No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2022
1 Prosecutor v. Mrkšić and Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Appeal Judgement, para. 73 (May 5, 2009).
2 Prosecutor v. Gotovina and Markać, Case No. IT-06-90-A, Appeal Judgement (Nov. 16, 2012). For criticism of the majority's reasoning and findings, see in particular the Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pocar, attached to the judgment.
3 Prosecutor v. Perišić, No. IT-04-81-A, Appeal Judgement (Feb. 28, 2013).
4 See, e.g., Carsten Stahn, Justice as Message: Expressivist Foundations of International Criminal Justice (2020).
5 Milošević v. Prosecutor, Case No. IT-02-54-AR73.7, Appeal on the Assignment of Defense Counsel, paras. 17–20 (Nov. 1, 2004).
6 Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Case No. IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1-A, Appeal Judgement (June 12, 2002).
7 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT–94–1–AR72, Appeal on Jurisdiction (Oct. 2, 1995).
8 To paraphrase the test employed in Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Appeal Judgement, para. 189 (July 21, 2000).
9 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serb.), 2015 ICJ Rep. 3, 468–72 (Feb. 3).
10 Prosecutor v. Perišić, supra note 3. For an analysis of this judgment, see, inter alia, Coco, Antonio & Gal, Tom, Losing Direction: The ICTY Appeals Chamber's Controversial Approach to Aiding and Abetting in Perišić, 12 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 345 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.