Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

International Sentencing

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_577


International crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, are manifestations of large-scale and serious violations of human rights that have been defined as the most serious crimes of international concern. As noted by Mettraux it would be hard to identify crimes more difficult to sentence than international crimes (Mettraux 2005). This is not only due to the atrocious nature of international crimes but also due to their collective, systematic character, often involving state authorities and a huge number of perpetrators. In the last decade a number of international institutions have been established to prosecute and sentence perpetrators of international crimes. Compared to national criminal law systems, there is no “international criminal code” to govern the functioning of these courts. Each tribunal has its own statute outlining in general terms its jurisdiction, and the various tribunals exercise their mandates rather independently with no...

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

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Bagaric M, Morss J (2006) International sentencing law: in search of a justification and coherent framework. Int Crim Law Rev 6:191–225Google Scholar
  2. Beresford S (2001) Unshackling the paper tiger – the sentencing practices of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Int Crim Law Rev 1:33–90Google Scholar
  3. Carcano A (2002) Sentencing and the gravity of the offence in international criminal law. Int Comp Law Q 51:583–609Google Scholar
  4. D’Ascoli S (2011) Sentencing in international criminal law, the un ad hoc tribunals and future perspectives for the ICC. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Damaska M (2008) What is the point of international criminal justice? Chi-Kent Law Rev 83:329–365Google Scholar
  6. Danner AM (2001) Constructing a hierarchy of crimes in international criminal law sentencing. Va Law Rev 87:415–501Google Scholar
  7. de Roca EM (2008) Sentencing and incarceration in the ad hoc tribunals. Stanf J Int Law 44:1–62Google Scholar
  8. Drumbl MA (2005) Collective violence and individual punishment: The criminality of Mass Atrocity, 99 Northwestern University Law Review: 539–610.Google Scholar
  9. Drumbl MA (2007) Atrocity, punishment and international law. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Drumbl MA (2010) Collective responsibility and post-conflict justice. Washington & Lee Public legal studies research paper series, working paper available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1601506
  11. Ewald U (2010) Predictably irrational – international sentencing and its discourse against the backdrop of preliminary empirical findings on ICTY sentencing practices. Int Crim Law Rev 10:365–402Google Scholar
  12. Harmon MB, Gaynor F (2007) Ordinary sentences for extraordinary crimes. J Int Crim Justice 5:683–712Google Scholar
  13. Haveman R, Olusanya OA (eds) (2006) Sentencing and sanctioning in supranational criminal law. Intersentia, AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  14. Heller KJ (2011) The Nuremberg military tribunals and the origins of international criminal law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Henham R (2003) Some issues for sentencing in the international criminal court. Int Comp Law Q 52:81–114Google Scholar
  16. Henham R (2005) Punishment and process in international criminal trials. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  17. Henham R (2007) Developing contextualized rationales for sentencing in international criminal trials, a plea for empirical research. J Int Crim Justice 5:757–778Google Scholar
  18. Hofer PJ, Blackwell KR, Ruback RB (1999) The effect of the federal sentencing guidelines on inter-judge sentencing disparity. J Crim Law Criminol 90:239–306Google Scholar
  19. Hola B (2012) International sentencing, a game of Russian roulette or consistent practice. Uitgeverij BOX Press, OisterwijkGoogle Scholar
  20. Hola B, Smeulers A, Bijleveld C (2011) International sentencing facts and figures: the sentencing practice at the ICTY and ICTR. J Int Crim Justice 9:411–439Google Scholar
  21. Meernik J (2011) Sentencing rationales and judicial decision making at the international tribunals. Soc Sci Q 92:588–608Google Scholar
  22. Meernik J, King KL (2003) The sentencing determinants of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: an empirical and doctrinal analysis. Leiden J Int Law 16:717–750Google Scholar
  23. Meernik J et al (2005) Judicial decision making and international tribunals: assessing the impact of individual, national, and international factors. Soc Sci Q 86:683–703Google Scholar
  24. Mettraux G (2005) International crimes and the ad hoc tribunals. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Nemitz JC (2001) The law of sentencing in international criminal law: the purposes of sentencing and the applicable method for the determination of the sentence. Yearb Int Humanit Law 4:87–127Google Scholar
  26. Ohlin JD (2009) Towards a unique theory of international sentencing in international criminal procedure: towards a coherent body of law. In: Sluiter G, Vasiliev S (eds) International criminal procedure, towards a coherent body of law. Cameron May, London, pp 373–404Google Scholar
  27. Ohlin JD (2011) Proportional sentences at the ICTY. In: Swart B, Sluiter G, Zahar A (eds) The legacy of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 322–341Google Scholar
  28. Olusanya OA (2005) Sentencing war crimes and crimes against humanity under the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Europa Law Publishing, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  29. Schabas WA (2006) Sentencing by international tribunals: a human rights approach. Duke J Comp Int Law 7: 461–517Google Scholar
  30. Schabas WA (2010) The international criminal court, a commentary on the Rome statute. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Sloane RD (2007a) Sentencing for the ‘crime of crimes’: the evolving ‘common law’ of sentencing of the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda. J Int Crim Justice 5:713–734Google Scholar
  32. Sloane RD (2007b) The expressive capacity of international punishment: the limits of the national law analogy and the potential of international criminal law. Stanf J Int Law 43:39–94Google Scholar
  33. Smeulers A (2008) Punishing the enemies of all mankind. Leiden J Int Law 21:971–993Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CriminologyVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands