Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sentencing, Punishment, and Appeals

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The International Criminal Court

Abstract

This chapter will explore international criminal sentencing at the Trial Chamber and subsequent proceedings before the Appeals Chamber . The Rome Statute provides some boundaries for appropriate sentences, though it does not lay out guidelines. Consequently, this chapter discusses the risk of sentencing disparities among different panels of judges or with other international criminal tribunals. The chapter will also explore the range of punishment options that are available for international crimes, including transfer of a prisoner to a member country, issues related to early release or clemency, and the possibility of alternative sanctions for offenders.

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 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 64.99
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

References

  • Abbas, G. (2008, Nov 23). The adequacy of Uganda’s war crimes court (Public International Law and Policy Group). Available at: http://law.case.edu/Academics/AcademicCenters/Cox/WarCrimesResearchPortal/show_document.asp?id=172.

  • Abtahi, H., & Koh, S. A. (2012). The emerging enforcement practice of the International Criminal Court. Cornell International Law Journal, 45, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amman, D. M. (2012). Prosecutor v. Lubanga. American Journal of International Law, 106(4), 809–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arsanjani, M., & Reisman, W. M. (2005). The law-in-action of the International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law, 99, 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beresford, S. (2001). Unshackling the paper tiger: The sentencing practices of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. International Criminal Law Review, 1, 33–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carcano, A. (2002). Sentencing and the gravity of the offence in international criminal law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 51, 583–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dana, S. (2009). Beyond retroactivity to realizing justice: A theory on the principle of legality in international criminal law sentencing. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 857–927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dana, S. (2014). The limits of judicial idealism: Should the International Criminal Court engage with consequentialist aspirations? Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs, 3, 30–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danner, A. M. (2001). Constructing a hierarchy of crimes in international criminal law sentencing, Virginia Law Review, 87, 415–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brouwer, A. M. (2007). Reparation to victims of sexual violence: Possibilities at the International Criminal Court and at the trust fund for victims and their families. Leiden Journal of International Law, 20, 207–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cesari, P. (2001). Observations on appeal before the International Criminal Court. In M. Politi & G. Nesi (Eds.), The rome statute of the International Criminal Court: A challenge to impunity (pp. 225–234). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drumbl, M. A., & Gallant, S. K. (2002). Sentencing policies and practices in the international criminal tribunals. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 15, 140–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwertmann, E. (2010). The reparation system of the International Criminal Court: Its implementation, possibilities, and limitations. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garkawe, S. (2012). Have recent changes designed to benefit victims of international crimes added to the legitimacy of international criminal justice? In G. Boas, W. Schabas, & M. P. Scharf (Eds.), International criminal justice: Legitimacy and coherence (pp. 269–303). Northamton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Glickman, S. (2004). Victims’ justice: Legitimizing the sentencing regime of the International Criminal Court. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 43, 229–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, K. J. (2012). A sentencing-based theory of complementarity. Harvard International Law Journal, 53, 202–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henham, R. (2003a). Some issues for sentencing in the International Criminal Court. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 52(1), 81–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henham, R. (2003b). The philosophical foundations of international sentencing. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 1, 64–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henzelin, M., Heiskanen, V., & Mettraux, G. (2006). Reparations to victims before the International Criminal Court: Lessons from international mass claims processes. Criminal Law Forum, 17, 317–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holá, B., Smeulers, A., & Bijleveld, C. (2011). International sentencing facts and figures. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 9, 411–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holá, B., Bijleveld, C., & Smeulers, A. (2012). Consistency of international sentencing: ICTY and ICTR case study. European Journal of Criminology, 9, 539–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, A. N. (2001). Punishment for violations of international criminal law: An analysis of sentencing at the ICTY and ICTR. Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, 12, 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurth, M. E. (2013). The Lubanga case of the International Criminal Court: A critical analysis of the Trial Chamber’s findings on issues of active use, age, and gravity. Goettingen Journal of International Law, 5, 431–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlin, J. D. (2005). Applying the death penalty to crimes of genocide. American Journal of International Law, 99, 747–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickard, D. B. (1997). Proposed sentencing guidelines for the International Criminal Court. Loyola Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 20, 123–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas, W. (2007). An introduction to the International Criminal Court (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, A. J. (2014). Reforming the sentencing regime for the most serious crimes of concern: The International Criminal Court through the lens of the Lubanga trial. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 39, 521–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triponel, A., & Pearson, S. (2010). African states and the International Criminal Court: A silent revolution in international criminal law. Journal of Law and Social Challenges, 12, 65–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiersing, A. (2012). Lubanga and its implications for victims seeking reparations at the International Criminal Court. Amsterdam Law Forum, 4, 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Criminology, Law, and Society, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Andrew Novak

Authors
  1. Andrew Novak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Novak .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Novak, A. (2015). Sentencing, Punishment, and Appeals. In: The International Criminal Court. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15832-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation