For Criminology in International Criminal Justice

Criminology and war: where are we going and where have we been?

“…In 2002, the ICC—the first permanent, treaty‐based international criminal court—was established at the Hague in the Netherlands with the laudable goal of ending impunity for the perpetrators of the most egregious crimes against the international community: war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. However well intentioned the ICC, heralded by some as “the ultimate symbol of the international community's aspiration to global justice” (Roberts & McMillan, , 329), it offers a poignant example of the inherent difficulties of meting out justice under the sweeping umbrella of “the international community”. In the 14 years since its inception, the ICC has expended well over a billion dollars, but secured only three convictions, including the recent 2016 conviction of Karadžić, who received just 40 years for his role in the Bosnian genocide (Davenport, ).…”

“…In the 14 years since its inception, the ICC has expended well over a billion dollars, but secured only three convictions, including the recent 2016 conviction of Karadžić, who received just 40 years for his role in the Bosnian genocide (Davenport, ). The relative impotence of the ICC and other entities of transitional justice raises the critical question of whether the international community is “sufficiently broad, and deep enough to foster and sustain legitimacy in international penalty?” (Roberts & McMillan, , 329).…”

“…Roberts and McMillan () and McEvoy () offer a compelling answer to this question by making the case for intellectual pluralism and the marriage of legal doctrine with criminological data, methodology, and theorizing. Such an endeavor arguably necessitates fundamental ideological shifts.…”

“…Put simply, justice must be meaningful to those who seek it, and a legal system that fails to include those voices in the justice process will invariably fall short of delivering. Second, Roberts and McMillan () point to the prevailing doctrine of individual culpability that dominates contemporary juristic responses to international crime. The inherent risk of such an orientation, they argue, is that “it may divert attention from the broader systemic, corporate, geopolitical and socioeconomic precipitants of international criminality” (Roberts & McMillan, , 331).…”

“…Second, Roberts and McMillan () point to the prevailing doctrine of individual culpability that dominates contemporary juristic responses to international crime. The inherent risk of such an orientation, they argue, is that “it may divert attention from the broader systemic, corporate, geopolitical and socioeconomic precipitants of international criminality” (Roberts & McMillan, , 331). Such a diversion both deflects blame from state and institutional actors and precludes knowledge building about the “criminogenic nature of organizations—such as the police, multinational corporations or the military” (, 331).…”