Abstract
Abstract Throughout the history of international criminal justice, it has been the source of fierce debate whether institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC) can prevent atrocity crimes from being committed by putting coercive judicial pressure on potential rule-breakers. Theories and insights drawn from the domestic literature on criminal justice have shaped much of this debate — based on the assumption that international criminal justice is essentially an internationalized version of domestic criminal justice (what I term the ‘domestic origin’ approach). The present article challenges this perspective by pointing out its shortcomings. It suggests that we should instead — or, at least, additionally — treat these international courts and tribunals as sui generis institutions imbedded in the world of international politics. From this perspective we can therefore draw on rationalist approaches to coercive power within the field of International Relations (IR) to analyse these institutions' coercive capacity. Unlike the domestic origin approach, this would allow researchers to draw on existing work on coercive power focusing on scenarios that play out in the kind of setting (major intra- or interstate conflicts) and involve the types of people (leaders of nations, armies and militias) which courts like the ICC were built to deal with.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.