A Research on Identity Crisis and Retributivists of International Criminal Law | Original Article

ABSTRACT:

Reacting to the multiplication of international criminal tribunals amid the most recent two decades, researchers have occupied with a rich discussion about the standardizing establishments of international criminal law (ICL). The retributive theory of punishment—which legitimizes punishment in light of the culpability of the denounced, as opposed to by reference to its social advantages—has met with huge wariness in these exchanges. Some have contended that one of a kind highlights of international criminal justice—for instance, the outrageous selectivity of punishment or the absence of certain social or political preconditions—are a poor counterpart for retributive theory. Others have overlooked retributivism by and large, or managed the theory just passing notice. The general story of international criminal law (ICL) proclaims that the system follows admirably to the basic principles of a liberal criminal justice system. Late grant has continuously investigated the adherence of various ICL statutes to such principles. This article analyzes the discussion of ICL – the doubts and structures of argumentation that are seen as sound persuading fitting liberal focuses. This article fights that ICL, in drawing on national criminal law and international human rights law, ingested clashing assumptions and strategies for considering. The article examines three modes by which the assumptions of human rights liberalism discreetly undermine the criminal law liberalism which the system makes progress toward. These modes join interpretive strategies, substantive and helper conflation, and ideological doubts. The identity crisis theory serves to explainhowa system that undertakings to fill in as a model for liberal criminal justice systems has come to get a handle on illiberal lessons that nullify the system's key principles. The investigation is to find not just how liberal criminal theory may light up ICL, yet how ICL may enlighten liberal criminal theory. What everavenueischosenin reacting to the logical inconsistencies in ICL, it will be a progress to have an open and principled discussion instead of clouding the logical inconsistencies.