Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 19 - Theories of Punishment at The Hague

  • from Part III - Consequences for the Practice of the International Criminal Court
  • Edited by Florian Jeßberger, Universität Hamburg, Julia Geneuss, Universität Hamburg
  • Book:
    Why Punish Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities?
    Published online:
    07 February 2020
    Print publication:
    20 February 2020, pp 353-363

  • Summary

    Silvia D’Ascoli discusses some issues that were addressed in the contributions of Whiting, van der Wilt and Werle and Epik. She agrees that the objectives and purposes of punishment guiding the sentencing process should be predetermined by the relevant system and not decided by the judges on a case-by-case basis and is disappointed how little the ICC jurisprudence on sentencing has so far contributed to the development of rationales for international punishment. Similarly, in her view it is a missed opportunity that no clear sentencing guidelines have been determined at the ICC (as was the case at the ad hoc Tribunals), including any expressed weight, from the purposes of punishment. She recalls that the initial Prosecution’s proposition of ‘80 per cent baseline’ of the statutory maximum as a starting point to determine sentences was dismissed by the Trial Chamber – and after that the Prosecution did not propose any other approach or solution. L49