Senuri de Silva, (2026) Sri Lanka and Charging Practices in Systemic Crimes Cases: A Role for Command Responsibility? Journal of International Criminal Justice, https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqaf058

“This article examines how international criminal law (ICL) concepts, particularly the doctrine of Command Responsibility (CR), can shape domestic prosecutorial strategies in Sri Lanka, despite the absence of formal incorporation of ICL into its legal system. Using several recent indictments filed by the Attorney General as central examples of this prosecutorial strategy, it analyses how prosecutors have relied on domestic liability theories to approximate the attribution of responsibility to high-ranking officials. Through doctrinal analysis, case review, and insights from prosecutorial interviews, the author argues that while Sri Lanka’s legal framework does not explicitly recognize CR, its core elements can be adapted to support accountability for systemic crimes. The article explores how existing provisions of the Penal Code, combined with interpretative practices and an openness to ICL principles, offer a pragmatic, if still evolving, pathway to bridge a domestic accountability gap.”

Rory Sugrue, (2026) International Criminal Law Norm Setting in Domestic Refugee Courts: “Complicity Through Facilitation” and Refugee Exclusion Jurisprudence, Refugee Survey Quarterly, (forthcoming)

“Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention excludes individuals from protection where there are serious reasons for considering that they committed international crimes, including crimes against peace, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. This exclusion extends beyond direct perpetrators to those who facilitated such crimes through their contributions. In international criminal law, accessorial liability (such as aiding and abetting) establishes responsibility for these facilitative acts. Through a comparative analysis of recent jurisprudence in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands, this paper examines how refugee decision-makers interpret ‘complicity through facilitation’ in exclusion cases. It finds that while decision-makers draw on ICL principles, they adapt them to the administrative context of asylum adjudication. Although the four jurisdictions show broad theoretical alignment with ICL, differences emerge in practice, resulting in a hybridized and flexible approach to complicity through facilitation.”

William Fortin & Ligeia Quackelbeen, (2026) The use or misuse of terrorist membership labels for the prosecution of core international crimes, Journal of International Criminal Justice, https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqaf043

“This article evaluates the use of minor terrorist offences, particularly membership in a terrorist organization (MTO), in the prosecution of core international crimes through the lens of fair labelling. Examining the jurisdictions of Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, it argues that the MTO label risks over-inclusiveness. Because it can encompass conduct ranging from minor support roles, such as cooking or delivering clothes, to serious participatory acts like providing weapons, the label risks losing its expressive value. Through case analysis, the article highlights the fair labelling concerns that arise when MTO offences are used in cases connected to international crimes. A recurring pattern across the three jurisdictions is the prosecution of women whose involvement in terrorist groups was relatively minor, with courts placing significant weight on their roles as wives and caregivers. Given the over-inclusive nature of the MTO label and its potential to indirectly expand liability for international crimes, the article calls for a reconceptualization of MTO offences within domestic international criminal law.”