International Criminal Retribution

It is possible to argue that the international criminal regime is based on a retributive system and that international criminal proceedings are focused upon the punishment of individual perpetrators. This peculiar function has been prevalent in international criminal law since its beginning (McCarthy, 2012). A proof of this is given by The International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg, which gives us a tangible evidence of the retributive system in one of its judgments, when it declared that international crimes are committed against international law by specific perpetrators and that the only way to enforce the provisions of international law is punishing those criminals (McCarthy, 2012). With the concept of retribution I mean the general

Furthermore, this retribution system is reflected in the regime’s main goal to end impunity. Indeed, in the Rome Statute is clearly explained that the International Criminal Court’s main aim is punishing the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes that involved the international community (Woods, 2012). These examples are not a irrefutable proof of retribution, but they are indicative of the retributive impulse (Woods, 2012). How can the international crimes’ request for retributive action be explained? One of the goals of the international criminal law is retribution for international crimes and thus, it could be justified on its own terms (Woods, 2012). Furthermore, the need of a retributive action can even reflect the opinion that punishment for heinous crimes has value in itself, this means that there is a fundamental value in prosecuting those guilty for gross atrocities. According to this point, punishment is not requested to serve any specific practical purpose. Another explanation is that retribution is justified by its own utility, in the sense that punishing the criminals is a useful way to achieve the international criminal regime’s goals, such as reconciliation, individuation of guilt, historical documentation and deterrence (Woods, 2012). However, retribution is based on the

There are, indeed, different ways in which criminal justice can be regulated in addition to the prosecution and punishment of individuals (McCarthy, 2012). In fact, given the particular context in which international criminal justice institutions exist, including the phenomenon of mass participation and responsibility, the selectivity of international prosecutions, and the apparent inadequacy of individual punishment in the face of the grave harm caused by mass atrocity, a different approach to the administration of international criminal justice may seem advantageous for international community in the whole (McCarthy, 2012). What history of atrocities taught us is that often victims of international crimes do not only search for punishment, even though it is not insignificant, but rather for the acknowledgment of the fact that what they were made to suffer was unlawful and that the individual responsible for those actions are aware of it (McCarthy, 2012). The final aim of justice and accountability should be helping to achieve peace and reconciliation. Peace is not merely the absence of armed conflict, but it is the restoration of justice, and the capacity of the international criminal law to mediate