The Problematic Discourse of State Crime

  • Harry D. Gould


We come finally to contemporary efforts to bring back the classical practice of international punishment in its nearly complete form; as we will see, the only significant way in which what is advocated today differs from the old practice is in the lack of reliance on Natural Law metaphysics. Contemporary discussion of the criminalization of state behavior and the punishment of states for the commission of international crimes effectively brings us full circle to Grotius and Locke.


Corporate Punishment State Crime Rome Statute International Crime Natural Person 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nicholas Onuf, World of Our Making (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989);Google Scholar
  2. Onuf, “Constructivism: A User’s Manual,” in Vendulka Kubálkova, Nicholas Onuf and Paul Kowert, eds, International Relations in a Constructed World (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1998), 58–78.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 193–245;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, “Is the State a Person? Why Should We Care?” Review of International Studies 30 (2004): 255–258;Google Scholar
  5. Iver Neumann, “Beware of Organicism: The Narrative Self of the State,” Review of International Studies 30 (2004): 259–267;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colin Wight, “State Agency: Social Action without Human Activity?” Review of International Studies 30 (2004): 269–280;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, “Hegel’s House, or ‘People are States Too’,” Review of International Studies 30 (2004a): 281–287;Google Scholar
  8. Alexander Wendt, “The State as Person in International Theory,” Review of International Studies 30 (2004): 289–316;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Peter Lomas, “Anthropomorphism, Personification and Ethics: A Reply to Alexander Wendt,” Review of International Studies 31/2 (2005): 349–355;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Alexander Wendt, “How Not to Argue Against State Personhood: A Reply to Lomas,” Review of International Studies 31 (2005): 357–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. David Miller, “Holding Nations Responsible,” Ethics, 114 (2004): 240–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Toni Erskine, “Assigning Responsibilities to Institutional Moral Agents: The Case of States and Quasi-States,” Ethics and International Affairs, 15 (2001): 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. David Boucher, “Resurrecting Pufendorf and Capturing the Westphalian Moment,” Review of International Studies, 27 (2001): 566–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 6.
    G.W.F. Hegel, “Philosophy of Right and Law,” in Carl J. Friedrich, ed., The Philosophy of Hegel (New York: Random House, 1954), 320.Google Scholar
  15. James Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 91–123;Google Scholar
  16. James Crawford and Simon Olleson, “The Nature and Forms of International Responsibility,” in Malcolm Evans, ed., International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 454–458;Google Scholar
  17. Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law 2nd ed. (Clark: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2005 (1967)), 292;Google Scholar
  18. Hans Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1949 (2006)), 106.Google Scholar
  19. 8.
    Nina Jørgensen, The Responsibility of States for International Crimes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 79, 279–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joseph Weiler, Antonio Cassese and Marina Spinedi, eds, International Crimes of State: A Critical Analysis of the ILC’s Draft Article 19 on State Responsibility (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 7–138.Google Scholar
  21. Luis Molina, “Can States Commit Crimes? The Limits of Formal International Law,” in Ross, ed., Controlling State Crime (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2000), 349–388.Google Scholar
  22. 11.
    Georges Abi-Saab, “The Uses of Article 19,” European Journal of International Law 10 (1999): 345–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eric Wyler, “From ‘State Crime’ to Responsibility for Serious Breaches of Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law,” European Journal of International Law 13 (2002): 1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 12.
    Alain Pellet, “Can a State Commit a Crime? Definitely, Yes!” European Journal of International Law 10 (1999): 432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 13.
    Giorgio Gaja, “Should all References to International Crimes Disappear from the ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility?” European Journal of International Law 10 (1999), 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 15.
    Mortimer Sellers, “International Legal Theory,” Jus Gentium 11 (2005): 67.Google Scholar
  27. Lon L. Fuller, Legal Fictions (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1967);Google Scholar
  28. 17.
    RW Duff, Personality in Roman Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938), 28.Google Scholar
  29. 18.
    Peter French, Collective and Corporate Persons (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), 34;Google Scholar
  30. Andrew Borkowski and Paul du Plessis, Textbook on Roman Law 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 87;Google Scholar
  31. Barry Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996 (1962)), 60.Google Scholar
  32. Ulrike Malmendier, “Roman Shares,” in William N. Goetzman and K. Gert Rouwenhorst, eds, The Origins of Value (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 38;Google Scholar
  33. Michael Oakeshott, “On the Character of a Modern European State,” in Michael Oakeshott, ed., On Human Conduct (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), 199–266.Google Scholar
  34. Philip Wiener, ed., Dictionary of the History of Ideas, volume 1 (New York: Scribner & Sons. 1974), 68–70.Google Scholar
  35. 25.
    Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997 (1957)), 195–196;Google Scholar
  36. Anton-Herman Chroust, “The Corporate Idea and the Body Politic in the Middle Ages,” The Review of Politics 9 (1947): 431.Google Scholar
  37. Jan Klabbers, “The Concept of Legal Personality,” Jus Gentium 11 (2005): 45.Google Scholar
  38. 36.
    Hannah Pitkin, “Hobbes’s Concept of Representation—I,” American Political Science Review 58 (1964): 328–340;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hannah Pitkin, “Hobbes’s Concept of Representation—II,” American Political Science Review 58 (1964): 902–918;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Quentin Skinner, “Hobbes and the Purely Artificial Person of the State,” in Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics v. III: Hobbes and Civil Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 177–208;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Quentin Skinner, “Hobbes on Representation,” European Journal of Philosophy 13 (2005): 155–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. David Runciman, Pluralism and the Personality of the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 6–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. David Runciman, “Moral Responsibility and the Problem of Representing the State,” in Toni Erskine, ed., Can Institutions Have Responsibilities? Collective Moral Agency and International Relations (Basingstoke: Pal-grave, 2003), 41–48Google Scholar
  44. David Copp, “Hobbes on Artificial Persons and Collective Action,” The Philosophical Review, 89 (1980): 579–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 46.
    Torbjørn Knutsen, A History of International Relations Theory 2nd ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1997), 105.Google Scholar
  46. Kinch Hoekstra, “Hobbes on the Natural Condition of Mankind,” in Patricia Springborg, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’ Leviathan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 120–121.Google Scholar
  47. Larry May, Crimes Against Humanity: A Normative Account (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 17–18.Google Scholar
  48. 53.
    Richard Tuck, The Rights of War and Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 158–165.Google Scholar
  49. 55.
    Arthur Machen, “Corporate Personality,” Harvard Law Review 24 (1911): 263. Emphasis added.Google Scholar
  50. 57.
    Mark M. Hager, “Bodies Politic: The Progressive History of Organizational ‘Real Entity’ Theory,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 50 (1989): 578.Google Scholar
  51. John Dewey, “The Historic Background of Corporate Legal Personality,” Yale Law Journal 35 (1926): 655;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. H.L.A. Hart, “Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence,” in H.L.A. Hart, Ethics in Jurisprudence and Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 58.
    Frederic Maitland, “Moral Personality and Legal Personality,” Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 6 (New Series) (1905), 195.Google Scholar
  54. William S. Laufer, Corporate Bodies and Guilty Minds (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2006), 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morton Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law 1870–1960: The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 72.Google Scholar
  56. 62.
    Morris Cohen, “Communal Ghosts and Other Perils in Social Philosophy,” The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 16 (1919): 678–681;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 63.
    Harold Laski, “The Personality of Associations,” Harvard Law Review 29 (1916): 406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 64.
    Ernst Freund, The Legal Nature of Corporations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1897), 52.Google Scholar
  59. Eric Colvin, “Corporate Personality and Criminal Liability,” Criminal Law Forum 6 (1995): 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 69.
    Ann Foerschler, “Corporate Criminal Intent: Toward a Better Understanding of Corporate Misconduct,” California Law Review 78 (1990): 1291; Hart (1983), 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 71.
    Jørgensen, 75; Lee, 9; R.E. Ewin, “The Moral Status of the Corporation,” Journal of Business Ethics 10 (1991): 749–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. J. Andrews, “Reform in the Law of Corporate Liability” Criminal Law Review 20 (1973): 91–92.Google Scholar
  63. 75.
    Larry May, The Morality of Groups (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1987) 41.Google Scholar
  64. 78.
    Celia Wells, Corporations and Criminal Responsibility 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Brent Fisse and John Braithwaite, “The Allocation of Responsibility for Corporate Crime: Individualism, Collectivism and Accountability” Sydney Law Review 11 (1988): 483.Google Scholar
  66. C.M.V. Clarkson, “Kicking Corporate Bodies and Damning Their Souls,” The Modern Law Review 59 (1996): 557–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Anthony Lang, “Crime and Punishment: Holding States Accountable” Ethics and International Affairs 21 (2007): 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 93.
    Donald Davidson, “Intending,” in Davidson, Essays on Actions and Events (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 83–102.Google Scholar
  69. Noel Malcolm, Reason of State, Propaganda, and the Thirty Years’ War (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007), 92–123.Google Scholar
  70. 95.
    Maurizio Viroli, From Politics to Reason of State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Richard Tuck, Philosophy and Government: 1572–1651 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 31–64;Google Scholar
  72. Peter Burke, “Tacitism, Scepticism, and Reason of State,” in J.H. Burns and Mark Goldie, eds., The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 479–498;Google Scholar
  73. Edward Keene, International Political Thought: A Historical Introduction (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005), 98–118;Google Scholar
  74. Jonathan Haslam, No Virtue Like Necessity: Realist Thought in International Relations since Machiavelli (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 17–88.Google Scholar
  75. 97.
    Amy E. Eckert, “Peoples and Persons: Moral Standing, Power, and the Equality of States,” International Studies Quarterly 50 (2006): 841–859;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Amy E. Eckert, “National Defense and State Personality,” Journal of International Political Theory 5 (2009), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Hans Kelsen, “Collective and Individual Responsibility in International Law with Particular Respect to the Punishment of War Criminals” California Law Review 31 (1942–1943): 530, 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Harry D. Gould 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry D. Gould

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations