ABSTRACT
The revolutionary nature of the idea of an international criminal court lies in the combination of the two elements, international and criminal. Both international law and criminal law have been around for centuries; one might even argue, millennia. International law regulated relations between governing entities, but even before the emergence of modern states, the punishment of crimes was always the privilege of the ruler. What should happen if the acts of the ruler him-or herself could be considered, by some moral standard, criminal, has exercised philosophers and inspired revolutions all over the world. The Dutch rebels united in the Union of Utrecht, for instance, legitimised their secession from the Spanish crown in 1581 as follows:
It is apparent to everyone that a Prince of the realm is appointed by God over his subjects, in order to protect them against all injustice, troubles and violence, as a shepherd to protect his sheep; and that the subjects were not created by God in order to serve the Prince as slaves and obey him in all he orders, whether it be godly or ungodly, just or unjust; but the Prince for the sake of his subjects, without which he is no Prince, in order to govern them by right and reason, and champion them and love them as a father loves his children and a shepherd his sheep, who would risk his life to preserve theirs. And when he does not do so, but instead of protecting his subjects, seeks to repress them and take away their old freedoms, privileges, and customs and to order and use them as slaves, he must be considered not a Prince but a tyrant, and his subjects may, by right and reason . . . no longer recognise this Prince, but choose another in his stead to protect them without abuse.
