ABSTRACT
The contact with atrocity-first in the form of Nazi crimes, and more recently in the shape of atrocities in the Balkans and genocide in Rwanda-has given birth to a branch of law essentially unknown before Nuremberg. In the decades since Nuremberg, international criminal law has developed remarkable jurisdictional principles for puncturing the shield of sovereignty; it has redefined what jurists understand as “international;” it has exploded temporal limitations on prosecution; and it has given rise to a prosecution-facilitating, victim-centric jurisprudence supported by novel theories of liability. At the same time that it has sponsored these dramatic innovations, however, international criminal law has failed to rethink the basic purposes of the criminal sanction. This failure, more than even the practical obstacles that face international prosecutions, leaves international criminal law in a troubled state, lacking a coherent justificatory logic.
