The doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise might find its application
in international law, however its application in the Government One
case particularly in its so called extended form otherwise called JCE
3, suffers serious challenges. In Government One trial, the Tribunal
acknowledged the lack of legal provision providing for JCE as a mode
of establishing criminal liability and relied on the authority of the
ICTY in its decision in the Tadic case.
This research has found that a thorough study of the Tadic judgement
proves that it was decided on shaky grounds. In its reasoning, the ICTY
relied on cases in which JCE was not successfully pleaded or in other
instances, the tribunal relied on cases which were rather decided on
different legal questions. Furthermore, a review of the jurisprudence
of current international criminal courts including the International
Criminal Court and the Extraordinary Chamber in the Court of
Cambodia did not confirm the position held by the ad-hoc tribunals
according to which there was a norm of customary law providing for
the doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise particularly in its extended
form.
