ABSTRACT
The moral legitimacy of collective liability depends on whether there exists a defensible theory of collective moral responsibility that fairly distributes blame to some group members for the actions of other group members. Theorists have proposed a number of different models of collective responsibility. The chapter presents three popular methods for distributing (or not distributing) responsibility for collective wrongdoing: a narrow individualist model, an intention model and a collectivist model. It details these theories of collective moral responsibility, and considers the theories to precedents of joint criminal enterprise in international law. Each theory comes to different conclusions about the justifiability of joint criminal enterprise. The more expansive a theory of collective moral responsibility becomes, the more it strains against basic ideals of fairness and justice. The narrower and more individualist a theory, the more it may let individuals off the hook for their contributions to collective wrongdoing.
