Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Theory of International Criminal Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Translating Guilt

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 9))

  • 399 Accesses

Abstract

A traditional understanding of the sources of international law according to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice denotes States as the predominant law-makers, and considers domestic case law to be merely a subsidiary source of law. This is a static view of the law, which does not take into account the actual processes by which certain branches of international law are formed. A more dynamic view is therefore proposed in this chapter. Law is understood not just as a reflection of policy, but as a process of interaction between various participants and policy-makers, such as judges, lawyers, scholars as well as formal law-makers. This dynamic view captures the way in which international law in general, and ICL in particular, is constantly being developed. It also allows a realistic view of the role of domestic law as it is translated to the international plane, which is necessary if we are to understand the ways in which modes of liability are developed and debated. ICL is conceived of as comparative law in action, whereby domestic criminal law notions are patchworked together to form a new body of law. A dynamic comparative theory of ICL is offered both as a methodology for understanding the process by which ICL develops, and as a method for analysing the question which model of liability is most appropriate for ICL. A comparative perspective on this patchworking can alleviate the current clash of legal cultures observable in the debates on liability, and can aid in making a selection from among all the possible translations from domestic criminal law.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Orford 2012, p. 616, citing Michel Foucault.

  2. 2.

    Robinson 2013, pp. 116–118.

  3. 3.

    Robinson 2013, p. 117; Fletcher and Ohlin 2005.

  4. 4.

    According to Statute of the ICJ 1945, Article 38(1)(d).

  5. 5.

    Statute of the ICC 1998, Article 21(c).

  6. 6.

    Ambos 2007, p. 431.

  7. 7.

    Ambos 2007, p. 433.

  8. 8.

    Schabas 2010, p. 423.

  9. 9.

    Preparatory Commission Report 1996, p. 105; van der Wilt 2010, p. 215.

  10. 10.

    van der Wilt 2010, p. 216.

  11. 11.

    Separate and Dissenting Opinon of Judge Antonio Cassese, Erdemović, Sentencing Judgment 1996, §3.

  12. 12.

    Tadić Appeals Judgment 1999, paras 197, 200, 246, 247. See further the discussion in Sect. 8.11.4.

  13. 13.

    Furundžija 1998, para 178.

  14. 14.

    Kingsbury 1999, p. 690; Zahar and Sluiter 2008, pp. 11–12.

  15. 15.

    Steer 2015.

  16. 16.

    Koskenniemi 2009, p. 6.

  17. 17.

    Koskenniemi 2009, p. 7.

  18. 18.

    Roberts 2011, p. 57.

  19. 19.

    Delmas-Marty 2008, p. 251; Delmas-Marty 2002, 2003.

  20. 20.

    Delmas-Marty 2008, p. 251.

  21. 21.

    Damaška 2004, p. 1019.

  22. 22.

    Ambos 2007, p. 429.

  23. 23.

    Glenn 2006, p. 424.

  24. 24.

    Glenn 2006, 2010; Nelken 2006, p. 372; Hoecke and Warrington 1998. Some traditional schools of comparative law research still use the ‘legal families’ taxonomic approach, see e.g. Zweigert and Kötz 1998, p. 57.

  25. 25.

    Glenn 2001, p. 133.

  26. 26.

    Glenn 2001, p. 430.

  27. 27.

    Glenn 2001, p. 435.

  28. 28.

    See for example Zahar and Sluiter 2008, pp. 96, 99, 239; Heller 2011a; Steer 2015.

  29. 29.

    This will be discussed in detail in Sect. 8.11.4.

  30. 30.

    Glenn 2006, p. 433.

  31. 31.

    Ferrante 2011, p. 12. The impact of this will be discussed in Sect. 7.4 in the comparative study of Argentina’s criminal law system. See also Glenn 2010, pp. 45, 374.

  32. 32.

    Glenn 2010, pp. 22–25; Glenn 2006, p. 432.

  33. 33.

    Örücü 2002; Berkowitz 2003; Kingsley 2004.

  34. 34.

    Watson 1974, 1983, 1984.

  35. 35.

    Watson 1984, pp. 26–27.

  36. 36.

    Watson 1984, p. 27.

  37. 37.

    Watson 1984, p. 36.

  38. 38.

    Watson 1984, p. 25.

  39. 39.

    Such as the Lieber Code 1863; as well as multilateral treaties making up the ‘Hague Law’ (methods and means of warfare) and ‘Geneva Law’ (protection of civilians and combatants).

  40. 40.

    van der Wilt 2008, p. 272.

  41. 41.

    See in particular infra Sect. 8.11.4 for a full observation and analysis of this phenomenon. See further Delmas-Marty 2003, p. 13; Steer 2011, p. 302; Roberts 2011, p. 58.

  42. 42.

    As noted above, Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 94.

  43. 43.

    Watson 1984, pp. 96–97.

  44. 44.

    See for example Miller 2003, p. 846.

  45. 45.

    Glenn 2010, p. 42.

  46. 46.

    Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, paras 477–518.

  47. 47.

    Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, paras 997–999.

  48. 48.

    See further Sect. 8.11. See also Posner 2010, p. 61; van der Wilt 2009, p. 309.

  49. 49.

    Etcheson 2004, p. 199.

  50. 50.

    Zahar and Sluiter 2008, pp. 82, 85, 99.

  51. 51.

    Watson 1974, p. 27.

  52. 52.

    For example Trapani 2011.

  53. 53.

    Steer 2015.

  54. 54.

    See generally Berman 2012; Delmas-Marty 2003; van der Wilt 2008.

  55. 55.

    Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 37.

  56. 56.

    Heller 2011a, p. 251.

  57. 57.

    Higgins 1994, p. 18.

  58. 58.

    Reisman 1992, p. 119.

  59. 59.

    Reisman 1992, p. 120.

  60. 60.

    Reisman 1992, pp. 119, 120.

  61. 61.

    Higgins 1994, p. 49.

  62. 62.

    McDougal et al. 1988, p. 807; Higgins 1994, p. 50; Reisman 2010, p. 104.

  63. 63.

    Higgins 1994, p. 50.

  64. 64.

    Reisman 2010, p. 135.

  65. 65.

    Steer 2015.

  66. 66.

    Akayesu 1998.

  67. 67.

    Boyle and Chinkin 2007, p. 291.

  68. 68.

    See e.g. d’Aspremont 2010.

  69. 69.

    See further the analysis of the shifting trends at the international tribunals in Sect. 8.11.

  70. 70.

    Levit 2007, pp. 399–407; Nagan and Hammer 2007, p. 779.

  71. 71.

    Levit 2007, p. 408.

  72. 72.

    Reisman 1981, p. 119.

  73. 73.

    Reisman 1981, p. 120.

  74. 74.

    Higgins 1994, p. 1.

  75. 75.

    Higgins 1994, p. 15.

  76. 76.

    Higgins 1994, p. 15.

  77. 77.

    Higgins 1994, p. 4.

  78. 78.

    Indeed, many critics of a policy-oriented view of the law have pointed out that such a theory is at risk of being appropriated for certain State interests: ‘the selective application of (this) jurisprudential theory in emphasizing certain policy objectives as fundamental goals and minimizing others has thrown a sharp light on the dangers of policy-oriented jurisprudence. If applied with a nationalist bias, it becomes an ideological instrument to override specific restraints of law.’ Comments by Richard Falk, cited in Wolff 1985, pp. 267, 273. This author would argue, however, that where this happens the descriptive model of law as process is taken a step further from being a theory ‘about’ law to become a prescriptive, normative theory ‘of’ law. Just as some other authors have asserted, this author asserts that it is possible to maintain the descriptive model as a useful tool of analysis without taking on a normative project based on a universalist assumption that there are policy values applicable in every situation which can prescribe what the outcome should be. See for example Schachter 1968; Falk 1995; d’Aspremont 2014, p. 1119.

  79. 79.

    McDougal et al. 1967, p. 257; McDougal et al. 1968, p. 283.

  80. 80.

    McDougal et al. 1967, p. 257; McDougal et al. 1968, p. 283; Higgins 1994, p. 5.

  81. 81.

    Higgins 1994, p. 6; Reisman 2010, p. 46.

  82. 82.

    Higgins 1994, p. 5.

  83. 83.

    Koh 2007, p. 563.

  84. 84.

    Higgins 1994, p. 10.

  85. 85.

    Danner 2006, p. 53.

  86. 86.

    Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, p. xxxiv.

  87. 87.

    Tadić Interlocutory Decision 1995, para 96.

  88. 88.

    Danner 2006, p. 48.

  89. 89.

    Statute of the ICC 1998, Article 8(2)(c)–(f); See also Danner 2006, p. 50.

  90. 90.

    One author has estimated that 63% of all international judicial activity to date has occured since the 1990s; Danner 2006, p. 4, citing Karen J. Alter, ‘Do International Courts Enhance Compliance with International Law?’, 25 Review Asian and Pacific Studies 51 (2003).

  91. 91.

    Wessel 2006, p. 386.

  92. 92.

    Wessel 2006, p. 388.

  93. 93.

    Wessel 2006, p. 387.

  94. 94.

    Higgins 1994, p. 50.

  95. 95.

    Wessel 2006, p. 383.

  96. 96.

    Heller 2011b, p. 594.

  97. 97.

    This is discussed in full in Chap. 8. For examples of the authority of some scholars, see the citations in Katanga Confirmation of Charges 2008, paras 498, 501; Lubanga Trial Judgment 2012, para 1004.

  98. 98.

    With respect to this process in international law in general, see Higgins 1994, p. 10.

  99. 99.

    Hart 1972, p. 125; van der Wilt 2008, p. 263.

  100. 100.

    Danner 2006, p. 52.

  101. 101.

    Danner 2006, p. 51.

  102. 102.

    Hathaway 2000, p. 129; D’Amato 2011, p. 66.

  103. 103.

    d’Aspremont 2011b, p. 3.

  104. 104.

    d’Aspremont 2014, p. 1134.

  105. 105.

    d’Aspremont 2011a, p. 124; d’Aspremont 2014, p. 1145.

  106. 106.

    Hart 1972, p. 97.

  107. 107.

    Hart 1972, pp. 98, 100.

  108. 108.

    By supreme he meant that a rule of recognition is the highest authority above all other rules, and by ultimate he meant that it is the final rule, as there are no other tests of validity. See Hart 1972, p. 103.

  109. 109.

    Schabas 2010, p. 384; Cryer 2009, p. 392.

  110. 110.

    Cryer 2009, p. 393.

  111. 111.

    Schabas 2010, p. 382.

  112. 112.

    Cryer 2009, p. 399.

  113. 113.

    Al Bashir Decision on Arrest Warrant 2009, para 126.

  114. 114.

    Cryer 2009, p. 397.

  115. 115.

    Waldron 2009, p. 13.

  116. 116.

    Waldron 2009, p. 14.

  117. 117.

    Waldron 2009, p. 15.

  118. 118.

    Waldron 2009, p. 22, citing Jospeh Raz, (Practical Reason and Norms, 2nd edition, Princeton University Press, 1999).

  119. 119.

    d’Aspremont 2011a, p. 24; d’Aspremont 2014, p. 1145.

  120. 120.

    Compare Michael Reisman , who argues that the media could be considered a participant with sufficient controlling intent: Reisman 2000, p. 13; Reisman 2010, p. 104.

  121. 121.

    Wessel 2006, p. 380.

References

  • Ambos K (2007) The structure of international criminal procedure: ‘adversarial’, ‘inquisitorial’, or mixed? In: Bohlander M (ed) International criminal justice: a critical analysis of institutions and procedures. Cameron May, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz D (2003) The transplant effect. Am J Comp Law 51:163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman PS (2012) Global legal pluralism: a jurisprudence of law beyond borders (introduction). Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle A, Chinkin C (2007) The making of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R (2009) Royalism and the King: Article 21 of the Rome Statute and the politics of sources. New Crim Law Rev 12:390–405

    Google Scholar 

  • DamaÅ¡ka M (2004) Negotiated justice in international criminal courts. J Int Crim Justice 2:1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato A (2011) Non-state actors from the perspective of the policy-oriented school: power, law, actors and the view from New Haven. In: d’Aspremont J (ed) Participants in the international legal system, Chapter 4. Routledge, London, pp 64–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Danner AM (2006) When courts make law: how the international criminal tribunals recast the laws of war. Vanderbilt Law Rev 59:1–64

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Aspremont J (2010) The doctrinal illusion of the heterogeneity of international lawmaking processes. Sel Proc European Soc Int Law 2:297–312

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Aspremont J (2011a) Non-state actors from the perspective of positivism: the communitarian semantics for the secondary rules of international law. In: d’Aspremont J (ed) Participants in the international legal system: multiple perspectives on non-state actors in international law. Routledge, London, pp 23–40

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Aspremont J (2011b) Non-state actors in international law: oscillating between concepts and dynamics. In: d’Aspremont J (ed) Participants in the international legal system: multiple perspectives on non-state actors in international law. Routledge, London, pp 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Aspremont J (2014) Cognitive conflicts and the making of international law: from empirical concord to conceptual discord in legal scholarship. Vanderbilt J Trans Law 46:1119–1147

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M (2002) Towards a truly common law: Europe as a laboratory for legal pluralism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M (2003) The contribution of comparative law to a pluralist conception of international criminal law. J Int Crim Justice 1(1):13–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M (2008) Reflections on the ‘hybridisation’ of criminal procedure. In: Jackson J, Langer M, Tillers P (eds) Crime, procedure and evidence in a comparative and international context: Essays in honour of Professor Mirjan DamaÅ¡ka. Hart Publishers, Oxford, pp 251–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Etcheson C (2004) The politics of genocide justice in Cambodia. In: Romano C, Nollkaemper A, Kleffner J (eds) Internationalized criminal courts and tribunals: Sierra Leone, East Timor, Kosovo and Cambodia. Oxford Scholarship, p 181

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk RA (1995) Casting the spell: the New Haven school of international law. Yale Law J 104:1991–2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrante M (2011) Argentina. In: Heller KJ (ed) Dubber MD. The handbook of comparative criminal law. Stanford University Press, pp 12–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher GP, Ohlin JD (2005) Reclaiming fundamental principles of criminal law in the Darfur case. JICJ 3:539–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn HP (2001) Are legal traditions incommensurable? AmJCompL 49:133

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn HP (2006) Comparative legal families and comparative legal traditions. In: Zimmermann R, Reimann M (eds) Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, pp 421–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn HP (2010) Legal traditions of the world: sustainable diversity in law, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1972) The concept of law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway JC (2000) America, defender of democratic legitimacy? Eur J Int Law 11(1):121–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller KJ (2011a) The Nuremberg Tribunals and the origins of international criminal law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller KJ (2011b) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In: Heller KJ, Dubber MD (eds) The handbook of comparative criminal law. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 593–634

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts JM, Doswald-Beck L (2005) International committee of the Red Cross’s study of customary international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1994) Problems and process: international law and how we use it. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoecke MV, Warrington M (1998) Legal cultures, legal paradigms and legal doctrine: towards a new model for comparative law. Int Comp Law Q 47:495–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury B (1999) Foreword: Is the proliferation of international courts and tribunals a problem? NYU J Int Law Polit 31:679

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsley JJ (2004) Legal transplantation: is this what the doctor ordered and are the blood types compatible? Ariz J Int Comp Law 21:493

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh HH (2007) Is there a ‘new’ New Haven school of international law? Yale J Int Law 32:559

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (2009) The case for comparative international law. Finn Yearb Int Law 20:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Levit JK (2007) Bottom-up international lawmaking: reflections on the New Haven school of international law. Yale J Int Law 32:393

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieber Code (1863) Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougal MS, Lasswell HD, Reisman WM (1967) The world constitutive process of international decision. J Leg Educ 19:253

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougal MS, Lasswell HD, Reisman WM (1968) Theories about international law: prologue to a configurative jurisprudence. Va J Int Law 8(2):188

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougal MS, Lasswell HD, Reisman WM (1988) The world community: a planetary social process. Univ Calif Davis Law Rev 21:807

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller JM (2003) Typology of legal transplants: using sociology, legal history and Argentine examples to explain the transplant process. Am J Comp Law 51:839–885

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagan W, Hammer C (2007) Communications theory and world public order: the anthropomorphic, jurisprudential foundations of international human rights. Va J Int Law 47:725

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelken D (2006) Legal culture. In: Smits JM (ed) Elgar encyclopedia of comparative law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA, pp 372–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Orford A (2012) In praise of description. Leiden J Int Law 25(3):

    Google Scholar 

  • Örücü E (2002) Law as transposition. Int Comp Law Q 51(2):205–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner RA (2010) How judges think. Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Commission Report (1996) Report of the UN Preparatory Commission of the International Criminal Court, Vol. I

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman WM (1981) International lawmaking: a process of communication. Am Soc Int Law Proc, p 101

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman WM (1992) The view from the New Haven school of international law. Am Soc Int Law Proc 86:118–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman WM (2000) Unilateral action and the transformations of the world constitutive process: the special problem of humanitarian intervention. Eur J Int Law 11(1):3–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman WM (2010) The quest for world order and human dignity in the twenty-first century: constitutive process and individual commitment, collected courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol 351. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts A (2011) Comparative international law? The role of national courts in creating and enforcing international law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. ICLQ 60:57–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson D (2013) The two liberalisms of international criminal law. In: Stahn C, van den Herik L (eds) Future perspectives on international criminal law. Ashgate, Surrey, pp 307–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas W (2010) The International Criminal Court: a commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1968) Towards a theory of international obligation. Va J Int Law 8(2):300

    Google Scholar 

  • Statute of the ICC (1998) Statute of the International Criminal Court

    Google Scholar 

  • Statute of the ICJ (1945) Statute of the International Court of Justice

    Google Scholar 

  • Steer C (2011) Non-state actors in international criminal law. In: d’Aspremont J (ed) Participants in the international legal order: multiple perspectives on non-state actors in international law. Routledge, London, p 96

    Google Scholar 

  • Steer C (2015) Legal transplants or legal patchworking? The creation of international criminal law as a pluralistic body of law. In: van Sliedregt E (ed) Harmonization and pluralism in international criminal law. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapani A (2011) Assessing the impact of the international ad-hoc tribunals on the domestic courts of the Former Yugoslavia. http://www.domac.is/media/domac/Domac-11-BAlkan-AT-Final.pdf

  • van der Wilt H (2008) Equal standards? On the dialectics between national jurisdictions and the International Criminal Court. Int Crim Law Rev 1(2):229–272

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Wilt H (2009) The continuous quest for proper modes of criminal responsibility. J Int Crim Justice 7(2):307–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Wilt H (2010) National law: A small but neat utensil in the toolbox of international criminal tribunals. Int Crim Law Rev 10(2):209–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (2009) Who needs rules of recognition? In: Public Law and Legal Theory Workshop Paper Series (Paper No. 09–21)

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson A (1974) Legal transplants: an approach to comparative law. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson A (1983) Legal change: sources of law and legal culture. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. UPALR 131:1121–1157

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson A (1984) Sources of law, legal change, and ambiguity. University of Pennsylvania Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel J (2006) Judicial policy-making at the International Criminal Court: an institutional guide to analyzing international adjudication. Columbia J Trans Law 44:377–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff P (1985) McDougal’s influence: utility, influence, controversy. Am Soc Int Law Proc 79:266

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahar A, Sluiter G (2008) International criminal law: a critical introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Cases

  • Akayesu (1998) The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Trial Judgment, ICTR-96-4-T

    Google Scholar 

  • Al Bashir Decision on Arrest Warrant (2009) The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad al Bashir, second decision on the prosecution’s application for a warrant of arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdemović, Sentencing Judgment (1996) The Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Sentencing Judgment, IT-96-22-T

    Google Scholar 

  • Furundžija (1998) The Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Trial Judgment, IT-95-17/1-T

    Google Scholar 

  • Katanga Confirmation of Charges (2008) The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, decision on the confirmation of charges, ICC-01/04-01/07

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadić Appeals Judgment (1999) The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, Appeals Judgment, IT-94-1-A

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadić Interlocutory Decision (1995) The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, decision on the defence motion for interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction, IT-94-1-A

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Cassandra Steer

Authors
  1. Cassandra Steer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cassandra Steer .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Steer, C. (2017). A Comparative Theory of International Criminal Law. In: Translating Guilt. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 9. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-171-5_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-171-5_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-170-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-171-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation