Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 52 (2020) Crime as Cognitive Constraint corporate executive of the radio station, Kass FM, where he aired his vitriolic statements as a radio host. 195 The controversy that remains pertains to the prosecution of the corporate entity. Currently, there is no consensus on corporate criminal liability under international law. This, along with the continuing massive influence of corporations globally, 196 contribute to scholarly preoccupation on the topic. At the time of drafting of the Rome Statute, the proposal to prosecute corporations was rejected due to a lack of state practice, which would have the effect of undermining the principle of complementarity.197 Caroline Kaeb argues that the landscape has changed since then.198 More national jurisdictions presently recognize corporate criminal liability; no less than the Special Tribunal for Lebanon acknowledged in 2014 that legal persons are not exempt from international criminal prosecution. 199 David Scheffer offers two viable options in effecting the change on the international plane: either amend Article 25(1) of the Rome Statute, so that the ICC is expressly given jurisdiction to prosecute juridical persons, or negotiate an optional protocol to the Rome Statute that would allow the prosecution of corporations, subject to the same process that an Article 25(1) amendment would entail. 200 Despite the elaborate and politically challenging exercise of treaty negotiations, some aver that the benefit of an amendment is not in seeing more corporations prosecuted before the ICC (whose limited resources and strict JURISTS EXPERT LEGAL INTERNATIONAL CRIMES COMPLICITY REPORT]. PANEL ON CORPORATE COMPLICITY IN 12-15 (2008) [hereinafter CORPORATE 195. See Joshua Arap Sang, TRIAL INTERNATIONAL (Aug. 23, 2016), https://trialinternational.org/latest-post/joshua-arap-sang/ [https://perma.cc/LN32-VWJ9]. 196. See Caroline Kaeb, The Shifting Sands of Corporate Liability under International Criminal Law, 49 GEO. WASH. INT’L L. REV. 351, 354-55 (2017); David Scheffer, Corporate Liability under the Rome Statute, 57 HARV. INT’L L. J. 35, 38 (2016); van den Herik & Cernic, supra note 193, at 725. 197. This was due to the lack of customary international law on domestic prosecutions of corporations for similar acts, which would undermine the defining feature of the Rome Statute – the principle of complementarity. See Scheffer, supra note 196, at 38. 198. Kaeb, supra note 196, at 379–81. 199. See Kaeb, supra note 196 at 379-381 (discussing the implications of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon case, Al Jadeed S.A.L. and Karma AlKhayat case); See also In the Case Against New TV S.A.L. and Karma Mohamed Tahsin al Khayat, STL- 14-05/PT/AP/ARI26.1, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Personal Jurisdiction in Contempt Proceedings, ¶ 74 (Special Trib. for Leb. Oct. 2, 2014). 200. Scheffer, supra note 196, at 38-39; See also Kaeb, supra note 196, at 382. 176