Book contents
- Why Punish Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities?
- ASIL Studies in International Legal Theory
- Why Punish Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities?
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction: The Need for a Robust and Consistent Theory of International Punishment
- 2 The Practical Importance of Theories of Punishment in International Criminal Law
- Part I Setting the Framework: Criminological, Historical and Domestic Perspectives
- 3 Criminology of International Crimes
- 4 Punishment Rationales in International Criminal Jurisprudence
- 5 Punishment and the Domestic Analogy
- 6 Not Much, but Better than Nothing – Purposes of Punishment in International Criminal Law
- 7 The Why Question in International Criminal Punishment – Framing the Landscapes of Asking
- 8 Is International Criminal Law Special?
- Part II Rationales for Punishment in International Criminal Law: Theoretical Perspectives
- Part III Consequences for the Practice of the International Criminal Court
- Select Bibliography
- Index
6 - Not Much, but Better than Nothing – Purposes of Punishment in International Criminal Law
A Comment on the Contributions by Frank Neubacher, Sergey Vasiliev and Elies van Sliedregt
from Part I - Setting the Framework: Criminological, Historical and Domestic Perspectives
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 February 2020
- Why Punish Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities?
- ASIL Studies in International Legal Theory
- Why Punish Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities?
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction: The Need for a Robust and Consistent Theory of International Punishment
- 2 The Practical Importance of Theories of Punishment in International Criminal Law
- Part I Setting the Framework: Criminological, Historical and Domestic Perspectives
- 3 Criminology of International Crimes
- 4 Punishment Rationales in International Criminal Jurisprudence
- 5 Punishment and the Domestic Analogy
- 6 Not Much, but Better than Nothing – Purposes of Punishment in International Criminal Law
- 7 The Why Question in International Criminal Punishment – Framing the Landscapes of Asking
- 8 Is International Criminal Law Special?
- Part II Rationales for Punishment in International Criminal Law: Theoretical Perspectives
- Part III Consequences for the Practice of the International Criminal Court
- Select Bibliography
- Index
Summary
Kai Ambos takes up the question of the domestic analogy ‘proper’ and raises the question of whether a right to punish can exist without a state, and answers it in the affirmative. When it comes to what Elies van Sliedregt would call the domestic analogy ‘of transplants’, he is less sceptical: In his view, international criminal law can very well borrow and import concepts from domestic law, albeit it should not be done too schematically and there might be some limits. As regards sentencing, Ambos emphasizes the important of concrete sentencing factors and a transparent sentencing procedure, but in his view theories of punishment have no influence on the outcome.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Why Punish Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities?Purposes of Punishment in International Criminal Law, pp. 103 - 112Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020