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
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T07:00:26.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Sentencing and Penalties

from PART E - PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES OF INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Robert Cryer ,
Hakan Friman ,
Darryl Robinson  and
Elizabeth Wilmshurst
Robert Cryer
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Hakan Friman
Affiliation:
University College London
Darryl Robinson
Affiliation:
Queen's University, Ontario
Elizabeth Wilmshurst
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access

Summary

International punishment of crimes

International humanitarian law and criminal law treaties provide for individual criminal responsibility for certain violations, but they give virtually no guidance as to applicable penalties or other sentencing issues. For example, the Genocide Convention merely provides that penalties shall be ‘effective’ and the Torture Convention that the penalties shall be ‘appropriate’ and take into account the ‘grave nature’ of the offence. However, the principle of legality includes a prohibition against retroactive creation of punishments (nulla poena sine lege) and for that reason an international criminal jurisdiction regulation is required; an effort that is fraught with difficulties since States take very different views on penalties. Consequently, international provisions on penalties and sentencing are rather general, leaving a tribunal with wide discretion, again triggering concerns regarding the legality principle.

The Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals had the power to impose ‘death or such other punishment as shall be determined by it to be just’. At Nuremberg, twelve of the accused were sentenced to death (by hanging), three to life imprisonment and four to fixed-term prison sentences. The Tokyo trial produced seven sentences of death, eleven of life imprisonment and two of fixed-term imprisonment. The national military tribunals operating in Germany (under Control Council Law No. 10) and in the Far East had the same sentencing powers. To dispel concerns about retroactivity, the penalties were considered rooted in customary international law. None of these Tribunals developed sentencing guidelines of use for later tribunals.

Type
Chapter
Information
An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure , pp. 494 - 506
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beresford, Stuart, ‘Unshackling the Paper Tiger – The Sentencing Practices of the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda’ (2001) 1 International Criminal Law Review33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carcano, Andrea, ‘Sentencing and the Gravity of the Offence in International Criminal Law’ (2002) 51 International and Comparative Law Quarterly583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fife, Rolf Einar, ‘Penalties’ in Lee, , The Making of the Rome Statute, 319–43.
Fife, Rolf Einar, ‘Penalties’ in Lee, , Elements and Rules, 555–73.
Harhoff, Frederick, ‘Sense and Sensibility in Sentencing – Taking Stock of International Criminal Punishment’ in Engdahl, Ola and Wrange, Pål (eds.), Law at War: The Law as it Was and the Law as it Should Be: Lieber Amoricum Ove Bring (Leiden, 2008) 121–40.Google Scholar
Harmon, Mark and Gaynor, Fergal, ‘Ordinary Sentences for Extraordinary Crimes’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henham, Ralph, ‘Some Issues for Sentencing in the International Criminal Court’ (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henham, Ralph and Drumbl, Mark, ‘Plea Bargaining at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’ (2005) 16 Criminal Law Forum49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemitz, Jan Christoph, ‘The Law of Sentencing in International Criminal Law: The Purposes of Sentencing and the Applicable Method for the Determination of the Sentence’ (2001) 4 IYHL87.Google Scholar
Olusanya, Olaoluwa Abiola, ‘Do Crimes against Humanity Deserve a Higher Sentence than War Crimes?’ (2004) 4 International Criminal Law Review431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schabas, William A., ‘Sentencing by International Tribunals: A Human Rights Approach’ (1997) 7 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law461.Google Scholar
Schabas, William A., ‘Penalties’ in Cassese, , Commentary, 1497–534.
Schabas, William A., The UN International Criminal Tribunals: The Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone (Cambridge, 2006) ch. 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zyl Smit, Dirk, Taking Life Imprisonment Seriously in National and International Law (The Hague, 2002) ch. 5.Google Scholar
Zyl Smit, Dirk, ‘International Imprisonment’ (2005) 54 International and Comparative Law Quarterly357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreß, Claus and Sluiter, Göran, ‘Enforcement’ in Cassese, , Commentary, chs. 43–5.
Mulgrew, Róisín, ‘On the Enforcement of Sentences Imposed by International Courts’ (2009) 7 Journal of International Criminal Justice353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, David and Rydberg, Åsa, ‘Enforcement of Sentences’ in May, Richard et al. (eds.), Essays on ICTY Procedure and Evidence – In Honour of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (The Hague, 2001) 533–43.Google Scholar
Kai, Ambos, ‘Nulla Poena Sine Lege in International Criminal Law’ in Roelof, Haveman and Olaoluwa, Olusanya (eds.), Sentencing and Sanctioning in Supranational Criminal Law (Antwerp, 2006) 17.
Neil, Boister and Robert, Cryer, The Tokyo International Military Tribunal: A Reappraisal (Oxford, 2008) ch. 9.Google Scholar
William, Schabas, ‘War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and the Death Penalty’ (1997) 60 Albany Law Review733 at 735.Google Scholar
Bradley, Smith, Recalling Judgment at Nuremberg (New York, 1977) chs. 7–9Google Scholar
Bernard, Röling and Antonio, Cassese, The Tokyo Trial and Beyond (Oxford, 1993) 64.Google Scholar
William, Schabas, The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law, 3rd edn (Cambridge, 2002).Google Scholar
Dirk, Zyl Smit, Taking Life Imprisonment Seriously in National and International Law (The Hague, 2002) 180–3.Google Scholar
Bassiouni, M. Cherif, Introduction to International Criminal Law (New York, 2002) 682.Google Scholar
Mark, Drumbl, ‘Collective Violence and Individual Punishment: The Criminality of Mass Atrocity’ (2005) 99 Northwestern University Law Review539.Google Scholar
Ralph, Henham, Punishment and Process in International Criminal Trials (Aldershot, 2005) 16–24.Google Scholar
Marisa, Bassett, ‘Defending Sentencing: Past Criticism to the Promise of the ICC’ (2009) 16 Human Rights Brief22Google Scholar
Allison, Marston Danner, ‘Constructing a Hierarchy of Crimes in International Criminal Law Sentencing’ (2001) 87 Virginia Law Review415.Google Scholar
John, R. W. D. Jones and Steven, Powles, International Criminal Practice, 3rd edn (Oxford, 2003) 778–80
Hola, B., Smeulers, A. L. and Bijleveld, C. C. J. H., ‘Is ICTY Sentencing Predictable? An Empirical Analysis of ICTY Sentencing Practice’ (2009) 22 Leiden Journal of International Law79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alan, Tieger, ‘Remorse and Mitigation in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’ (2003) 16 Leiden Journal of International Law777Google Scholar
Mettraux, Guénaël, International Crimes and the ad hoc Tribunals (Oxford, 2005) 353–5.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×