I am tempted to object to the argument that what is the closest to JCE among the mode of liability under the art. 25.3. is art. 25.3.(d).
JCE is a kind of "commit."
art. 25.3.(d) of the Rome Statue is "a residual form of accessory liability." (Lubanga, Case No ICC-01/04-01/06, Confirmation of Charges para. 337)
JCE better fits into "jointly with another" under art.25.3.(a)
art.25.3.(a) - as an individual (單獨正犯), jointly with another(共同正犯), and through another person (sort of 間接正犯)
art.25.3.(b) - 敎唆
art.25.3.(c) - 幇助
art.25.3.(d) - a residual form of accessory liability. Without restriction on the scope of accessory liability, the Prosecution will make every argument to expand accessory liability to loosely-related or remotely-proximated act, and, thus, impair the the spirit of nullum crimen sine lege. Art.25.3.(d) is designed to set a threshold for an act to constitute accessory liability.
One of the reasons that get people to think JCE in line with art.25.3.(d) is the efforts both make to resist the temptation to get on the hook all of those who got involved in a crime at issue.
Since JCE falls under "commit," the theory for co-perpetrator best fits for analysis of JCE I, II, and III.
