Chicago Journal of International Law may be punished for the commission of Article III acts, such as genocide and direct and public incitement to commit genocide.159 The ICTY and ICTR Statutes granted jurisdiction over “natural persons,” which necessarily include individuals acting on behalf of businesses.160 Thus, this Comment proceeds having established that individuals acting on behalf of corporations are fully capable of committing international crimes. As demonstrated by The Zyklon B Case, such individuals may also be complicit in the commission of a substantive offense. V. H OW S OCIAL M EDIA C OMPANIES C OULD B E C OMPLICIT IN I NCITEMENT TO G ENOCIDE Thus far, this Comment has concluded the following: (1) the direct and public incitement to commit genocide is a crime; (2) an actor may be complicit in the direct and public incitement to commit genocide via aiding and abetting liability or, as is more likely, common purpose liability; and (3) while international criminal liability cannot extend to a corporation, liability can reach individuals working on behalf of that corporation. Applying these principles, this Section examines whether social media companies put their employees at risk of international criminal liability when they provide inciters with a platform. Specifically, this Comment illustrates—through the example of Facebook in Myanmar—how complicity would apply to individuals at three levels of the corporate hierarchy: the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), the manager, and the content moderator.161 By applying the theory of complicity in incitement to the foregoing cases, this Section highlights the sweeping ramifications of this novel theory, as well as its limitations. Such results ought to provoke broader discussion about whether the ICC should more seriously consider the prosecution of social media executives and how social media companies can reduce their employees’ exposure to criminal liability. 159 160 161 Genocide Convention, supra note 31, at art. IV. ICTR Statute, supra note 37, at art. 5; ICTY Statute, supra note 37, at art. 6. For the sake of legal analysis, this Comment relies on facts drawn primarily from two sources, the 2018 reports of the U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (IIFFMM) and an August 2018 special report by Reuters. This Comment assumes the information elucidated by these sources to be true. It is important to note that investigations related to potential genocide and other crimes in Myanmar are ongoing. All assessments regarding the potential culpability of individuals at Facebook are purely academic exercises designed to evoke reflection on the broader question of when social media companies may be complicit in direct and public incitement to commit genocide. 106 Vol. 21 No. 1