Penal welfarism ‘gone global’? Comparing international criminal justice to The Culture of Control

Abstract

With the consolidation of a cosmopolitan field of international criminal justice, penality has ‘gone global’. In spite of the abundance of doctrinal legal analysis, human rights studies, and transitional justice studies, there are few analytic attempts to engage with the working assumptions, cultural commitments, and dominant mentalities that give shape to international criminal justice as a penal field. Based on ethnographic observations, interviews with key actors, and critical reading of international criminal justice scholarship, this article compares the cosmopolitan penality of international criminal justice to that of late modern, domestic, penality. Using David Garland’s The Culture of Control as an analytic yardstick, it argues that international criminal justice both resembles and departs from ‘the national’. For example, whilst the cosmopolitan penality relies upon retributive justifications, it makes no appeal to harsh penal sanctions; nor is it concerned with the rehabilitation of prisoners. Rather, it is an expressive and humanitarian form of justice where the victim takes central stage – as the embodiment of a suffering humanity. Moreover, there is a remarkable faith in the transformative effects of international criminal justice, resembling a form of penal welfarism ‘gone global’. As national capacity building and penal development has become intrinsic to the project of international criminal justice, the article shows how the global dimension of the power to punish is based on a moralization of politics.

Observance of individual rights in criminal proceedings during martial law

“…We share a position on the victimological dimension of the analysis of the problems of observing individual rights in criminal proceedings during martial law (Lohne, 2020). Modern justice is a communicative process that provides interaction with crime victims and the general population (Eskauriatza, 2021).…”

Responsibility for war crimes: through transitional justice to sustainable

“…Міжнародні злочини, охоплені юрисдикцією Міжнародного кримінального суду (далі -МКС), визнані найтяжчими злочинами, які є у світі. Це проявляється і у суворості покарання, і у створенні спеціальної установи, що за принципом компліментарності [1] Причиною сучасного незадовільного стану притягнення до відповідальності за злочини, вчинені в Україні в рамках збройного конфлікту, є відсутність цілісної концепції перехідного правосуддя, недосконалість чинного законодавства України щодо регулювання відповідальності за міжнародні злочини, брак досвіду правоохоронців та суддів у притягненні до відповідальності за порушення норм міжнародного гуманітарного права (далі -МГП), відсутність доступу до території, що ускладнює процес збору доказів, а в подальшому може мати місце відсутність підслідного/ підсудного, а також інші фактори, які разом визначають сучасний рівень притягнення до відповідальності за міжнародні злочини, вчинені на території України.…”

The role of the media as a parallel tool of justice for crimes against a civilian population

“…However, the involvement of civil society institutions in interaction with all elements of the criminal justice system is extremely urgent because of the duration and scale of armed conflicts, the number of crimes committed, and partly the limitation on the work of national law enforcement agencies in documenting them. This became possible primarily due to the position of researchers and human rights defenders, which was supported by influential mass media in the global movement for human rights and the rule of law (Lohne, 2020).…”

“…This is especially characteristic of international criminal justice, which generally does not appeal to harsh sanctions, is not aimed at the rehabilitation of convicts. This is a humanitarian form of justice, which focuses on the victim (Lohne, 2020). However, traditional forms of justice are sometimes not effective in detecting and proving crimes against the civilian population in relation to internal conflicts (Gilmartin, 2021).…”