ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the question is raised how different types of (causal, motivational, and organizational) remoteness should be tackled when holding business leaders accountable for international crimes. This issue arises because corporate involvement in international crimes is mostly indirect. Businessmen seldom physically perpetrate international crimes, but generally fund or benefit from such crimes in more indirect ways, for example by providing goods, logistical support, or information. Moreover, businessmen normally act with business-related purposes and interests, rather than with the intent to commit international crimes. In particular, when corporations have a complex structure consisting of multiple branches and departments, individual businessmen may also not know exactly what happens within the corporation. This makes it difficult to establish that businessmen intentionally contributed to the commission of international crimes and thus fulfilled the actus reus and mens rea requirements of these offenses. This chapter addresses if and how these problems related to remoteness can be tackled in order to prevent impunity, and whether the possible solutions are acceptable from a fair labeling perspective.
