Retributive justice and International Criminal Court (ICC).
Conflict, and with special reference to armed conflict, has shaped the course of world history, and has prompted the intervention of measures to create peace. Conflicts in the 21st century are going to look very different from those of the century before. This paper looks at the possibility that by its application of the principle of retributive justice, the ICC has positively affected intra- and inter-state conflicts, and thereby, achieved one of its auxiliary objectives; a higher objective, which is to prevent the war form taking place, and not to wait for it to happen, to met out justice to the belligerents who did not play according to the rules of the game. Out of this analysis, the paper identifies gaps and lacuna that need be filled through policy shifts, and treaty amendments, or jurisprudential interpretation of already existent laws to advance the cause of rule of law and protect the court, and the idea that it presents, the idea that some crimes are so grave, that despite the nationality of the perpetrator must be tried. The hypothesis under consideration proposes that the current model of dispensing criminal justice by ICC, which applies retributive justice, is having a positive, preventive effect in commission of international crimes. The study finds that the restitutive model of conflict resolution is more individual focused, alienating the community, and focusing on punishing the offender, with less focus on the victim. On the other hand, the restorative model is focused towards long term sustainability of peace, through addressing the community, and the victim, as well as the offender. It is hence more wholesome an approach to conflict resolution. ICC’s conflict resolution model is retributive, as opposed to restorative, or reparative. The paper recommends that ICC takes the model of restitutive, reparative or restorative justice, as opposed to retributive justice.