Abstract

Instead of developing its own theoretical framework, international criminal law has adopted the central doctrines and concepts of traditional penology that was initially developed to address the national criminal law. Even though norms and institutions relating to international criminal law have been widely debated, justification of the actual punishment practices has not received similar attention. This is an implication of the narrow perception of justifying punishments – regarding legitimate norms and institutions as a sufficient reason for punishment. This paper argues that the traditional penology, especially in form of theories of punishment, is both inapplicable to the circumstances of international criminal law and it has been misused in the sphere of international criminal law by postulating the theories as justified by definition and utilizing deterrence and retribution as intrinsic values of punishment. An adequate penology for international criminal law should be built on other premises such as emphasizing the political transition and the victims of atrocities.