ABSTRACT
One of the most voluble criticisms of international criminal prosecution is that it fits squarely within the category of what Jaspers terms political liability, the jurisdiction of which ‘rests with the power and will of the victor’ (Jaspers 2000: 25). The criticism is that international retributive justice smacks of the immoral impulse of revenge and should not be recognized as a legitimate response to human rights violations. A common normative principle claims that acts of revenge by victims, or others on behalf of victims, are dangerous and unethical, and the argument against ICL is that it represents improper vengeance and intrudes where it should not. Another version of this criticism is simply that international criminal trials, although not overstepping the boundaries of sovereignty and the dictates of global justice, are improperly categorized as objective and proper legal prosecutions.
