GROUNDS FOR COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY: NATIONAL AND FOREIGN EXPERIENCE
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".