SpringerLink
Log in

The Development of International Humanitarian Law in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court: Formulation and Interpretation of Article 8 of the Rome Statute

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
ICC Jurisprudence and the Development of International Humanitarian Law

Part of the book series: Global Issues ((GLOISS))

  • 81 Accesses

Abstract

The contribution of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to the development of international humanitarian law (IHL) lies on two levels: the formulation of the war crimes’ provision in Article 8 of the Rome Statute and the Court’s interpretative approach with respect to war crimes to date. The exploration of these two issues will illustrate some important distinctive characteristics of the ICC’s contribution to the development of IHL and how it may be distinguished from the earlier work of other international criminal courts and tribunals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Statute of the International Court of Justice (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, hereafter Statute), at Art. 38

  2. 2.

    A.Z. Borda, ‘A Formal Approach to Article 38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute from the Perspective of the International Criminal Courts and Tribunals’, 24 European Journal of International Law (2013) 649, at 657.

  3. 3.

    T. Meron, ‘War Crimes Law Comes of Age’, 92 American Journal of International Law (1998) 462, at 464.

  4. 4.

    Ibid, at 463.

  5. 5.

    Decision on defence motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Tadić (IT-94-1-AR72), Appeals Chamber, 2 October 1995, § 87.

  6. 6.

    Judgment, Kordić et al. (IT-95-14/2-A), Appeals Chamber, 17 December 2004, § 40.

  7. 7.

    Tadić, supra note 5, §§ 86–93.

  8. 8.

    R. Cryer, ‘International Criminal Tribunals and the Sources of International Law: Antonio Cassese’s Contribution to the Canon’, 10 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2012) 1045, at 1049. See also: F. Kirgis, ‘Custom on a Sliding Scale’, 81 American Journal of International Law (1987) 146.

  9. 9.

    Tadić supra note 5, § 99; Judgment, Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, Dragan Papić, Vladimir Santić, also known as “VLADO” (IT-95-16-T), Trial Chamber, 14 January 2000, § 27.

  10. 10.

    A. Cassese and P. Gaeta (eds), Cassese’s International Criminal Law (3rd edn., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), at 5.

  11. 11.

    T. Meron, The making of international criminal justice: The view from the bench: Selected Speeches (1st edn., New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), at 32–33.

  12. 12.

    Judgment, Galić (IT-98-29-A), Trial Chamber, 30 November 2006, § 83.

  13. 13.

    Judgment, Tadić (IT-94-1-A), Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999, § 296.

  14. 14.

    Y. Tan, ‘The Identification of Customary Rules in International Criminal Law’, 34 Utrecht Journal of International and European Law (2018) 92, at 101.

  15. 15.

    C. Rudolph, ‘Constructing an Atrocities Regime: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals’, 55 International Organization (2001) 655, at 681.

  16. 16.

    Third report on identification of customary international law by Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur, UN. Doc. A/CN.4/682, 27 March 2015, § 33.

  17. 17.

    Continental Shelf case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta), Judgment of 3 June 1985 [1985] ICJ Rep. 13, at 29.

  18. 18.

    R. Jennings and A.Watts (eds), Oppenheim’s International Law: Volume I Peace (9th edn., Oxford University Press, 2008), at 1205, § 583.

  19. 19.

    C. Brölmann, ‘Law-Making Treaties: Form and Function in International Law’, 74 Nordic Journal of International Law (2005) 383, at 388.

  20. 20.

    Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Volume I (Proceedings of the Preparatory Committee During March-April and August 1996), UN Doc. A/51/22, G.A. 51st Sess., Supp. No. 22, 1996, at 16.

  21. 21.

    W. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (4th edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), at 139.

  22. 22.

    Meron, supra note 11, at 40.

  23. 23.

    Decision on the Confirmation of the Charges, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN), Pre-Trial Chamber, 29 January 2007, § 306–307 (emphasis added).

  24. 24.

    D. Jacobs, ‘Positivism and International Criminal Law: The Principle of Legality as a Rule of Conflict of Theories’, International Legal Positivism World, J. d´Aspremont and J. Kammerhofer (eds), Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming, 27 September 2012, available online at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2046311 (last visited 10 July 2021), at 16.

  25. 25.

    Ibid.

  26. 26.

    T.R. Liefländer, ‘The Lubanga Judgment of the ICC: More than just the First Step?’, 1 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law (2012) 191, at 212.

  27. 27.

    S.T. Deuitch, ‘Putting the Spotlight on “The Terminator”: How the ICC Prosecution of Bosco Ntaganda Could Reduce Sexual Violence During Conflict’, 22 William & Mary Journal of Women and Law (2016) 655, at 687.

  28. 28.

    C. Stahn, ‘Justice Delivered or Justice Denied? The Legacy of the Katanga Judgment’, 12 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2014) 809, at 815–816.

  29. 29.

    Brölmann, supra note 19, at 393.

  30. 30.

    M.E. Villiger M, Customary international law and treaties: a manual on the theory and practice of the interrelation of sources (Kluwer Law International, 1997), at 105 (emphasis in original).

  31. 31.

    M. Bothe, ‘War Crimes’ in A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, and R.W.D. Jones John (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Volume 1A (Oxford University Press, 2002), at 392.

  32. 32.

    Ibid, at 420.

  33. 33.

    W.K. Lietzau, ‘Checks and Balances and Elements of Proof: Structural Pillars for the International Criminal Court’, 32 Cornel International Law Journal (1999) 477, at 480.

  34. 34.

    P. Kirsch and V. Oosterveld, ‘The Post-Rome Conference Preparatory Commission’ in Cassese, Gaeta, and Jones John, supra note 31, at 97.

  35. 35.

    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 90 (hereafter Rome Statute), at Art. 8(2)(b)(xii).

  36. 36.

    R. Cryer, ‘Royalism and the King: Article 21 of the Rome Statute and the Politics of Sources’, 12 New Criminal Law Review (2009) 390, at 400.

  37. 37.

    Al Bashir, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09, Pre-Trial Chamber, 4 March 2009, § 128.

  38. 38.

    L.N. Sadat, ‘Custom, Codification and Some Thoughts About the Relationship Between the Two: Article 10 of the ICC Statute’, 49 De Paul Law Review (2000) 909, at 917.

  39. 39.

    L.N. Sadat, The International Criminal Court and the Transformation of International Law: Justice for the New Millennium (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc. 2002), at 262.

  40. 40.

    W. Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (Oxford University Press, 2010), at 272.

  41. 41.

    International Committee of the Red Cross Statement of 8 July 2008 Relating to the Bureau Discussion Paper in Document A/CONF.183/C.1/L.53, United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/INF/10, para.4, available online at http://legal.un.org/icc/rome/proceedings/E/Rome%20Proceedings_v3_e.pdf (visited 12 July 2021)

  42. 42.

    Sadat, supra note 39, at 263.

  43. 43.

    M.C. Bassiouni, ‘The Normative Framework of International Humanitarian Law: Overlaps, Gaps and Ambiguities’, 8 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems (1998) 199, at 201–2.

  44. 44.

    Sadat, supra note 39, at 263.

  45. 45.

    Judgment, The Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija (IT-95-17/1-T), Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998, § 227.

  46. 46.

    Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I’s 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (ICC-01/04-168), Appeals Chamber, 24 July 2006, §§ 22–24, 32–33 and 39, Judgment on the appeals of William Ruto and Mr Joshua Arap Sang against the decision of Trial Chamber V (A) of 17 April 2014 entitled ‘Decision on Prosecutor’s Application for Witness Summonses and resulting Request for State Party Cooperation’, The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang (ICC-01/09-01/11-1598), Appeals Chamber, 9 October 2014, § 105.

  47. 47.

    Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, Situation in the Central African Republic In the Case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (ICC-01/05-01/08-3343), Trial Chamber, 21 March 2016, § 79.

  48. 48.

    Cryer, supra note 36, at 393–395. See also: L. Grover, ‘A Call to Arms: Fundamental Dilemmas Confronting the Interpretation of Crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, 21 European Journal of International Law (2010) 543, at 553.

  49. 49.

    Judgment pursuant to article 74 of the Statute, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga (ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG), Trial Chamber, 7 March 2014, § 44.

  50. 50.

    Ibid, § 47.

  51. 51.

    Ibid, § 51.

  52. 52.

    Ibid, § 54.

  53. 53.

    Ibid, § 55.

  54. 54.

    Y. Sandoz, Ch. Swinarski, and B. Zimmerman (eds), Commentary to the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1987), at § 3187 and 4557.

  55. 55.

    N. Melzer, ICRC Interpretative Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2009), at 43.

  56. 56.

    Judgment on the appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against his conviction, Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-3121-Red), Appeals Chamber, 1 December 2014, § 324.

  57. 57.

    Ibid, § 340. See also: Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-2842), Trial Chamber, 14 March 2012, §§ 535–538.

  58. 58.

    The protection of children is also a priority issue for the ICC Prosecutor. See: Strategic Plan 2019–2021, Office of the Prosecutor 17 July 2019, strategic goal 4 (at 5), available online at https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/20190726-strategic-plan-eng.pdf (visited 13 July 2021). See also: Policy on Children, Office of the Prosecutor, November 2016, available online at https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/20161115_otp_icc_policy-on-children_eng.pdf (visited 14 July 2021).

  59. 59.

    Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Bosco Ntaganda, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda (ICC-01/04-02/06-309), Pre-Trial Chamber, 9 June 2014, § 76.

  60. 60.

    Cassese, supra note 31, 67; K.J. Heller, ‘ICC Appeals Chamber Says a War Crime Does Not Have to Violate IHL’, Opinio Juris, 15 June 2017, available at http://opiniojuris.org/2017/06/15/icc-appeals-chamber-holds-a-war-crime-does-not-have-to-violate-ihl/ (visited 12 July 2021).

  61. 61.

    Ntaganda (Second decision on the Defence’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of Counts 6 and 9), (ICC-01/04-02/06-1710), Trial Chamber, 4 January 2017, § 54.

  62. 62.

    Ntaganda (Judgment on the appeal of Mr Ntaganda against the ‘Second Decision on the Defence’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of Counts 6 and 9’), (ICC-01/04-02/06-1962), Appeals Chamber, 15 June 2017, § 65.

  63. 63.

    S. K. Blank, ‘Prosecutor v Ntaganda—The International Criminal Court’s dangerous foray into the shade of Lochner’, 27 Michigan State International Law Review (2018) 1, at 22.

  64. 64.

    P.V. Sellers, ‘Ntaganda: Re-Alignment of a Paradigm’, International Institute of Humanitarian Law 2018, available at https://iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Ntaganda-VI.pdf (visited 14 July 2021) at 12–16.

  65. 65.

    Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (2nd edn., International Committee of the Red Cross, 2016), § 547.

  66. 66.

    Ntaganda (Appeal Against Second Decision on Jurisdiction), supra note 62, § 61.

  67. 67.

    J. K. Kleffner, ‘The Beneficiaries of the Rights Stemming from Common Article 3’ in A. Clapham, P. Gaeta, M. Sassoli (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), at 436.

  68. 68.

    Heller, supra note 60; O. Svaček, ‘Brothers and Sisters in Arms as Victims of War Crimes: Ntaganda Case Before the ICC’, 8 Czech Yearbook of International Law (2017) 346; L.P. Rossetti, ‘Intra-party sexual crimes against child soldiers as war crimes in Ntaganda: “Tadić moment” or unwarranted exercise of judicial activism?’, Questions of International Law 60 (2019) 49, at 60–62; Blank, supra note 63, 18–23.

  69. 69.

    L. Prosperi, ‘The Appeals Chamber Was Not Wrong (But Could Have Been More Right) in Ntaganda’, Opinio Juris, 21 June 2017, available at http://opiniojuris.org/2017/06/27/33178/ (visited 14 July 2021).

  70. 70.

    C. Kenny and Y. McDermott, ‘The Expanding Protection of Members of a Party’s Own Armed Forces under International Criminal Law’, 68 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2019) 943.

  71. 71.

    Ntaganda (Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Bosco Ntaganda), supra note 59.

  72. 72.

    Melzer, supra note 55, at 70–73.

  73. 73.

    Kenny and McDermott, supra note 70, at 963.

  74. 74.

    Ibid, at 975.

  75. 75.

    Svaček, supra note 68, at 357.

  76. 76.

    Ntaganda (Appeal Against Second Decision on Jurisdiction), supra note 62, § 67.

  77. 77.

    Ibid, § 68.

  78. 78.

    Ibid, § 46–51 and 52–70.

  79. 79.

    P.V. Sellers, The Prosecution of Sexual Violence in conflict: The Importance of Human Rights as Means of Interpretation (The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2008) available online at www.ohchr.org/english/issues/women/docs/Paper_Prosecution_of_Sexual_Violence.pdf (visited 16 July 2021), at 7–8.

  80. 80.

    Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 August 1950), at Art. 27; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978), at Art. 75(2)(b).

  81. 81.

    K. Ambos, ‘Sexual Offences in International Criminal Law, With a Special Focus on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’ in M. Bergsmo, A.B. Skre, and E.J. Wood (eds), Understanding and Proving International Sex Crimes (Bei**g: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012), at 143–145.

  82. 82.

    Judgment, The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen (ICC-02/04-01/15-1762-Red), Trial Chamber, 4 February 2021.

  83. 83.

    J. Tridgell, ‘Prosecutor v Ntaganda: The End of Impunity for Sexual Violence against Child Soldiers’, 23 Australian International Law Journal (2017) 153, at 159–160.

  84. 84.

    R. Grey, ‘Sexual Violence Against Child Soldiers’, 16 Feminist Journal of Politics (2014) 601, at 612.

  85. 85.

    D.M. Amann, ‘The Policy on Children of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor: Towards greater accountability for crimes against and affecting children’, 101 International Review of the Red Cross (2019) 537, at 546–547.

  86. 86.

    Strategic Plan 2019–2021, supra note 58, at 9 (emphasis added).

  87. 87.

    Rome Statute, supra note 35, at Art. 121(3).

  88. 88.

    Report of the Bureau on the Review Conference, Eight Session, ICC-ASP/8/43, 18–26 November 2009, at 3, §2, available online at http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/ASP8/ICC-ASP-8-43-ENG.pdf (visited 7 December 2022).

  89. 89.

    Report of the Working Group on the Review Conference, Eight Session, ICC-ASP/8/20 volume I, annex II, at 59–63, available online at http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/RC2010/WGRC-ENG.pdf (visited 7 December 2022).

  90. 90.

    Ibid, at 53, § 27.

  91. 91.

    Ibid, at 53, § 30.

  92. 92.

    Ibid, at 53, § 33.

  93. 93.

    RC/Res.5, Amendments to Article 8 of the Rome Statute, 10 June 2010, available online at http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.5-ENG.pdf.

  94. 94.

    W.A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (6th edn., Oxford University Press, 2020) at 139.

  95. 95.

    A. Alamuddin and P. Webb, ‘Expanding Jurisdiction over War Crimes under Article 8 of the ICC Statute’, 8(5) Journal of International Criminal Justice (2010) 1219, at 1236–1237.

  96. 96.

    Review Conference, ICC-ASP/8/Res.6, 26 November 2009, § 4, available online at https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/Resolutions/ICC-ASP-8-Res.6-ENG.pdf (visited 7 December 2022).

  97. 97.

    Alamuddin and Webb, supra note 95.

  98. 98.

    Strengthening the International Criminal Court and the Assembly of States Parties, 21 November 2012, ICC-ASP/11/Res.8, annex II, § 9, available online at https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/Resolutions/ASP11/ICC-ASP-11-Res8-ENG.pdf (visited 7 December 2022).

  99. 99.

    Resolution on amendments to article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, ICC-ASP/16/Res.4,14 December 2017, available online at https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/Resolutions/ASP16/ICC-ASP-16-Res4-ENG.pdf (visited 7 December 2022).

  100. 100.

    Report of the Working Group on Amendments, Sixteenth session, ICC-ASP/16/22, 4–14 December 2017, at 12, available online at https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/ASP16/ICC-ASP-16-22-ENG.pdf (visited 7 December 2022).

  101. 101.

    D. Akande, ‘Customary International Law and the Addition of New War Crimes to the Statute of the ICC’, EJIJ: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law, 2 January 2018, available online at https://www.ejiltalk.org/customary-international-law-and-the-addition-of-new-war-crimes-to-the-statute-of-the-icc (visited 7 December 2022).

  102. 102.

    Resolution on amendments to article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, ICC-ASP/18/Res.5,6 December 2019, available online at https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/ASP18/ICC-ASP-18-Res5-ENG.pdf (visited 7 December 2022).

  103. 103.

    Report of the Working Group on Amendments, Eighteenth session, ICC-ASP/18/32, 2–7 December 2017, §10, available online at https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/ASP18/ICC-ASP-18-Res5-ENG.pdf (visited 7 December 2022).

  104. 104.

    Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Sixteenth session, ICC-ASP/16/20, 4–14 December 2017, at 79, §10, available online at https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/ASP16/ICC-ASP-16-20-vol-I-ENG.pdf (visited 7 December 2022).

  105. 105.

    ICC-ASP/18/32, supra note 105.

  106. 106.

    For example, ibid, §10.

  107. 107.

    Rossetti, supra note 68, at 59.

  108. 108.

    J. d’Aspremont, ‘The Two Cultures of International Criminal Law’ in K.J. Heller, F. Mégret, S. Nouwen, J.D. Ohlin, and D. Robinson (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Criminal Law (New York, Oxford University Press, 2020), at 417. See also: B. Perrin, ‘Searching the Law While Seeking Justice: The Difficulties of Enforcing International Humanitarian Law in International Criminal Trials’, 39 Ottawa Law Review (2008) 367, at 398. For a comparison of the judicial activism displayed by the ad hoc tribunals and the ICC alike see: A. Appazov, ‘Judicial Activism’ and the International Criminal Court’, iCourts Working Paper Series, No.17, 2015.

  109. 109.

    See generally: M. Shahabuddeen, ‘Does the Principle of Legality Stand in the Way of Progressive Development of Law?’, 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2004) 1007.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Central Lancashire, Larnaka, Cyprus

    Demetra Loizou

Authors
  1. Demetra Loizou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Demetra Loizou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic

    Martin Faix

  2. Faculty of Law, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic

    Ondřej Svaček

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Loizou, D. (2024). The Development of International Humanitarian Law in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court: Formulation and Interpretation of Article 8 of the Rome Statute. In: Faix, M., Svaček, O. (eds) ICC Jurisprudence and the Development of International Humanitarian Law. Global Issues. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45994-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45994-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-45993-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-45994-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation