This inquiry explores the question of transnational companies’ criminal liability for international crimes, reviewing the current state of research in the field of international economic criminal law, a discipline that hitherto has received only scant analysis. Following some preliminary conceptual remarks (I.), the forms of corporate participation in such crimes (II.) and the supranational and national practice since Nuremberg are presented. This practice reveals a clear trend towards corporate liability, albeit represented by leading company staff. For this reason, and because legal persons (companies) ultimately act through natural persons (their staff), their liability (IV.) cannot be convincingly established on a purely collective basis – in the sense of a pure organisation model (IV. 4.1.) – but only on the basis of the attribution model, namely as a derivative corporate liability based upon supervisory or organisational culpability (IV.4.2.). The attribution model’s individual approach – or, to use procedural terms, the individualistic “trigger” for the prosecution of companies – finally brings us to the well-known forms of criminal participation (V.), with liability for complicity in particular coming into question. All in all, the essay concludes (VI.), we should not expect too much of (international) criminal corporate liability. Here, as in many other areas, criminal law can only have a (limited) preventive effect as part of a holistic approach.

中文翻译：

---

国际经济刑法

本次调查探讨了跨国公司对国际犯罪的刑事责任问题，回顾了国际经济刑法领域的研究现状，该学科迄今为止很少受到分析。在一些初步的概念性评论（I.）之后，介绍了公司参与此类犯罪的形式（II.）以及自纽伦堡以来的超国家和国家实践。这种做法揭示了企业责任的明显趋势，尽管主要由公司员工代表。出于这个原因，并且因为法人（公司）最终通过自然人（他们的员工）行事，他们的责任（IV.）不能令人信服地建立在纯粹的集体基础上——在纯组织模式的意义上（IV. 4.1. ) – 但仅基于归因模型，即作为基于监管或组织责任的衍生公司负债（IV.4.2.）。归因模型的个人方法——或者，用程序术语来说，是起诉公司的个人主义“触发器”——最终将我们带到了众所周知的犯罪参与形式（V.），特别是共谋责任受到质疑. 总而言之，本文的结论是（VI.），我们不应期望过多的（国际）刑事公司责任。在这里，与许多其他领域一样，刑法只能作为整体方法的一部分具有（有限的）预防效果。起诉公司的个人主义“触发器”——最终将我们带到了众所周知的犯罪参与形式 (V.)，尤其是共谋责任受到质疑。总而言之，本文的结论是（VI.），我们不应期望过多的（国际）刑事公司责任。在这里，与许多其他领域一样，刑法只能作为整体方法的一部分具有（有限的）预防效果。起诉公司的个人主义“触发器”——最终将我们带到了众所周知的犯罪参与形式 (V.)，尤其是共谋责任受到质疑。总而言之，本文的结论是（VI.），我们不应期望过多的（国际）刑事公司责任。在这里，与许多其他领域一样，刑法只能作为整体方法的一部分具有（有限的）预防效果。