CRIMINAL ASSOCIATION IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

Summary: The criminal association was a criminal offense of the Joint Plan and Conspiracy, or a special form of Crime against Peace, which was highlighted as such in the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. In the recent practice of international criminal courts, this institute is used in a certain way, but its function is often subor-dinated to political abuses. By labeling certain political regimes as a “criminal asso-ciation” by the so-called international political elites are provided with a wide margin of maneuver to justify their “humanitarian interventions” which are the consequence of a common criminal goal. From the middle of the 20th century until today, it is possible to identify violations of international law that occurred as a result of the activities of a criminal association, which continues with increased intensity. If the covert activities of real criminal associations continue, the main outcome will not be the achievement of world peace, but hegemony. In order to prevent this tendency, it is necessary to redefine the place of the Criminal Association in international criminal law, to point out the permanent cases of their actions, their subjects and the ways in which these same subjects avoid responsibility.


Introduction
Many events in history that have resulted in the suffering of a large number of people have occurred as a result of the demagogic ideology of various political or militant cliques.In international criminal law, it is identified as a "joint criminal enterprise" or "criminal association"".
In international criminal law, it is identified as a "joint criminal enterprise" or "criminal association".The term criminal associaton means: "…participation in the commission of criminal offenses that occur when several persons with a common ------------ * miodragcujic@gmail.comgoal are involved in joint criminal activities…" (Boas et al. 2007, 16).In theoretical terms, such a definition can be considered complete, but in parctical terms, its vagueness is reflected in the interpretation ofa a criminal association as: (a) a special form of committing a crime or (b) a special form of responsibility.
If a criminal association is viewed from the aspect of a special form of committing a criminal offense, it is necessary to consider several possibilities: (1) as an act of excution within the incriminated crimibnal offenses in the Statute; (2) as an act of a universal criminal offense; (3) as an act in conjunction with other acts of a criminal offense.
In the first case, the act of execution implies the existence of a cumulative connection between the execution of the incriminated act in which the indispensable component is the existence of a criminal goal, that is organization.
A typical example is cited in the Nuremberg Trials as a crime against peace that includes: planning, preparing, initiating of waging an aggresive war or a war that violates international treaties, agreements or obligations, or participating in a joint plan or conspiracy (CIMT 1946, Art. 6).
The criminal association as an act of universal crime can be identified through the individual counts of the indictment in the Tokyo process, in which it is emphasized that: "All accused of association as leaders, organizers, initiators or accomplices between January 1, 1928 and September 2, 1945. in terms of military, naval, political and economic domination in East Asia, the Pacific, the Indian Ocean... neighboring countries and islands" -which in the following counts of the indictment are broken down into a "conspiracy" in the sense of "preparing or waging an aggressive war" (Boister and Cryer 2008, 18-33).
A criminal association in the sense of an action that is in conjunction with other acts of a criminal offense implies the achievement of the same goal by applying different methodological approaches.An example could be taken of a goal achieved by conventional methods of war, the effect of which is enhanced by adequate methods of propaganda.
Through general propaganda, people prepare for future wars, so propaganda directly encourages special aggressive targets (Kearney 2007, 35).Precisely this form of committing a criminal offense is one of the frequent forms of abuse of international criminal law, because its possibility is neglected in practice, and the main bearers of the idea of a joint criminal enterprise successfully evade criminal responsibility.
The understanding of a criminal association as a special form of responsibility is according to some lawyers: "Paradoxically, more than a complex and analytically challenged form of responsibility that is recogniyed a form of responsibility 7/6 (1) Statute"7 (Boas et al. 2007, 16).
------------Having in mind the contradiction of views on the understanding of a criminal association as a special form of responsibility, two issues stand out: (1) Why is a criminal association accepted as a form of responsibility in the Rome Statute as a final solution and (2) Is the definition of a criminal association explicitly solves the problem of performing the actions of an individual or group that has a common goal?
In addition to the problems of materila and legal nature in resolving the final position of a criminal association within the framework of international criminal law, it is necessary to consider both the real possibilities of committing a criminal enterprise and those acts that arose as a result of covert activities of a criminal association.

The Nuremberg and Tokyo processes
In the analysis of the form of commission of the act, that is the form of responsibility, the criminal association expreses certain specifics depending on whether it is the subject of the Nurenberg or Tokyo process.

***
In the Nurenberg Trials, the criminal association was conceived through the actions of the Joint Plan and Conspiracy, that is individual actions within the Crimes against Peace, where responsibility is defined individually through individual acts of the accused or through their objective (command) responsibility in political and military organizations with a feature joint criminal enterprise.
The joint plan and conspiracy included the concretized goals of the joint criminal enterprise, while the Crime against Humaity confirmed the goal and responsibility of the action.Due to the cumulative connection between these two crimes in the Nuremberg proceedings, it was a very common occurrence for the accused to be charged on both grounds at the same time and to be convicted on the same grounds.
Among such cases are: tion (IMT 1946, 113-114); (5) Erich Raeder -gross-admiral (OKM) for active participation in the development of a plan to engage the German navy in attacks from the sea on Norway and the USSR in the Baltic Sea, as well as preparations for war against Austria (IMT 1946, 131-133); (6) Alfred Jodl -Chief of the Operational Staff of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces for planning attacks on Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece and Yugoslavia and drafting the final plan of "Barbarossa" (IMT 1946, 138-139) (7) Konstantin von Neurath -Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister without portfolio for active participation in creating misconceptions with representatives of European countries in the process of preparing Germany for an aggressive policy towards Europe (IMT 1946, 147-150).What undermines the coherence of these two incriminating acts is the fact that in four cases: Wilhelm Frick, Walter Funk Donitz and Arthur Seyss-Inquart based on the decision exempted from responsibility for the Joint Plan and Conspiracy, and convicted of Crimes against Peace.
Their function within the govrning bodies certainly took part in the individual actions of the Joint Plan and Conspiracy, but this decision of the corut can be attributed either to its dispositive assessment or the fact that the defendants were members of organizations that represented a special case before the Nuremberg proceedings.
In the analysis of the Organizatiobns presented as crimina associations, the Nuremberg Tribunal drew its conclusion from their structure, goals and criminal activity.
In considering the Nazi Party as a criminal organization, the Tribunal found that the party's corps was used for criminal purposes in the form of Germaization of conquered territory, persecution of Jews, management of forces labor programs and abuse of prisoners of war, and consequaently the Reichsleitung and Kreisleiter are held accountable, while lower-ranking officials are exempted at the suggestion of the prosecution (IMT 1946, 86).
The Gestapo9 and SD10 aimed to involve Jews in pogroms and exterminations, brutality and killings in concentration camps, acting through administrations in the occupied territories, through forced labor programs, abuse and killing of prisoners of war for which they are considered responsible because they became or remained members of the organization, with the knowledge to be used to commit crimes (IMT 1946, 90-91).
With exactly the same goal of the SS, 11 an organization made up of members of the SS Allgemeine, SS Waffen, SS Totenkopf Verbande and members of the other police forces, according to the Tribunal, is considered a criminal organization except for those who were forced or did not commit crimes (IMT 1946, 95-96).
Contrary to the stated conclusions, the Tribunal in some cases stated that there were no elements of a criminal association alluding to the SA, the Reich Cabinet and the General Staff with the High Command.
- -----------His explanations are in some ways incomplete and unclear.Given the SA actions under the principles of the new political party in 1939, which included the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, it is illogical for the Tribunal to exclude all this, stating that the crimes committed on that occasion were not criminal under the Tribunal's Charter, that at the time of the expansion of Nazi aggression, their members was reduced to groups of unimportant Nazi hangars (IMT 1946, 96-97).The Tribunal made a similar statement for the Reich Cabinet, pointing out that the said organization could not be considered criminal for two reasons: (1) because it did not show that after 1937 it had acted as a group or organization; (2) because the group of accused persons is so small that members can be appropriately tried in appropriate cases without approaching the statement that the cabinet whose members were a criminal (Judgment, 1946:97).
In an almost identical way, the Tribunal finds that the General Staff and the High Command do not have the characteristics of a criminal association, because an individual trial of their officers would achieve a purpose better than the required declaration, and a much more important reason is that they are neither group" in the sense of Article 9 of the Charter (IMT 1946, 98). 12he essential problem in defining a certain organization as criminal is in the stated Article 9 of the Charter, where, as today, there is a wide freedom of the prosecution and judical councils to define a certain organization in a way that is in the interest of current international poliltics.*** The Tokyo Trial defined the issue of a criminal association as a crime of Peace against Peace through: "...planning, preparing, launching or waging a declaraed or undeclared aggressive war, or a war that vilates international rights, treaties, agreements or beliefs or participation in a joint plan; conspiracies to achieve any of the above" (SPEIMTFFE 1946, Art.5a).
Analyzing the structure of the indictment, it can be noticed that all crimes against peace are systematized from counts 1 to 38, in such a way that all acts of committing the crime are stated in count 1, while in the remaining counts they are partially singled out as "conspiracy", "association", "planning", "preparation" in relation to individual countries (Boister and Cryer 2008, 17-28).
The specificity of the Tokyo process regarding the actions of Crimes against Peace were considered exclusively through the actions of individuals, while the common goal of the organization to which they belonged was neglected.
In the context of this claim, the case of Iwane Matsui, a general who informed the Japanese diplomatic representatives in Nanking and Tokyo (IMTFE 1948, 572), ------------about the crimes committed by the Japanese leadership, but they as an "organization" bore no responsibility.
Of particular interest is the case of human experimentation in Ishii network units, which were systematically conducted by Unit 731 and Unit 1644, and there are reports from the US military that the general outlines of these programs are known to them (Keiichi 2005, 4).The first phase resulted in the Sanders Report (November 1, 1945) and the Thomson Report (May 31, 1946), which presented information on bacterial bombs but left out the topics of human experimentation or biological weapons testing (Keiichi 2005, 8).The direction in which the investigation of this case was moving is sufficiently indicated by the fact that Douglas Mac-Arthur, in his capacity as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, forwarded a letter to Washington on May 6, 1947, stating the existence of significant data derived from Ishii's statement with this information is most likely to be retained in intelligence channels, which is why it will not be used as evidence of war crimes (Gold 2003, 109).
The avoidance of war crimes indictment through human experiments was interrupted by a request from the Russian prosecutor's office to IMTFE in 1947 for a formal interrogation of Shiro Ishii, Hitoshi Kikuchi and Kiyoshi Ota regarding the Unit 731 BW experiments and "mass murder cases as a result of these experiments" (Cunliffe 2007, 5).What remains unclear in this case is why the entire procedure was initiated before the national court of the USSR, and not before ICTFE, and why the activities of this unit were not presented by the organization for a joint criminal enterprise, but by the individual responsibility of each of its members?
The answer to this question should be sought in the interests of the parties to the proceedings, whose background is not difficult to understand.

Contemporary concepts of criminal association
The concepts of criminal association in the second half of the XX century underwent partial changes in relation to the Nuremberg and Tokyo proceedings.In the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, within each incriminating act (count of the indictment), the existence of a special form of act specific to a criminal association is emphasized, while in the modern understanding, individual acts of committing a criminal association can be reported through individual responsibility for crime in the Statute.
The common provision of Article 7/6 (1) of the ad hoc Statute (ICTY and ICTR) prescribes individual responsibility as follows: "A person who has planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation or execution of a criminal offense acts...bears individual criminal responsibility "-depending on the official position and authority at his disposal.
By linking the acts of execution prescribed in individual responsibility with the incriminated acts in the Statute (etc.war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, aggression), it enables the competent subjects in the procedure to qualify the incriminated act as more serious (implementing the existence of a joint criminal enterprise).
The advantage of this determination of a criminal association is that it enables a broader view of the facts by the court chambers and the connection of incriminated actions through the joint action of several related cases whose goal is the same, but on the other hand such a system allows easier abuse.
If the cases of Jadranko Prlic et al. with the case of Radovan Karadzic et al. it would be noted that in both cases the existence of a "joint criminal enterprise" was noted, with the ICTY defining as the goal in the first case: "permanent removal and ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims and other non-Croats" (ICTY, IT-04-74-T, par.15), and in the second case, "the permanent removal of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from the territory of BiH, to which the Bosnian Serbs claimed the right."(ICTY, IT-95-5, par.6).Based on the comparison, in both cases the existence of individual responsibility enshrined in Article 7 (1) of the Statute, which corresponds to the elements of a criminal association, is confirmed, but the obvious abuse is that the ICTY defines exactly the same acts of execution as completely different crimes -Genocide).
This institute creates problems if it is often emphasized, because it affects both the objectivity in the work of the international criminal court and the public opinion of the international community.In many cases, the ICTY emphasized that legitimate institutions such as the JNA, VJ, MUP of the Republic of Serbia, as coercive bodies engaged in protecting the integrity and territorial sovereignty of the SFRY and the Republic of Serbia, acted as organizations of a joint criminal enterprise.
This one-sidedness often came to the fore, as the ICTY in many cases used this institute in chosen words or simply avoided it when it came to other national entities in the former Yugoslavia.Among such examples is the formation of the mercenary detachment "El Mujaheid", within the 3rd Corps of the ABiH, whose ritual crimes were carried out in the camps Kamenica and Livade in Zavidovici, as well as in the wider area of Ozren and Vozuca (ICTY, IT-04-83, par.14-50); or the action of the so-called."Convict Battalions" together with HV and HVO forces made up of 200 to 300 soldiers led by Mladen Neletilic and Vinko Martinovic in the campaign against Bosnian Muslims in Mostar, including camps in Mostar, Listica, Siroki Brijeg and Ljubiska (ICTY, IT-98-34, par.10-14).*** Defining the concept of a criminal association is much simpler when in one procedure the victim is unequivocally different from the perpetrators of the crime.Such a procedure is inherent in the ICTR.After the assassination of Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana, members of the Hutu majority population blamed members of the Tutsi minority for committing horrific extermination crimes.
During the interim government of Rwanda from April 8 to July 17, 1994, the achievement of the goal of the joint criminal enterprise reached its culmination, and each of the accused could be considered a member of a criminal association.In the case of Bizimungu et al. (Bizimungu et. Al.) Four ministers in the government are accused of: "Conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, complicity in genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, crimes against humanity and violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and the II Permit Protocol prescribed in Articles 2, 3, 4 of the Statute of the Tribunal" (ICTR-99-50-I).This concept of indictment was the basis for the prosecution of most defendants, although the outcome of the proceedings did not always result in imprisonment.
Evaluating the individual responsibility of the accused for the acts of execution pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Statute, with the elements prescribed in the introductory part of the indictment, the ICTR identified several political and militant organizations that had a specific criminal enterprise background.
At the top of the organizational pyramid was the National Revolutionary Movement for Development of Rwanda (MRND), whose campaign consisted of controlling and managing the party's committees through an organized, centralcommand militia body that would respond to their call to attack, kill and destroy the Tutsi population (ICTR-98-44, par.24).An active role in achieving this goal was taken by the Cabinet of the Ministry of Defense, the High Command of the Rwandan Army (Presidential Guard, Para-Commando Battalion and Reconnaissance Battalion, including commanders for military operations by sector) whose function was reflected in training and distribution of weapons to militias liquidation, plans for massacres targeting the Tutsis and moderate Hutus, as well as their direct involvement (ICTR-97-34-I, par.5.1-5."Contributes in any other way to the commission or attempted commission of a criminal offense by a group of persons acting with a common purpose, provided that: (I) a criminal offense within the jurisdiction of the Court; (II) it was carried out with knowledge of the intent of the group; (III) in connection with the crime of genocide."Analyzing the content of this provision, certain gaps and ambiguities can be noticed.Bearing in mind that the process of codification of international crimes has been specially activated since 1946 and is still ongoing, it is incomprehensible that in the sphere of law it is still not clearly defined what is considered a group of persons.On the other hand, the vagueness of the said norm is reflected in the sense that the act of a criminal association should be within the jurisdiction of the Court, in order to emphasize the connection with the criminal offense of genocide.If the activities of a criminal association are aimed exclusively at genocide, does that mean that in the case of aggression, the conditions for the existence of a criminal association are not met?
Having in mind the above concepts of criminal association, many facts directly indicate that: Great Powers are those who often identify or define norms that certain countries classify as a special normative universe some of those states that are subject to intervention (Simpson 2004, 6).Consequently, it is necessary to ask whether the administrations of such states can be defined as a criminal association and what do such administrations undertake to conceal their common goal by abusing international law?

Abuse of international law in covering up a criminal association
In the past seven decades, international law has not reached the peak of preserving humanity, but its bottom.Some governments and multinational companies have distorted the essence of many international regulations by looking for excuses to gain material benefits.After the material goals were achieved, the appetites increased and expanded to the spiritual, intellectual and physical integrity of each individual, which represents nothing but the final seal of the agreement of groups or organizations with the characteristics of a criminal association.Such words represent a severe indictment for modern humanity, but many events unfortunately confirm the existence of such tendencies.
The influence of private companies is always related to the appropriation of sources of certain energy sources, which is especially evident in the case of the Anglo-Iranian oil company, today known as British Petroleum.The company's business data from 1948, according to which it earned 61 million pounds, speak of the way of doing business, of which only 9 million pounds were set aside for Iran, where oil wells are located, while the British tax service earned about 28 million pounds.only in the form of income tax (Ganzer 2018, 70).Iranian Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadik pointed out this issue before the UN as a form of British interference in the internal problems of a country, but instead of supporting and respecting the provisions of the UN Charter, he saw the CIA create a degree of violence by bribing soldiers and street dredgers.he was sentenced to life imprisonment (Ganzer 2018, 69-74).The end result of such actions was reflected in the establishment of a suitable government in which two permanent members of the Security Council will be privileged in the export of oil from Iran.
When the legitimately elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz tried to introduce agrarian reform as part of the expropriation of land that exceeds 270 hectares, he clashed with the interests of the American company United Fruit, one of the largest banana exports in the world, whose majority shareholder was CIA Director Allen Dallas.his brother John Foster Dallas, which resulted in the launch of secret actions against President Arbenz (Ganzer 2018, 79-81).The war that was launched against Guatemala in 1954 grossly violated not only the Charter of the United Nations, but also the Charter of Organizations of American States (Ganzer 2018, 83).
In both cases, the management of private companies used their privileged position and connection with the political structures of the home countries in the planning, preparation and realization of the goal, which fully corresponds to the goal of the joint criminal enterprise.
Destructive methods of shaping states in accordance with globalist goals have been tested in the former Yugoslavia, compromising the purity of Chapter VII of the UN Charter.Instead of protecting world peace, the political administrations of nineteen highly developed NATO member states have supported the secessionist policies of a terrorist organization such as the KLA, conscious or unaware that only two decades later it will allow ISIS members to cross the corridors they created in the Balkans.create a problem for the whole of Europe.This claim is sufficiently supported by the fact that the actions of the KLA, supported by about 1,000 mercenaries from Albania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, BiH and Croatia, operated under the supervision of about 100 British and German instructors (Pantelic 2008, 120).Therefore, what is happening in Europe today is a consequence of reckless moves, primarily by the Europeans themselves.
The direct involvement of NATO members in the aggression against the FRY, not only violated many declarations, protocols and conventions on the use of banned missiles and ammunition, but also violated all international treaties and charters on respect for human rights.The issue of accountability for NATO acts has not yet been raised.What further re-examines the goals of NATO's activities sufficiently illustrates the activity of only two private companies in Kosovo and Metohija at the end of 2012 -"Envidity" and "Albright Capital Management." The Canadian company "Envidity" is owned by retired NATO general, Wesley Clark, whose investments were supposed to be directed to the processing of coal ores in the so-called synthetic oil intended for launching fighter jets, with a capacity of two thousand liters per day (Popadic, 2016).Another company owned by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright focused on providing postal and telecommunications services by applying for the purchase of 75% of companies in Kosovo and Metohija, as well as investments in road infrastructure (Popadic, 2016).The leading figures of both companies, thanks to their position and activities during the aggression in 1999, contributed to the current stagnation of the electricty economy and infrastructure in Republic of Serbia, which indicates the true essence of the sacrifice of the Albanian and Serbian populations.
The limits of selfishness and hypocrisy are sufficiently illustrated by the claims of Lawrence Summers, former director of Harvard and secretary of finance of the USA, according to which: "Pollution harmful to health should be linked to those countries where it will cause the lowest costs, and these are the countries with the lowest wages."(Chomsky 2008, 121).His claims recognize the framework of the Malthusian theory, because the depletion of stockpiles of bacteriological weapons (prohibited by the Hague Conventions and the special Geneva Protocols of 1925) does not only pollute the ecosystems of the poor, they are transmitted to the entire human population through land, water and air.Today, they are victims of viral or bacteriological agents, and tomorrow they may become part of a more advanced technological endeavor.Behind every tragedy for human society lies the meanness of a criminal association.The criminal association has become a reality.Leaving the legal framework in its definition and punishment, he is given the opportunity to continue the abuse at all levels, where sanctions are increasingly absent, and notorious facts instead of being used to initiate criminal proceedings, grow into a reason to ridicule and claim the so-called "conspiracy theories".This practice needs to change.

Conclusion
In modern society, the goals of criminal associations are becoming more and more transparent, and on that occasion, no international institution is doing anything to prevent the consequences that result from their actions.
The fact is that the criminal association is in a way emphasized in the Rome Statute as a form of individual responsibility, but that does not solve the problem of organized action.In order to overcome such a problem, it is necessary to implement special provisions in the provisions of Roman law, ie an international act in the form of a general binding Charter, which define the issue of a joint criminal enterprise.
One of the solutions could be to define a special crime that would be punishable at the international level.The second variant could consist in supplementing the criminal offenses implemented in the Rome Statute, as a qualified (more serious) form of committing criminal offenses.The third option would be a combined solution of the previous two options, with the introduction as such in the national legal framework.
In this way, two effects would be achieved: (1) different interpretations of individual or objective responsibility by subjects in international proceedings -before the International Criminal Court -would be prevented, (2) any proceedings with elements of a joint criminal enterprise would be so transparent that In all countries, citizens were aware of the immediate threat and risk to their and their families' livelihoods -enabling them to take direct action before national criminal courts.

( 1 )
Rudolf Hess -for active participation in work with the illegal Nazi party and initiating aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland (IMT 1946, 103-105); (2) Joachim von Ribbentrop -Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany for active participation in plans of aggression against Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Greece and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (IMT 1946, 105-107); (3) Wilhelm Keitel -High Commander of the Armed Forces (OKW) for active participation in pressures on Austria for annexation, planning and implementation of attacks on Czechoslovakia, Norway, Greece, Yugoslavia and USSR (IMT 1946, 108-109); Alfred Rosenberg -Head of the APA 8 for active participation in the preparation and planning of the attack on Norway, and as Hitler's "political advisor" for the preparation of several draft plans for the establishment of administration in the occupied Eastern Territory and their subsequent implementa-------------8 (APA) -Office of Foreign Affairs.