Odriozola Gurrutxaga, Miren2024-11-272024-11-27production.37343https://dx.doi.org/10.26876/ikergazte.i.23https://gordailua.ueu.eus/handle/123456789/2143Nazioarteko krimenetan pertsona askok parte hartzen dutenez, Nazioarteko Zuzenbide Penalaren erronka handienetako bat horien guztien erantzukizun penal indibiduala zehaztea da. Testuinguru horretan, ad hoc auzitegiek Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) delako teoria garatu dute euren jurisprudentzian; Nazioarteko Auzitegi Penalak, berriz, egitatearen gaineko kontrolaren teoria erabili du oinarritzat. Artikulu honetan JCE teoriari egindako lau kritika aztertuko ditugu: Harreman horizontal eta bertikalen arteko ezberdintasuna, funtsezko ekarpenik eza, partekatutako dolorik eza, eta JCE III egilekidetza gisa ulertzearen arazoak. Lau kritiken garrantzia dela-eta, nazioarteko auzitegi penalek JCE doktrina alde batera utzi beharko luketela ondorioztatuko dugu.Owing to the large amount of people who get involved in the commission of international crimes, one of the most significant challenges which International Criminal Law undertakes consists in the attribution of individual criminal liability to each of them. In this context, while the ad hoc tribunals have developed the Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) theory, the International Criminal Court has based its case law on the theory of control over the crime. The present Article analyzes four critical remarks of JCE theory: difference between horizontal and vertical relations, lack of an essential contribution, lack of a shared intent, and problems of characterizing JCE III as a form of co-perpetration. Due to the relevance of these critical aspects, international criminal tribunals should avoid applying JCE doctrine.Nazioarteko Zuzenbide PenalaJoint Criminal EnterpriseEgilekidetzaEgitatearen gaineko kontrolaren teoria.International Criminal LawJoint Criminal EnterpriseCo-perpetrationTheory of control over the crime.Zuzenbideaintroduction