Article 25 — Modes of Liability

The provision this page anchors

Rome Statute Art. 25 — Individual criminal responsibility (chapeau)

"In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person: (a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible; (b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted; (c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission; (d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose…"

Article 25 is the bridge between the act (Article II of the Genocide Convention; Articles 6, 7, 8 of the Rome Statute) and the actor (a named individual). Without Article 25, the dossier documents harm in the abstract. With Article 25, the dossier names who is responsible — and under which mode.

The five modes — Article 25(3)(a)–(d) plus 25(3)(f)

Mode (a)

Direct perpetration · joint perpetration · perpetration through another

"Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible."

The narrowest and most direct mode. The perpetrator performs the actus reus, alone or with others. The "through another person" language captures indirect perpetration — acting through a subordinate, sub-agency, or downstream actor. The Lubanga Trial Chamber (2012) developed the contemporary interpretation of joint perpetration.

Mode (b)

Ordering · soliciting · inducing

"Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted."

The mode that captures political superiors, ministers, deputy ministers, and senior officials whose decision-instrument (cabinet directive, ministerial authorisation, statutory instrument) initiated the act. Crucially, the mode requires only that the offence in fact occurs or is attempted — completed harm is not the only trigger.

Mode (c)

Aiding · abetting · otherwise assisting

"For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission."

The mode that captures regulators, professional bodies, institutional bystanders, and providers of infrastructure. The "providing the means" clause is the critical one for state-policy harm: appropriations, authorisations, training, equipment supply, and publication of administrative procedures all fall here. Mens rea = purpose of facilitating, not mere knowledge.

Mode (d)

Contribution to a group acting with common purpose

"In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose."

The catch-all mode. Contribution must be intentional and must either be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity (25(3)(d)(i)) or made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime (25(3)(d)(ii)). The mode that anchors capture- network and aiding-the-policy-architecture analyses.

Mode (f)

Attempt

"Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person's intentions."

Liability attaches to attempted crimes that commence execution through a substantial step but fail through circumstances outside the perpetrator's control. The Article 25(3)(f) mode also includes a withdrawal provision: a person who abandons the effort or otherwise prevents the completion is not liable if abandonment is complete and voluntary.

Mode (e)

Direct and public incitement to commit genocide

"In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide."

A mode unique to genocide (Article 6 only — not crimes against humanity or war crimes). Public incitement is a standalone offence: the targeted crime need not in fact be committed for liability to attach. The Akayesu Trial Chamber (1998) established the modern test. Used to prosecute media figures, broadcast directors, and authors of public dehumanising speech.

How Article 25 connects to the rest of the TENET5 dossier

The Article II elements covered on this site (II(a) killing, II(b) bodily/mental harm, II(c) drinking water, II(c) opioid response, II(d) sterilization, II(d) fertility, II(e) residential schools) are the actus reus side. The dolus specialis page addresses the chapeau intent requirement. Article 25 closes the third side of the prosecutorial triangle: the actor.

Each mode of liability has a TENET5 working surface that maps named individuals to the relevant evidence:

Mode (b) — ordering / soliciting / inducing. See appointments registry (who occupied which Order-in-Council position and when), MAID Hansard record (ministerial statements + parliamentary votes), and the MP grid.
Mode (c) — aiding / abetting / providing the means. See lobbying ledger (who-met-whom under Lobbying Act registration), CFNIS, judicial councils, law societies, ombudsmen — the institutional oversight bodies whose action or inaction provided the means or failed to remove it.
Mode (d) — common-purpose contribution. See 5GW subversion, Century Initiative, nepotism graph, law-enforcement / political ties — the network-pattern analyses that document a coordinated direction of effort across multiple named contributors.
Mode (e) — incitement (genocide only). See argument sources for the public-statement record.

What this page does and does not claim

This page does not assert that any specific named individual has been charged with, tried for, or convicted of any of the five Article 25 modes for any act documented on this site. No such adjudication has occurred. This page does assert that Article 25 is the legal frame any prosecution would use to translate the Article II / Article 6/7/8 actus reus record into a charging instrument naming individual respondents — and that the TENET5 dossier already documents conduct that would be relevant under at least four of the five modes.

The dolus specialis page covers the mental-element test for genocide. The Article 15 referral page covers the procedural mechanism for bringing the record before the ICC Office of the Prosecutor. The file s.504 page covers the domestic equivalent: laying a Criminal Code information under section 504.

Where the rest of the legal-frame record lives on this site

Methodology note

Every case docket on this page is independently retrievable from the public archives of the relevant tribunal: the IRMCT (for ICTR/ICTY corpus, including Akayesu and Krstić) and the ICC's official Document Library (for Lubanga, Bemba, and Ntaganda). The Rome Statute itself is published on the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs website. This page is a methodology anchor — not legal advice — designed to allow a reader to trace any claim back to a primary source within minutes.