ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the approach taken to ordering in the Mudacumura Case before the International Criminal Court (ICC) bears a close resemblance to that developed in the jurisprudence of the ad hoc Tribunals. In addition, both the ad hoc Tribunals and the ICC extend liability for ordering to cases where the accused orders the principal perpetrator to engage in lawful conduct which results in the commission or attempted commission of a crime. Holding individuals liable for ordering subordinates to engage in conduct that violates international humanitarian law is an important mechanism for ensuring accountability for such violations. The imposition of direct effect test goes against general principles of treaty interpretation and is an inappropriate measure for causation in the context of accessorial liability, which by its very nature is indirect. Putting aside the test for causation, the Mudacumura Decision provides a good starting point for the development of the Court's jurisprudence with respect to ordering as a mode of liability.
