At this moment, the literature and discourse on command responsibility is incredibly convoluted and controverted. I will show how these knots were produced by an underlying inadvertent contradiction with the culpability principle. The contradiction was created by surface-level doctrinal reasoning that did not adequately consider the deontic dimension. The subsequent twists and turns to deny, obscure, evade, or resolve this contradiction have led to increasingly complex and obscure claims about command responsibility.

The inquiry demonstrates the problems of inadequate attention to deontic limits. It also shows how deontic analysis can help us better understand the trajectory of the command responsibility debate. We can see old controversies in a new light and generate new prescriptions. I argue that command responsibility can be restored to its simple and elegant origins if it is recognized as a mode of accessory liability. As a result, the causal contribution requirement should be respected. This solution is not perfect, but I will show that this is the best reconciliation of the text, precedents, and the culpability principle. By resolving the core contradiction, the myriad complications and mystical evasions about command responsibility become unnecessary.

In this chapter, I outline how the approach I have can raise new questions, both for ICL and for general criminal law theory.

The study of extreme cases can unsettle and refine our understandings of the principles developed in everyday experience. I will show how studying ICL problems may require us to unpack the roles traditionally played by ‘the State’ in criminal law thinking, and to re-examine many familiar tools of criminal law thought (such as ‘community’, ‘citizenship’ and ‘authority’). The criminal law theory of ICL might draw on ‘cosmopolitanist’ scholarship, which contemplates forms of governance other than the state, and which is therefore particularly challenging for mainstream criminal law thinking.

I will also highlight ‘promising problems’ in ICL. Exploring such problems can help us refine ICL doctrines and also make contributions to mainstream criminal law theory. These include: legality without a legislature; a humanistic account of duress and social roles; and superior orders and state authority. I will then do an even deeper delve into a selected set of controversies in Chapters 6 to 8, in order to demonstrate the method at work and thereby clarify the method, the work it can do, and the themes it raises.