International criminal tribunals have developed a number of legal theories designed to hold individuals responsible for their role in collective criminal conduct. These doctrines of criminal participation, known as modes of liability, are the subject of significant scholarly commentary. Yet missing from much of this debate, particularly as regards the International Criminal Court, has been an analysis of how current doctrine on modes of liability responds to the need to hold collective perpetrators criminally responsible for crimes of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). Indeed, many writings in this area of the law address perceived shortcomings in the theoretical underpinnings of modes of liability doctrine in the abstract but ignore the application of this doctrine in concreto. As a result, facially neutral writings on modes of liability may in fact be gendered in application, either because they fail to account for the specific characteristics of sexual and gender-based violence or because they are applied in a manner that requires higher thresholds for finding culpability for the commission of SGBV crimes. This article fills the gap between theory and practice, examining past and present doctrine, and suggesting ways in which the treatment of modes of liability by international criminal courts and tribunals can both properly respond to the need for personal culpability and the dangers of collective criminal activity, particularly as regards SGBV crimes.

中文翻译：

---

集体犯罪和性暴力：修复失败的方法

国际刑事法庭已经制定了许多法律理论，旨在让个人对其在集体犯罪行为中的角色负责。这些被称为责任模式的犯罪参与学说是重要学术评论的主题。然而，这场辩论的大部分内容，特别是关于国际刑事法院的辩论，一直没有分析当前关于责任模式的理论如何回应追究集体犯罪者对性暴力和基于性别的暴力犯罪 (SGBV) 的刑事责任的需要. 事实上，该法律领域的许多著作都抽象地解决了责任模式理论基础的缺陷，但忽略了该理论的应用具体来说. 因此，关于责任模式的表面中立的著作实际上可能在应用中具有性别特征，要么是因为它们未能说明性暴力和基于性别的暴力的具体特征，要么是因为它们的应用方式需要更高的门槛才能找到SGBV 犯罪的罪责。本文填补了理论与实践之间的空白，审视了过去和现在的学说，并提出了国际刑事法院和法庭对责任模式的处理既能适当应对个人责任的需要又能应对集体犯罪活动的危险的方法。 ，特别是关于 SGBV 犯罪。