Punishment without a Sovereign? The Ius Puniendi Issue of International Criminal Law: A First Contribution towards a Consistent Theory of International Criminal Law

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 33 (2):293-315 (2013)
Abstract
Current International Criminal Law (ICL) suffers from at least four fairly serious theoretical shortcomings. First, as a starting point, the concept and meaning of ICL in its different variations must be clarified (‘the concept and meaning issue’). Second, the question of whether and how punitive power can exist at the supranational level without a sovereign (‘the ius puniendi issue’) must be answered in a satisfactory manner. Third, the overall function or purpose of ICL as opposed to national criminal law (‘the overall function issue’) must be more convincingly explained. Fourth, the purposes of punishment in ICL, as opposed to the traditional purposes discussed in national criminal law, must be elaborated (‘the purposes of punishment issue’). There is a partly vertical and partly horizontal relationship between these issues. It is, for example, of course impossible to reflect upon ius puniendi, overall function and purposes of punishment without having clarified the concept of ICL in the first place. Also, a treatment of overall function and purposes of punishment seems to be predicated on the justification of the ius puniendi. Indeed, the lack of a satisfactory answer to the ius puniendi issue is maybe the most important theoretical weakness of current ICL. This article therefore aims to demonstrate that a supranational ius puniendi can be inferred from a combination of the incipient supranationality of the world order (understood normatively as an order of values) and the concept of a world society composed of world citizens whose law—the ‘world citizen law’ (‘Weltbürgerrecht’)—is derived from universal, indivisible and interculturally recognized human rights predicated upon a Kantian concept of human dignity. The incipient world order and the world society are represented by the international community (to be understood as a community of values) which becomes the holder of the ius puniendi
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/ojls/gqt005
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 35,471
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

International Criminal Law and Philosophy.Larry May & Zachary Hoskins (eds.) - 2010 - Cambridge University Press.
Towards a Theory of Criminal Law?R. A. Duff - 2010 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 84 (1):1-28.
Digging Up, Dismantling, and Redesigning the Criminal Law.Kimberley Brownlee - 2013 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 7 (1):169-178.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-08-29

Total downloads
59 ( #108,545 of 2,285,714 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #44,818 of 2,285,714 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature