Objectives of International Criminal System in Instruments and Practice of International Criminal Courts

Document Type : Original Article


1 Criminal Law Department,Law faculty,Shahid Beheshti university,Tehran,Iran

2 Criminla Law Department,Law Faculty,Shahid Beheshti University,Tehran,Iran


With the development of international criminal law in the light of the establishment of military courts after World War II, international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and subsequently the International Criminal court, various objectives were stated for the international criminal justice system that are beyond the traditional goals of punishment. In addition, a new concept of traditional goals is considered in international level. Recognition of these objectives is important because it will lead to better understanding of the system mechanisms and how they operate. It will also be clear that over the years, how international criminal tribunals have succeeded in achieving the stated objectives. Through investigating the aims of international criminal law in instruments and practice of international criminal tribunals, this paper has come up with the conclusion that traditional punishment goals have priority over other goals, such as recording history and post-conflict reconciliation, in the international criminal justice system, but the importance of them depends on stages of the criminal processes so that retribution and deterrence play a more significant role in sentencing as well as in the rehabilitation in the enforcement of punishment.


Main Subjects

فهرست منابع
الف) منابع فارسی
1. کرایر، رابرت، هاکان فریمن، داریل رابینسون، الیزابت ویلمز هورست، درآمدی بر حقوق و آییندادرسی بین‌المللی کیفری، ترجمۀ حسین فخر و داود کوهی، تهران: انتشارات مجد، 1393.
2. کیتی­شیایزری، کریانگ­ساک، حقوق بین‌المللی کیفری، ترجمۀ بهنام یوسفیان و محمد اسماعیلی، چاپ سوم، تهران: انتشارات سمت، 1392.
3. رضوی­فرد، بهزاد،از کارکردهای سنتی کیفر درحقوق داخلی تا کارکردهای نوین آن در حقوق بین‌الملل کیفری، فصلنامه مطالعات پیشگیری از جرم، زمستان1390، شمارۀ 21.
4. غلامی,حسین، نجفی ابرند آبادی، علی حسین، نظریه مجازات های استحقاقی و تکرار جرم، مدرس علوم انسانی، زمستان 1378، شمارۀ 4.
5. غلامی، حسین، رستمی غازانی،امید، زمینه‌های عدالت ترمیمی در اساسنامه دیوان کیفری بین المللی، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق کیفری، سال دوم، پاییز1392، شمارۀ 4.
6. کوشا، جعفر، زارعی، محمد حسین،اصل تناسب جرم و مجازات در حقوق بین‌المللی کیفری، فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی، تابستان1390.
ب) منابع انگلیسی
7. Arent, H. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of EvilWashington: Penguin Books, 1994
8. Drumbl M. A.AtrocityPunishment, And International Law, NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
9. Van Zyl Smit D. and Sonja SnackenPrinciples of European Prison Law andPolicy, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
10. Akhavan P. “Justice in the HaguePeace in the Former Yugoslavia? A Commentary on the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal, Human Rights Quarterly 20( 1998).
11. Bar-Tal D. From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: psychological analysisPolitical Psychology 21(2000).
12. Cassese A. The ICTY: A Living and Vital RealityJournal of International Criminal Justice 2(2004).
13. Cassese AReflection On international Criminal JusticeThe modern law review 61(1998).
14. Danner A.M. & Martinez J.S.Guilty AssociationsJoint Criminal EnterpriseCommand Responsibility, and the Development of International Criminal LawCalifornia Law Review 93(2005).
15. Fischer M. Transitional Justice and ReconciliationTheory and Practice, in Advancing Conflict Transformation: The Berghof Handbook II (2011).
16. Fletcher L. E. From Indifference to Engagement: Bystanders and International Criminal Justice,Michigan journal of international  law 26( 2004).
17. Galbraith JThe Pace of International Criminal JusticeMichigan Journal of International Law 79(2009).
18. Goffrier B.” Deterrence as Principle of Sentencing in International Criminal Justice”,Amsterdam: Centre for International Criminal Justice( 2014)
19. Hola, B. & van Wijk, J. Life after Conviction at International Criminal Tribunals – Empirical Overview,  Journal of  International Criminal Justice, 12(2014).
20. Keenan P. J. The Problem Of  Purpose In International Criminal Law,Michigan Journal of International Law 37(2016).
21. Kuster M. Reconciliation as a sentencing goal in International Criminal Justice, Amsterdam: Centre for International Criminal Justice (2014).
22. Muphy. C. Political reconciliation and international criminal trialsInternational Criminal Law and Philosophy (2009).
23. Mennecke, M. Punishing genocidaires. A deterrent effect or not?Human Rights Review 8(2007) .
24. Olásolo H. The Prosecutor of The ICC Before the Initiation of Investigations: A Quasi-Judicial or a Political Body?International Criminal Law Review 3(2003).
25. Smith KRehabilitation as a Sentencing Goal in International Criminal Justice, Amsterdam: Centre for International Criminal Justice (2014).
27. Wilson, R. A. Judging History: The Historical Record of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former YugoslaviaHuman Rights Quarterly 27 (2005).
28. Wippman D. Atrocities, deterrence, and the limits of international justiceFordham International Law Journal 23(1999).
29. Prosecutor vs.Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1 , Appeal chamberJudgement, 24 Mar 2000.
30. Prosecutor vs.Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T,  Trail Judgement, 2 September 1998.
31. Prosecutor v.Deronjic, Case No. IT-02-61, Sentencing judgemen,30 Mar 2004.
32. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22,Sentencing judgement, 29 Nov 1996.
33. Prosecutor vs.Karadzic, Case No. IT-95-5/18, Trial Chamber Decisions , 8 Jul 2009.
34. Prosecutor vs.Kordic , Case No. IT-95-14/2 , Appeal chamber Judgement, 17 Dec 2004.
35. Prosecutor vs.Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33,Trial Judgement, 2 Aug 2001.
36. Prosecutor vs. Kunarac et al, Case No. IT-23 & IT-96-23/1, Trail Judgement, 22 February 2001.
37. Prosecutor vs. Mrda, Case No. IT-02-59, Sentencing Judgement, 31 March 2004.
38. Prosecutor vs.mucic et al, Case No. IT-96-21, appeal chamber judgement, 20 Feb 2001.
39. Prosecutor vs. Musema, Case No. ICTR-96-13 , judgement and Sentence,  27 January 2000.
40. Prosecutor vs.Nicolic, Case No. IT-94-2, judgement on sentensing appeal, 4 February 2005 .
41. Prosecutor vs.Plavsic, Case No. IT-00-39 & 40/1,Sentencing Judgement,27 Feb 2003.
42. Prosecutor vs. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3,  judgement and Sentence, 6 December 1999.
43. Prosecutor vs.Rutaganira, Case No. ICTR-95-1CJudgement and Sentence, 14 March 2005.
44. Prosecutor vs.Tadic, Case No. IT-96-21, judgement in sentensing appeal, 26 Jan 2000.
45. Prosecuter vs. Todorovic, Case No. IT-95-9/1,Sentencing Judgement, 31 Jul 2001.
Internet sites
46. Plea Agreement in Todorovic case available at