Is There Even a Standard of Review at the icc?

Abstract

Abstract Most practitioners of icl thought that that the Appeals Chamber employed three putatively distinct standards of review with respect to questions of facts, law, and the exercise of discretion: respectively correctness, reasonableness, and abuse of discretion. However, the Bemba Appeals Decision turned this all on its head. The Appeals Chamber found (by the narrowest 3–2 vote) that while correctness remained the standard of review with respect to errors of law, errors of fact would no longer be reviewed on a purely reasonableness standard. Although the Bemba decision provoked immediate outrage, this article argues that the jurisprudence of the icc was never clear on the standard of view – pace the view of many scholars. Analysing the decisions of the Appeals Chamber, it shows that the debate between correctness and reasonableness had never been fully resolved. It concludes with a proposal for how the court might simplify its approach.