New court, same division: The <i>Bemba</i> case as an illustration of the continued confusion regarding the command responsibility doctrine

Abstract Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo was the International Criminal Court’s first case directly addressing command responsibility doctrine. As permanent international criminal court who can exercise jurisdiction over a majority of world’s nation states, its interpretation doctrine potentially an important development in law and opportunity to affirm legal commanders for their subordinates’ crimes. However, rather than providing clear articulation scope, Appeals Chamber split. By 3–2 majority, it reversed Trial Chamber’s decision judges were sufficiently divided reasoning that they felt compelled deliver separate opinions. A key disagreement within is whether mode liability or offence dereliction duty. This feeds into further contestation about doctrine’s core elements, including standard fault necessary under actus reus mens rea elements. article examines judges’ illustrate that, despite decades jurisprudence academic debate, there still confusion on these foundational Instead being ‘settled law’, debate live. The maintains current supports but proposes reclassifying as could resolve many tensions while observing culpability principle, satisfying justifications, facilitating adequately wide scope accountability.