GROUNDS FOR COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY: NATIONAL AND FOREIGN EXPERIENCE

This article examines the principle of command responsibility in international, foreign, and national criminal law, particularly its significance in holding military commanders accountable for war crimes committed by their subordinates. Special attention is given to the relevance of this principle in the context of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine. The study explores the evolution of Ukrainian criminal legislation concerning command responsibility, as reflected in the amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, including the introduction of Article 31- 1. This provision established mechanisms within domestic law for punishing military commanders and other superiors who failed to prevent or stop the commission of international crimes by their subordinates. The provision aligns Ukrainian legislation with international standards, enhancing the effectiveness of accountability for individuals in leadership positions within military structures. A comparative analysis of the legislation of several countries (Austria, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Spain, Canada, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, France, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Montenegro) was conducted. The study identified various approaches to the formulation of command responsibility provisions and differentiation of liability grounds depending on the type of act, form of guilt, and category of subject. It was found that in some countries' legislation, commanders are held accountable only for failing to take measures to prevent war crimes by subordinates, whereas in others, commanders may be held responsible not only for inaction but also for improper supervision of subordinates, failure to report crimes to competent authorities, or failure to take measures to punish guilty individuals. This research contributes to clarifying the role of command responsibility in the system of international criminal justice and improving national legislation in this field.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bulletin of Luhansk Scientific-Educational Institute named after E O Didorenko
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.32782/2786-9156.109.1.29-42
Primary Topic
Military History and Strategy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

GROUNDS FOR COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY: NATIONAL AND FOREIGN EXPERIENCE

Andrii Vozniuk, O. Bondarenko
Bulletin of Luhansk Scientific-Educational Institute named after E O Didorenko
Military History and Strategy
article

GROUNDS FOR COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY: NATIONAL AND FOREIGN EXPERIENCE

Andrii Vozniuk, O. Bondarenko
article en

Abstract

This article examines the principle of command responsibility in international, foreign, and national criminal law, particularly its significance in holding military commanders accountable for war crimes committed by their subordinates. Special attention is given to the relevance of this principle in the context of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine. The study explores the evolution of Ukrainian criminal legislation concerning command responsibility, as reflected in the amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, including the introduction of Article 31- 1. This provision established mechanisms within domestic law for punishing military commanders and other superiors who failed to prevent or stop the commission of international crimes by their subordinates. The provision aligns Ukrainian legislation with international standards, enhancing the effectiveness of accountability for individuals in leadership positions within military structures. A comparative analysis of the legislation of several countries (Austria, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Spain, Canada, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, France, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Montenegro) was conducted. The study identified various approaches to the formulation of command responsibility provisions and differentiation of liability grounds depending on the type of act, form of guilt, and category of subject. It was found that in some countries' legislation, commanders are held accountable only for failing to take measures to prevent war crimes by subordinates, whereas in others, commanders may be held responsible not only for inaction but also for improper supervision of subordinates, failure to report crimes to competent authorities, or failure to take measures to punish guilty individuals. This research contributes to clarifying the role of command responsibility in the system of international criminal justice and improving national legislation in this field.

Bulletin of Luhansk Scientific-Educational Institute named after E O Didorenko(1)
Copiah-Lincoln Community College (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 88%
Military History and Strategy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.