby states in 1994. At the Rwanda trials, the prosecution originally alleged that the genocidal common plan had been drawn up in 1990, but this theory was dismissed in December 2008 when the defendants in the mammoth "Military I" trial were acquitted of conspiracy to commit genocide. ==See also==