Legislating for international courts and tribunals is a delicate and complex process, which sometimes results in unintended consequences. Arguably, the inclusion of a special intent requirement, also known as dolus specialis, concerning “private or personal use” in the definition of pillage under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is one such consequence. But this is not the only reason why the war crime of pillage deserves special attention. On closer examination, other questions arise concerning its interpretation and application. What is the meaning of “military necessity” and “necessity” in relation to pillage, and how do they correlate with the special intent requirement? To answer these questions, the article examines the drafting history, law and current practice relating to the crime's ambiguous new element. It then proposes several avenues to address the recurring uncertainty regarding its meaning: conservative, radical and pragmatic.

中文翻译：

---

“为私人或个人使用”：国际刑事法院罗马规约下掠夺战争罪中特殊意图要求的含义

国际法院和法庭的立法是一个微妙而复杂的过程，有时会导致意想不到的后果。可以说，包含特殊意图要求，也称为特产，《国际刑事法院罗马规约》中关于掠夺定义中的“私人或个人使用”就是这样的后果之一。但这并不是抢劫战争罪值得特别关注的唯一原因。仔细研究后，会出现有关其解释和应用的其他问题。与掠夺有关的“军事必要性”和“必要性”是什么意思，它们与特殊意图要求有何关联？为了回答这些问题，本文考察了与该犯罪的模糊新要素有关的起草历史、法律和现行做法。然后，它提出了几种解决其含义反复出现的不确定性的途径：保守的、激进的和务实的。