Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

International Sentencing Law: In Search of a Justification and Coherent Framework

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of International Criminal Law Review

An international sentencing jurisprudence is emerging from the decisions by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY or the Yugoslav tribunal) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR or the Rwanda tribunal) (collectively, 'the tribunals'). This article examines international sentencing law and practice and discusses the justification for the practice. International sentencing law has several objectives. The main goals are reconciliation, deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation. The sentencing inquiry is marked by a high degree of discretion and has resulted in sentencers developing a large amount of aggravating and mitigating considerations, such as being in a position of authority, remorse and good character. It is argued that the current international sentencing approach is flawed – fundamentally so. Most of the stated goals of international sentencing in the form of reconciliation, retribution and rehabilitation are either highly speculative or misguided. The only justification for the practice is general deterrence. This is, however, significantly undermined by the selective and infrequent enforcement of crimes within the jurisdiction of such tribunals. The stated aggravated and mitigating considerations are not valid given that they are not justified by reference to the stated aims of sentencing and only serve to undermine the search for a penalty which is commensurate the serious of the offence. This article suggests a coherent framework for international sentencing policy and practice.

10.1163/157181206778050688
/content/journals/10.1163/157181206778050688
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181206778050688
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/157181206778050688
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181206778050688
2006-08-01
2016-12-07

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    International Criminal Law Review — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation