A/HRC/4/35 page 9 22. Indeed, corporate responsibility is being shaped through the interplay of two developments: one is the expansion and refinement of individual responsibility by the international ad hoc criminal tribunals and the ICC Statute; the other is the extension of responsibility for international crimes to corporations under domestic law. The complex interaction between the two is creating an expanding web of potential corporate liability for international crimes, imposed through national courts. 23. Individual responsibility under international law may arise by directly committing or instigating a crime, or for crimes committed by subordinates that a superior had reason to know would be committed, but failed to prevent. The international tribunals have also imposed liability for “aiding and abetting” a crime, or for engaging in a “common purpose” or “joint criminal enterprise”.18 No one-to-one mapping can be assumed between standards for natural and legal persons. But national courts interpreting corporate liability for international crimes have drawn on principles of individual responsibility, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did in its Unocal ruling.19 24. At the same time, the number of jurisdictions in which charges for international crimes can be brought against corporations is increasing, as countries ratify the ICC Statute and incorporate its definitions into domestic law. Where national legal systems already provide for criminal punishment of companies the international standards for individuals may be extended, thereby, to corporate entities.20 Even some ICC non-parties have incorporated one or more of the Statute’s crimes into their domestic laws, with potential legal implications for corporations.21 25. Domestic incorporation may also have an extraterritorial dimension. Several countries provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction with respect to international crimes committed by or 18 “Common purpose” applies where an individual participates in a common design involving the perpetration of a crime, and shares an intention to commit the crime. The ICTY has also developed the doctrine of “joint criminal enterprise” which applies where a crime other than the intended one occurs, and where the individual foresaw the risk but continued to participate. 19 Doe v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir, 2002). The case settled and the decision was vacated. 20 For a detailed survey of 16 countries from a cross-section of regions and legal systems, see Anita Ramasastry and Robert C. Thompson, Commerce, Crime and Conflict: Legal Remedies for Private Sector Liability for Grave Breaches of International Law - Executive Summary (2006) available at www.fafo.no/liabilities. Of the 16, 11 were States parties to the ICC and 9 had fully incorporated the three crimes of the Rome Statute; of these, 6 already provided for corporate criminal liability. Research has not been completed on all 104 countries that had ratified the Rome Statute as of November 2006. 21 The Fafo survey cites the examples of Japan, India, the United States, Indonesia, and Ukraine. The first three generally apply criminal laws to corporations.