Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 693–712 | Cite as

Reflections on Punishment from a Global Perspective: An Exploration of Chehtman’s The Philosophical Foundations of Extraterritorial Punishment

Book Review


In this review essay, I offer reflections on three themes. I begin by exploring Alejandro Chehtman’s expressed methodological commitments. I argue that his views move him closer to Lon Fuller and away from the thin accounts offered by HLA Hart and Joseph Raz. Moreover, to make sense of his views, he must offer a more normatively robust theory of law. Second, I turn to his use of Raz’s theory of authority. I argue that Chehtman fails to distinguish between Raz’s views and his own, but more importantly, I maintain that his discussion of Raz is superfluous: in the course of “unpacking” Raz’s views, he leads us back to his own core theses. Finally, I explore Chehtman’s ability to deal with perennial worries that plague any attempt to offer a justification for International Criminal Law in general, and the International Criminal Court in particular (i.e., “victor’s justice”, “show trials”, “peace vs. justice”). I argue that unless Chehtman is able to demonstrate that the enforcement of International Criminal Law is able to impart dignity and security on the most vulnerable, his account will be significantly weakened.


International Criminal Law Punishment Extra-territorial Raz Universal jurisdiction 


  1. Brudner, A. (2013). The Unity of the Common Law: Studies in Hegelian Jurisprudence, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chehtman, A. (2010). The Philosophical Foundations of Extraterritorial Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Drumbl, M. (2007). Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Finnis, J. (2001). Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Friedman, J. (2008). Law and Politics in the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, 1946-1949. In Herberer, P. and Matthäues J. (Eds.), Atrocities on Trial: Historical Perspectives on the Politics of Prosecuting War Crimes. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 91-95.Google Scholar
  6. Fuller, L. (1958). Positivism and Fidelity to Law—A Reply to Professor Hart. Harvard Law Review 71 (4), 646-657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuller, L. (1969). The Morality of Law, revised edn. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Green, L. (1989). Law, Legitimacy and Consent. Southern California Law Review 62, 795-825.Google Scholar
  9. Hart, HLA (1958). Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review 71 (4), 619-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hart, HLA (1994). The Concept of Law, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kastner, P. (2007-8). The ICC in Darfur: Saviour or Spoiler? International Law Students Association Journal of International and Comparative Law 14, 145-188.Google Scholar
  12. Kostal, R. (forthcoming, 2014). Laying Down the Law: The United States and the Legal Reconstruction of Germany and Japan Cambridge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Martin, M. (2010). The Morality of Freedom: Two Models of Authority. Jurisprudence 1, 63-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin, M. (2011). International Criminal Law: Between Utopian Dreams and Political Realities. In François Tanguay-Renaud and James Stribopoulos (Eds.), Rethinking Criminal Law Theory: New Canadian Perspectives in the Philosophy of Domestic, Transnational, and International Criminal Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 249–266.Google Scholar
  15. Martin, M. (2014). Judging Positivism. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. May, L. (2011). Global Justice and Due Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Megret, F. (2002). Three Dangers for the International Criminal Court: A Critical Look at a Consensual Project. Finnish Yearbook of International Law XII, 193-247.Google Scholar
  18. Megret, F. (2009). Beyond Fairness: Understanding the Determinants of International Criminal Procedure. UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs 14, 37-76.Google Scholar
  19. Ohlin, J.D. (2007). Three Conceptual Problems with the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise. Journal of International Criminal Justice 5, 69-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paciocco, D. and Stuesser, L. (2008). The Law of Evidence, revised 5th edn. Toronto: Irwin Law.Google Scholar
  21. Plant, R. (2011). Freedom, Coercion, Necessary Goods and the Rule of Law. Jurisprudence 2 (1), 10-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Raz, J. (1986). The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Schauer, S. (forthcoming, 2014). The Force of Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Simmonds, N. (2007). Law as a Moral Idea. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Zimmerman, M.J. (2011). The Immorality of Punishment. Toronto: Broadview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations