Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 9
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Kim, Sangkul 2016. A Collective Theory of Genocidal Intent.


    MÉGRET, FRÉDÉRIC 2016. The Anxieties of International Criminal Justice. Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 29, Issue. 01, p. 197.


    ROBINSON, DARRYL 2015. Inescapable Dyads: Why the International Criminal Court Cannot Win. Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, Issue. 02, p. 323.


    SADAT, LEILA NADYA and JOLLY, JARROD M. 2014. Seven Canons of ICC Treaty Interpretation: Making Sense of Article 25's Rorschach Blot. Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, Issue. 03, p. 755.


    Stoyanova, Vladislava 2014. ARTICLE 4 OF THE ECHR AND THE OBLIGATION OF CRIMINALISING SLAVERY, SERVITUDE, FORCED LABOUR AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 3, Issue. 2, p. 407.


    ROBINSON, DARRYL 2013. A Cosmopolitan Liberal Account of International Criminal Law. Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, Issue. 01, p. 127.


    STAHN, CARSTEN 2012. EDITORIAL: Between ‘Faith’ and ‘Facts’: By What Standards Should We Assess International Criminal Justice?. Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, Issue. 02, p. 251.


    Young, Rebecca 2011. ‘INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HUMAN RIGHTS’ BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 60, Issue. 01, p. 189.


    Kevin Jon Heller, 2010. Review. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 104, Issue. 1, p. 154.


    ×

The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law

Abstract
Abstract

The general narrative of international criminal law (ICL) declares that the system adheres in an exemplary manner to the fundamental principles of a liberal criminal justice system. Recent scholarship has increasingly questioned the adherence of various ICL doctrines to such principles. This article scrutinizes the discourse of ICL – the assumptions and forms of argumentation that are regarded as sound reasoning with appropriate liberal aims. This article argues that ICL, in drawing on national criminal law and international human rights law, absorbed contradictory assumptions and methods of reasoning. The article explores three modes by which the assumptions of human rights liberalism subtly undermine the criminal law liberalism to which the system aspires. These modes include interpretive approaches, substantive and structural conflation, and ideological assumptions. The identity crisis theory helps to explain how a system that strives to serve as a model for liberal criminal justice systems has come to embrace illiberal doctrines that contradict the system's fundamental principles.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

G. Werle and F. Jessberger , ‘“Unless Otherwise Provided”: Article 30 of the ICC Statute and the Mental Element of Crimes under International Criminal Law’, (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice 35

H.-H. Jescheck , ‘The General Principles of International Criminal Law Set Out in Nuremberg, as Mirrored in the ICC Statute’, (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 38, at 44

G. Williams , ‘Conviction and Fair Labelling’, (1983) 42 Cambridge Law Journal 85

G. Fletcher and J. D. Ohlin , ‘Reclaiming Fundamental Principles in the Darfur Case’, (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice 539, at 541

M. Damaska , ‘The Shadow Side of Command Responsibility’, (2001) 49 American Journal of Comparative Law 455, at 495

J. K. Robbennolt , ‘Outcome Severity and Judgments of “Responsibility”: A Meta-Analytical Review’, (2000) 30 Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2575

J. Lucas , C. Graif , and M. Lovaglia , ‘Misconduct in the Prosecution of Severe Crimes: Theory and Experimental Test’, (2006) 69 Social Psychology Quarterly 97

R. Posner , ‘What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everyone Else Does)’, (1993) 3 Supreme Court Economic Review 1

H. Kissinger , ‘The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction’, (2001) 80 Foreign Affairs 86, at 86

K. Roach , ‘Four Models of the Criminal Process’, (1999) 89 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 671

H. van der Wilt , ‘JCE: Possibilities and Limitations’, (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 91, at 92

N. Piacente , ‘Importance of the Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine for the ICTY Prosecutorial Policy’, (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 446

K. Hamdorf , ‘The Concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise and Domestic Modes of Liability for Parties to a Crime’, (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 208

V. Haan , ‘The Development of the Concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, (2005) 5 International Criminal Law Review 167

J. D. Ohlin , ‘Three Conceptual Problems with the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise’, (2006) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 69

K. Ambos , ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility’, (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 159

M. E. Badar , ‘Just Convict Everyone! Joint Perpetration from Tadic to Stakic and Back Again’, (2006) 6 International Criminal Law Review 293

S. Powles , ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise: Criminal Liability by Prosecutorial Ingenuity and Judicial Creativity?’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 606, at 611

A. Cassese , ‘The Proper Limits of Individual Responsibility under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise’, (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 109, at 121

E. van Sliedregt , ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Pathway to Convicting Individuals for Genocide’, (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 184

C. Douzinas , ‘Human Rights and Postmodern Utopia’, (2000) 11 Law and Critique 219

I. R. Wall , ‘Duress, International Criminal Law and Literature’, (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 724

A. Fichtelberg , ‘Liberal Values in International Criminal Law: A Critique of Erdemović’, (2008) 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice 3

G. Fletcher , ‘Complicity’, (1996) 30 Israel Law Review 140, at 144

C. Greenwood , ‘Command Responsibility and the Hadžihasanovic Decision’, (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 598, at 608

D. Hunt , ‘High Hopes, “Creative Ambiguity” and an Unfortunate Mistrust in International Judges’, (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 56, at 57–8, 68 and 70

P. Robinson , ‘Fair Notice and Fair Adjudication: Two Kinds of Legality’, (2005) 154 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 335, at 340, 344

M. Reisman , ‘Legal Responses to Genocide and Other Massive Violations of Human Rights’, (1996) 59 Law and Contemporary Problems 75, at 77

D. Luban , A. Strudler , and D. Wasserman , ‘Moral Responsibility in the Age of Bureaucracy’, (1992) 90 Michigan Law Review 2348

G. Fletcher , ‘Collective Guilt and Collective Punishment’, (2004) 5 Theoretical Inquiries in Law, available at www.bepress.com/til/default/vol5/iss1/art6, esp. at 168–9 and 173–4

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Leiden Journal of International Law
  • ISSN: 0922-1565
  • EISSN: 1478-9698
  • URL: /core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords: