Consistency and Certainty in Sentencing for International Crimes: the pursuit of Justice,Accountability, and Fairness

Abstract

“Public confidence in the integrity of administration of criminal justice whether national or
international is a matter of abiding importance to the survival of the institution entrusted with
this responsibility.”
1 An intrinsic part of the pursuit to end impunity is having mechanisms to
prosecute perpetrators in a just, fair and expeditious manner.2 A core tenet of a just and fair
system is consistency in sentencing practice.3
In international criminal law, the concept of punishment and its underlying justifications have
received limited attention and remain ambiguous.4 Scholars, such as M. Drumbl, have observed
the lack of clear guidelines regarding penalties and the criteria for their imposition.5As a result,
this has sparked extensive debates due to the significant disparities in punishments handed down
by different institutions for similar crimes. This divergence has raised concerns about the
consistency and fairness of sentencing practices within the international legal framework.
The absence of comprehensive and universally accepted sentencing principles has contributed to
the ongoing discussions surrounding international criminal justice. These discussions have been
shaped by the historical precedents set by tribunals such as the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals
after World War II which laid the foundation for addressing the most heinous crimes committed
during times of armed conflict or systemic violence