103 225. It should be emphasised that reference to national legislation and case law only serves to show that the notion of common purpose upheld in international criminal law has an underpinning in many national systems. By contrast, in the area under discussion, national legislation and case law cannot be relied upon as a source of international principles or rules, under the doctrine of the general principles of law recognised by the nations of the world: for this reliance to be permissible, it would be necessary to show that most, if not all, countries adopt the same notion of common purpose. More specifically, it would be necessary to show that, in any case, the major legal systems of the world take the same approach to this notion. The above brief survey shows that this is not the case. Nor can reference to national law have, in this case, the scope and purport adumbrated in general terms by the United Nations Secretary-General in his Report, where it is pointed out that “suggestions have been made that the international tribunal should apply domestic law in so far as it incorporates customary international humanitarian law”. 292 In the area under discussion, domestic law does not originate from the implementation of international law but, rather, to a large extent runs parallel to, and precedes, international regulation. 226. The Appeals Chamber considers that the consistency and cogency of the case law and the treaties referred to above, as well as their consonance with the general principles on criminal responsibility laid down both in the Statute and general international criminal law 289 E.g., in Maine (17 Maine Criminal Code § 57 (1997), Minnesota (Minnesota Statutes § 609.05 (1998)), Iowa (Iowa Code § 703.2 (1997)), Kansas (Kansas Statutes § 21-3205 (19997)), Wisconsin (Wisconsin Statutes § 939.05 (West 1995)). Although there is no clearly defined doctrine of common purpose under the United States’ Federal common law, similar principles are promulgated by the Pinkerton doctrine. This doctrine imposes criminal liability for acts committed in furtherance of a common criminal purpose, whether the acts are explicitly planned or not, provided that such acts might have been reasonably contemplated as a probable consequence or likely result of the common criminal purpose (see Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S. Ct. 1180, 90 L. Ed. 1489 (1946); State v. Walton, 227 Conn. 32; 630 A.2d 990 (1993); State of Connecticut v. Diaz, 237 Conn. 518, 679 A. 2d 902 (1996)). 290 Under Australian law, when two parties embark on a joint criminal enterprise, a party will be liable for an act which he contemplates may be carried out by the other party in the course of the enterprise, even if he has not explicitly or tacitly agreed to the commission of that act (McAuliffe v. R. (1995) 183 CLR 108 at 114). The test for determining whether a crime falls within the scope of the relevant joint enterprise is the subjective test of contemplation: “in accordance with the emphasis which the law now places upon the actual state of mind of an accused person, the test has become a subjective one, and the scope of the common purpose is to be determined by what was contemplated by the parties sharing that purpose” (ibid.). 291 Article 22 of the Penal Code states: “When two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence.” 292 See Report of the Secretary-General, para. 36 (emphasis added). Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999