Quality of Reasoning in International Criminal Tribunals

  • Marjan AjevskiEmail author
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 69)


It is not unreasonable to say that international criminal law is, for the most part, a judge made law. For better or worse, given the diffused nature of its sources of law as well as the institutions built to enforce it, the rising case law gave the international criminal courts a chance and a burden to develop international criminal law into an expansive, and familiar, branch of international law. In this Chapter, I attempt to analyse and elaborate the main vehicle through which this transformation has taken place—the judgements of the courts—in terms of the quality of their reasoning. I will piece together some general rules of thumb that have been created in the branch of international criminal law to assess the quality of reasoning of the different International Criminal Courts. My focus will be the work of the International Criminal Court, although the work of the ICC rests to a large degree on the work of the previous ad hoc tribunals. As such, I will analyse the criticisms that have been levelled at the international criminal tribunals in terms of their interpretation and reasoning, highlight some of the continuing concerns and assess the ICC’s current practice.


  1. Ajevski M (2012) Judicial law-making in international criminal law—the legitimacy conundrum. Select Proc European Soc Int Law 3:127–141Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez J (2005) International organizations as law-makers. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Bass GJ (2000) Stay the hand of vengeance: the politics of war crimes tribunals. Princeton University Press, Princeton, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Bianchi A (2015) The game of interpretation in international law: the players, the cards, and why the game is worth the candle. In: Bianchi A, Peat D, Windsor M (eds) Interpretation in international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bianchi A, Peat D, Windsor M (eds) (2015) Interpretation in international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Cassese A (2008) International criminal law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Damaska M (2008) What is the point of international criminal justice. Chi-Kent L Rev 83:329–364Google Scholar
  8. Dunoff JL, Trachtman JP (eds) (2009) Ruling the world?: constitutionalism, international law, and global governance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Fitzmaurice M, Elias OA, Merkouris P (eds) (2010) Treaty interpretation and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties: 30 years on. Martinus Nijhoff PublishersGoogle Scholar
  10. Ford S (2014) Complexity and efficiency at international criminal courts. Emory Int Law Rev 29(1):1–6Google Scholar
  11. Gardiner RK (2008) Treaty interpretation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldsmith J, Levinson D (2009) Law for states: international law, constitutional law, public law. Harvard Law Rev 122(7):1791–1868Google Scholar
  13. Grover L (2014) Interpreting crimes in the rome statute of the international criminal court. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hegreness MJ (2013) America’s fundamental and vanishing right to bail. Ariz L Rev 55:909Google Scholar
  15. Kirsch P, Holmes JT (1999) The Rome conference on an international criminal court: the negotiating process. American J Int Law 93(1):2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koskenniemi M (2012) Hegemonic regimes. In: Young MA (ed) Regime interaction in international law: facing fragmentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 305–324Google Scholar
  17. Koskenniemi M, Leino P (2002) Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties. Leiden J Int Law 15(03):553–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lasser MDS-O-L (2009) Judicial deliberations: a comparative analysis of judicial transparency and legitimacy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Letsas G (2010) Strasbourg’s Interpretive ethic: lessons for the international lawyer. Eur J Int Law 21(3):509–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marrus MR (1997) The Nuremberg war crimes trial, 1945-46: a documentary history. Bedford Books, Boston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Payandeh M (2010) The concept of international law in the jurisprudence of HLA Hart. Eur J Int Law 21(4):967–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Robinson D (2008) The identity crisis of international criminal law. Leiden J Int Law 21(04):925–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Romano C, Alter K, Sebregondi F (2014) Illustrations: a reader’s guide (1. International Judicial bodies: A Taxonomic Timeline). In: Romano C, Alter K, Shany Y (eds) The oxford handbook of international adjudication. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 27–39Google Scholar
  24. Schabas WA (2003) Interpreting the statutes of the ad hoc tribunals. Man’s Inhumanity to Man 848Google Scholar
  25. Schabas WA (2009) Victor’s justice: selecting situations at the international criminal court. J Marshall L Rev 43:535Google Scholar
  26. Shahabuddeen M (2007) Precedent in the world court. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (2014) In whose name?: a public law theory of international adjudication. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weiner P (2013) The evolving jurisprudence of the crime of rape in international criminal law. Boston College Law Rev 54(3):1207–1217Google Scholar
  29. Zappalà S (2003) Human rights in international criminal proceedings. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law SchoolThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations