Abstract

Does "international criminal law" have a future? The answer, this article suggests, is ambivalent: Contrary to euphoric confirmations that "international criminal law" is alive and real, one has to admit that it still has some illusionary elements. But the hypothesis is: "international criminal law" is an illusion with a future. What this future will look like will depend largely on the "lessons learnt" from our national criminal laws. The article suggests that most people believe in either the usefulness or uselessness of international criminal law. These beliefs produce either unrealistic hopes for, or equally unrealistic fundamental rejection of, the international criminal law project. What is needed is a criminologically informed use of criminal law, which extends beyond such beliefs. Such an attitude shows that international criminal law can play an important role, if we remain aware that criminal law serves best as a ultima ratio within the context of other mechanisms of formal and informal social control; if it restricts itself to the most serious humanitarian crimes, as included in the Rome Statute; if it does not give in to political pressure but insists on the importance of legal principles like in dubio pro reo, ne bis in idem, nulla poena sine lege praevia et certa, due process and complete prohibition of torture; and finally if international criminal law can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it serves to further the global "rule of law" and is not abused politically