Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The ICC and the Prevention of Atrocities: Criminological Perspectives

  • Published:
Human Rights Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the founding principles of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is the prevention of atrocities by punishing those most responsible for them. This paper builds on the literature that has both hailed and critiqued the prospects of the ICC’s ability to deter future atrocities, adding insights from criminology and psychology to enhance the understanding of the ICC’s deterrent capabilities. This will allow for a more careful analysis of how the deterrence process exactly works. The paper then uses these insights to examine the ICC’s experiences over the past 14 years with deterring offenders. The main findings are that, although the ICC can constructively contribute to a normative shift toward accountability and a change in international rules of legitimacy, its prospects for the direct and meaningful deterrence of future atrocities are slim. The current practice of relying on the ICC as a crisis management tool is therefore both unwise and unfair.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See the Preamble of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (1998). In fact, according to Meernik (2013), all founding documents of the international tribunals established so far stress the belief in the deterrent effect of legal sanctions.

  2. In this article, the term “atrocities” is used to refer to crimes that fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction, namely crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.

  3. On a side note, as Jacobs (2010) explains, the human brain is always seeking to explain the events that occur and the things that we do. Therefore, we tend to rationalize them and seek explanations that justify our actions. However, this “retrospective rationality” does not mean that the decisions that preceded these actions were always based on a rational decision-making process. They “are not necessarily reflective of [the] thought process in situ” (p. 424).

  4. Although even the effect of certainty has been judged to be “modest to negligible” (Lilly et al. 2011, p. 347).

  5. This framework might additionally have some predictive value. I hesitate to make this claim too forcefully, however. More empirical and experimental research would be needed to bear out the applicability of the assumptions and theories stipulated here in real-life conflict situations.

  6. It must be emphasized that these authors do not suggest that all group violence is essentially irrational or that all these perpetrators were “genocidal fanatics.” Rather, they explain the mass participation in atrocities by pointing at factors that affect the considerations of these on-the-ground perpetrators, usually concluding that even a “normal” person is capable of such heinous acts if put in the right circumstances.

  7. According to Tversky and Kahneman (1973)’s availability heuristic, such easily retrievable pieces of information have a disproportionate effect on a decision-making process.

  8. Indeed, Ku and Nzelibe (2006) stress that most of those who order atrocities often face death when they fail to hold on to power. Thus, the disincentive that the ICC delivers to stop committing atrocities is far weaker than the disincentive of abandoning power, which possibly results in death.

  9. In fact, Straus (2008) and Verwimp (2013) argue that the perpetrators of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda were primarily driven by such incentives. Although this research has focused more on the lower and middle-level perpetrators, its points are probably relevant across cases and for a broader category of perpetrators.

  10. A fairly recent strain in the political science literature seems to counter the skepticism about deterrence that criminology elicits. An important representative recent example is the study by Jo and Simmons (2016). They present empirical data to argue for a significant impact of both prosecutorial and social deterrence factors on the number of civilians killed. Although some of their claims are addressed in further detail below, it is worth considering that their study scrutinizes the impact of the ICC on violence levels within civil war-affected countries, not the micro-level dynamics of deterrence (what an individual’s reaction is likely to be), which are the focus of this study. Accordingly, although Jo and Simmons (and the strand in political science they represent) make a praiseworthy contribution to the debate, they do not necessarily contradict the claims made here. The focus of their study is different, and the implications of their conclusions are limited.

  11. The ICC’s complementarity regime, which only allows the ICC to act when states have been found to be either unwilling or unable to hold prosecutions themselves, would have prevented the ICC from intervening if perpetrators were consistently held to account.

  12. This argument is reminiscent of the idea of a “justice cascade,” proposed by Sikkink (2011).

References

  • Akhavan P (2009) Are International Criminal Tribunals a Disincentive to Peace?: Reconciling Judicial Romanticism with Political Realism. Hum Rights Quart 31: 624–654. doi: 10.1353/hrq.0.0096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akhavan P (2011) Preventing Genocide: Measuring Success by What Does Not Happen. Criminal Law Forum 22: 1–33. doi: 10.1007/s10609-011-9130-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akhavan P (2013) The Rise, and Fall, and Rise, of International Criminal Justice. Journal of International Criminal Justice 11: 527–536. doi: 10.1093/jicj/mqt028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez A (2006) Militias and Genocide. War Crimes, Genocide & Crimes Against Humanity 2: 1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez A (2008) Destructive Beliefs: Genocide and the Role of Ideology. In Smeulers A, Haveman R (eds) Supranational Criminology: Towards a Criminology of International Crimes. Springer, Berlin, pp. 213–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2015) The State of the World’s Human Rights: Report 2014/2015. Amnesty International, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Apel R (2013) Sanctions, Perceptions, and Crime: Implications for Criminal Deterrence. J Quant Criminol 29: 67–101. doi: 10.1007/s10940-012-9170-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer MS (2000) Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • BBC News (2014) Sudan President Bashir Hails ‘Victory’ over ICC Charges. BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30467167. Accessed 20 May 2016

  • Beccaria C (1764[1986]) On Crimes and Punishments. Trans. David Young. Hackett Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA

  • Benedict K (2013) The Countries That Support Referring Syria to the International Criminal Court and Some Absent ‘Friends’. Amnesty International. http://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/campaigns/syria-icc-international-criminal-court. Accessed 20 May 2016

  • Bensouda F (2012) Keynote Address: Setting the Record Straight: The ICC’s New Prosecutor Responds to African Concerns. Institute for Security Studies. http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/10Oct2012ICCKeyNoteAddress. Accessed 20 May 2016

  • Bentham J (1789[1988]) The Principles of Morals and Legislation. Prometheus Books, Amherst

  • Bhavnani R (2006) Ethnic Norms and Interethnic Violence: Accounting for Mass Participation in the Rwandan Genocide. J Peace Res 43: 651–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonanno A (2006) The Economic Analysis of Offender’s Choice: Old and New Insights. Rivista Internazionale Di Scienze Economiche E Commerciali 53: 193–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosco DL (2011) The International Criminal Court and Crime Prevention: Byproduct or Conscious Goal? Michigan State University College of Law Journal of International Law 19: 163–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosco DL (2014) Rough Justice: The International Criminal Court in a World of Power Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouffard JA (2002) The Influence of Emotion on Rational Decision Making in Sexual Aggression. J Crim Just 30: 121–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowcott O (2014) ICC Drops Murder and Rape Charges against Kenyan President. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/05/crimes-humanity-charges-kenya-president-dropped-uhuru-kenyatta. Accessed 20 May 2016

  • Cantor D, Engstrom P (2011) In the Shadow of the ICC: Colombia and International Criminal Justice. Human Rights Consortium, University of London. http://www.academia.edu/1383204/In_the_Shadow_of_the_ICC_Colombia_and_International_Criminal_Justice. Accessed 20 May 2016

  • Chung CH (2008) The Punishment and Prevention of Genocide: The International Criminal Court as a Benchmark of Progress and Need. Case West R J Int L 40: 227–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Coalition for the International Criminal Court (2015) Ukraine: Deter Grave Crimes by Joining ICC. #GlobalJustice Blog of the Coalition of the International Criminal Court. https://ciccglobaljustice.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/ukraine-deter-grave-crimes-by-joining-icc/. Accessed 20 May 2016

  • Cronin-Furman K (2013) Managing Expectations: International Criminal Trials and the Prospects for Deterrence of Mass Atrocity. International Journal of Transitional Justice 7: 434–454. doi: 10.1093/ijtj/ijt016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drumbl MA (2007) Atrocity, Punishment and International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glasius M (2013) Too Much Law, Not Enough Justice? The Dominant Role of the Legal Discourse in Transitional Justice. Paper presented at the conference Making Peace and Justice: Images, Histories, Memories, Utrecht, the Netherlands

  • Green M (2008) The Wizard of the Nile: The Hunt for Africa’s Most Wanted. Portobello Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Greifeneder R, Bless H, Pham MT (2011) When Do People Rely on Affective and Cognitive Feelings in Judgment? A Review. Personal and Social Psychology Review 15: 107–141. doi: 10.1177/1088868310367640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafner-Burton EM (2008) Sticks and Stones: Naming and Shaming the Human Rights Enforcement Problem. Int Organ 62: 689–716. doi: 10.1017/S0020818308080247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haveman R, Smeulers A (2008) Criminology in a State of Denial—Towards a Criminology of International Crimes: Supranational Criminology. In Smeulers A, Haveman R (eds) Supranational Criminology: Towards a Criminology of International Crimes. Springer, Berlin, pp. 3–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins D (2008) Power and Interests at the International Criminal Court. SAIS Rev 28: 107–119. doi: 10.1353/sais.0.0014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horney J, Marshall IH (1992) Risk Perceptions Among Serious Offenders: The Role of Crime and Punishment. Criminology 30: 575–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch (2015) West Africa: Regional Boko Haram Offensive. Human Rights Watch. http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/02/11/west-africa-regional-boko-haram-offensive. Accessed 20 May 2016

  • Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (2015) 10th Report of Commission of Inquiry on Syria. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session30/Documents/A_HRC_30_48_ENG.doc. Accessed 20 May 2016

  • Jacobs BA (2010) Deterrence and Deterrability. Criminology 48: 417–441. doi: 10.1111/j.1745- 9125.2010.00191.x

  • Jamieson R, McEvoy K (2005) State Crime by Proxy and Juridical Othering. Brit J Criminol 45: 504-527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo H, Simmons BA (2016) Can the International Criminal Court Deter Atrocity? Int Organ. Forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM (1997) Social Influence, Social Meaning, and Deterrence. VA Law Rev 83: 349–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2012) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin Books Ltd., London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kastner P (2014) Armed Conflicts and Referrals to the International Criminal Court: From Measuring Impact to Emerging Legal Obligations. Journal of International Criminal Justice 12: 471–490. doi: 10.1093/jicj/mqu036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleck G et al. (2005) The Missing Link in General Deterrence Research. Criminology 43: 623–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krain M (2012) J’accuse! Does Naming and Shaming Perpetrators Reduce the Severity of Genocides or Politicides? Int Stud Quart 56: 574–589. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2012.00732.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroneberg C, Heintze I, Mehlkop G (2010) The Interplay of Moral Norms and Instrumental Incentives in Crime Causation. Criminology 48: 259–294. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00187.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroneberg C, Kalter F (2012) Rational Choice Theory and Empirical Research: Methodological and Theoretical Contributions in Europe. Annu Rev Sociol 38: 73–92. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ku J, Nzelibe J (2006) Do International Criminal Tribunals Deter or Exacerbate Humanitarian Atrocities? Washington University Law Review 84: 777–833

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilly JR, Cullen FT, Ball RA (2011) Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences, 5th edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein G (1996) Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec 65: 272–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch C (2014) Exclusive: U.S. to Support ICC War Crimes Prosecution in Syria. Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/05/07/exclusive-u-s-to-support-icc-war-crimes-prosecution-in-syria/. Accessed 20 May 2016

  • Meernik J (2013) Justice, Power and Peace: Conflicting Interests and the Apprehension of ICC Suspects. International Criminal Law Review 13: 169–190. doi: 10.1163/15718123-01301005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mennecke M (2007) Punishing Genocidaires: A Deterrent Effect or Not? Hum Rights Rev 8: 319–339. doi: 10.1007/s12142-007-0017-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram S (1974) Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller SD (2014) Kenya and the International Criminal Court (ICC): Politics, the Election and the Law. J East Afr Stud 8: 25–42. doi: 10.1080/17531055.2013.874142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins CW, Kauzlarich D, Rothe D (2004) The International Criminal Court and the Control of State Crime: Prospects and Problems. Critical Criminology 12: 285–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins CW, Rothe D (2008) Blood, Power, and Bedlam: Violations of International Criminal Law in Post-Colonial Africa. Peter Lang, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullins CW, Rothe DL (2010a) The Ability of the International Criminal Court to Deter Violations of International Criminal Law: A Theoretical Assessment. International Criminal Law Review 10: 771–786. doi: 10.1163/157181210X528414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins C, Rothe D (2010b) Beyond the Juristic Orientation of International Criminal Justice: The Relevance of Criminological Insight to International Criminal Law and Its Control: A Commentary. International Criminal Law Review 10: 97–110. doi: 10.1163/157181209X1258456267089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1993) Enduring Individual Differences and Rational Choice Theories of Crime. Law and Society Review 27: 467–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2001) Integrating Celerity, Impulsivity, and Extralegal Sanction Threats Into a Model of General Deterrence: Theory and Evidence. Criminology 39: 865–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubacher F (2006) How Can It Happen That Horrendous State Crimes Are Perpetrated? An Overview of Criminological Theories. Journal of International Criminal Justice 4: 787–799. doi: 10.1093/jicj/mql047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R (2010) How Much Do We Really Know About Criminal Deterrence? J Crim Law Crim 100: 765–823

    Google Scholar 

  • Pikis GM (2010) The Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. Analysis of the Statute, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Regulations of the Court and Supplementary Instruments. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

  • Pogarsky G (2007) Deterrence and Individual Differences Among Convicted Offenders. J Quant Criminol 23: 59–74. doi: 10.1007/s10940-006-9019-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogarsky G (2009) Deterrence and Decision Making: Research Questions and Theoretical Refinements. In Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Hall GP (eds) Handbook on Crime and Deviance. Springer New York, New York, pp. 241–258

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rodman KA (2008) Darfur and the Limits of Legal Deterrence. Hum Rights Quart 30: 529–560. doi: 10.1353/hrq.0.0012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothe DL (2010) Shedding the Blanket of Immunity: A Commentary on the Global Principle of Ending Impunity, Realpolitik, and Legal Precedent. Crime Law Social Ch 53: 397–412. doi: 10.1007/s10611-009-9229-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothe DL, Collins VE (2013) The International Criminal Court: A Pipe Dream to End Impunity? International Criminal Law Review 13: 191–206. doi: 10.1163/15718123-01301006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothe DL, Mullins CW (2006) Symbolic Gestures and the Generation of International Social Control: The International Criminal Court. Lexington Books, Plymouth, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands P (2013) Referring Syria to the International Criminal Court Is a Justified Gamble. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/syria-international-criminal-court-justified-gamble. Accessed 20 May 2016

  • Shafir E, LeBoeuf RA (2002) Rationality. Annu Rev Psychol 53: 491–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikkink K (2011) The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions are Changing World Politics. W.W. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloane RD (2007) The Expressive Capacity of International Punishment: The Limits of National Law Analogy and the Potential of International Criminal Law. Stanford J Int Law 43: 39–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeulers A, Grünfeld F (2011) International Crimes and Other Gross Human Rights Violations: A Multi- and Interdisciplinary Textbook. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder J (2000) From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict. W.W. Norton, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Staub E (1989) The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus S (2008) The Order of Genocide: Race, Power and War in Rwanda. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiemessen A (2014) The International Criminal Court and the politics of prosecutions. The International Journal of Human Rights 18: 444–461. doi: 10.1080/13642987.2014.901310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tittle CR, Botchkovar EV, Antonaccio O (2011) Criminal Contemplation, National Context, and Deterrence. J Quant Criminol 27: 225–249. doi: 10.1007/s10940-010-9104-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tladi D (2015) The Duty on South Africa to Arrest and Surrender President Al-Bashir under South African and International Law: A Perspective from International Law. Journal of International Criminal Justice 13: 1027–1047. doi: 10.1093/jicj/mqv057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability. Cognitive Psychol 5: 207–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentino BA (2014) Why We Kill: The Political Science of Political Violence against Civilians. Annu Rev Politi Sci 17: 89–103. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-082112-141937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verwimp P (2013) Peasants in Power: The Political Economy of Development and Genocide in Rwanda. Springer, Dordrecht and New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vinjamuri L (2010) Deterrence, Democracy, and the Pursuit of International Justice. Ethics and International Affairs 24: 191–211. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7093.2010.00256.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Feuerbach PJA (1799) Revision der Grundsätze und Grundbegriffe des positive peinlichen Rechts I. Henningsche Buchhandlung, Erfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller J (2002) Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams KR, Hawkins R (1986) Perceptional Research on General Deterrence: A Critical Review. Law and Society Review 20: 545–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wippman D (1999) Atrocities, Deterrence, and the Limits of International Justice. Fordham International Law Journal 23: 473–488

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Dr. Eamon Aloyo, Professor Mark Drumbl, Annelein Koot, Dr. Malini Laxminarayan, and Dr. Peter Malcontent, as well as three anonymous reviewers, for valuable feedback on earlier versions of this paper. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Conflict Prevention Program, The Hague Institute for Global Justice, Tom Buitelaar, Sophialaan 10, 2514 JR, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Tom Buitelaar

Authors
  1. Tom Buitelaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Buitelaar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buitelaar, T. The ICC and the Prevention of Atrocities: Criminological Perspectives. Hum Rights Rev 17, 285–302 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-016-0414-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-016-0414-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation