English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Article 28 of the ICC Statute encapsulates the concept of command or superior responsibility. This is a complex and multilayered concept of liability. It is, on the one hand, a mode of liability, and, on the other hand, a separate offense. It is noteworthy that certain national laws recognize the various "layers" of superior responsibility in that they criminalize these different concepts of superior responsibility in separate provisions. In that sense a "conceptual distinction" is made. Article 28 of the ICC Statute does not provide for such a distinction. The distinction the provision does make, however, is that between military and nonmilitary superiors. To this author's opinion that distinction should be removed and replaced by a conceptual distinction. © 2009 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved

Article 28 of the ICC Statute: Mode of Liability and/or Separate Offense?