Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mass Atrocities, Retributivism, and the Threshold Challenge

  • Published:
Res Publica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to direct attention to a challenge—referred to as the threshold challenge—facing a non-absolutist retributivist view on international criminal justice. It is argued, on the one hand, that this challenge constitutes a practically pertinent problem for the retributivist approach to the punishment of mass crimes and, on the other, that it is very hard to imagine any principled way of meeting this challenge.

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. The Rome Statute, Article 5. The subject-matter jurisdiction of the ICC is limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and—though not in practice—aggression.

  2. For an optimistic view, see for instance Ellis (2001). A more sceptical view is presented by Wilkins (2001).

  3. See, for instance, Ryberg (2004), Introduction.

  4. See, for instance, May (2005, Ch. 13). For a fine critical discussion of amnesty as a means to the termination of armed conflict, see Méndez (2000).

  5. For instance, an amnesty proposal was offered in Kenya to persuade the leader Daniel Arap Moi to step down in favour of elections, see May (2002, p. 245).

  6. In the following, I draw on Malamud-Goti (1990).

  7. See, for instance, Méndez (2000, p. 40) or Beigbeder (1999, p. 119).

  8. The traditional argument was advanced by McCloskey (1962, 1972). However, the objection has become a standard argument in modern retributivist literature.

  9. See, for instance, Ross (1967, p. 61); Fried (1978, p. 10), and more recently Primiratz (1998, p. 60).

  10. See Kagan (1998, Ch. 3.2) and Ryberg (2005).

  11. See Fichtelberg (2005).

  12. ‘Let the world perish so long as justice be done’.

References

  • Beigbeder, Yves. 1999. Judging war criminals. Great Britain: Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, Anthony. 2001. What should we do with war criminals? In War crimes and collective wrondoing, ed. Aleksander Jokic. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fichtelberg, Aaron. 2005. Crimes beyond Justice? Retributivism and war crimes. Criminal Justice Ethics 21: 31–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried, Charles. 1978. Right and wrong. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, Shelly. 1998. Normative ethics. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malamud-Goti, Jaime. 1990. Transitional government in the breach: Why punish state criminals? Human Rights Quarterly 12: 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, Larry. 2005. Crimes against humanity. A normative account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, H. J. 1962. The complexity of the concept of punishment. Philosophy 37: 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, H. J. 1972. A non-utilitarian approach to punishment. In Philosophical perspectives on punishment, ed. Gertrude Ezorsky. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Méndez, Juan E. 2000. National reconciliation, transitional justice, and the international criminal court. Ethics and International Affairs 15: 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Primiratz, Igor. 1998. Justifying legal punishment. London: Humanities Press Int.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, William David. 1967. The right and the good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryberg, Jesper. 2004. The ethics of proportionate punishment. A critical investigation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryberg, Jesper. 2005. Mercy and justice in criminal law. SATS–Nordic Journal of Philosophy 6: 75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallgren, Immi. 2002. The sensibility and sense of international criminal law. European Journal of International Law 13: 561–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, Buerleigh T. 2001. Whose trial? Whose reconciliation? In War crimes and collective wrondoing, ed. Aleksander Jokic. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, The University of Roskilde, P6, Post Box 260, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark

    Jesper Ryberg

Authors
  1. Jesper Ryberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesper Ryberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ryberg, J. Mass Atrocities, Retributivism, and the Threshold Challenge. Res Publica 16, 169–179 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-010-9113-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-010-9113-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation