Sanctions Within International Crimes Norms: Balancing Legality and Justice

Abstract

The issue of criminal responsibility for international crimes extends far beyond the boundaries of domestic state sovereignty. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter — the ICC) was the international community’s response to mass human rights violations, primarily as a preventive mechanism to guarantee stability in international justice and ensure compliance with fundamental international norms. At the same time, the invasion of the russian federation into the territory of Ukraine has become a striking example of a dismissive attitude toward both declared domestic values and universally recognized international priorities, relations, treaties, and obligations, as well as toward the historical past and global achievements in the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes. In this regard, the ICC acquires particular significance for Ukraine, not only as a means of prevention but also as a punitive mechanism to guarantee that the perpetrators are held accountable. At the same time, numerous questions arise concerning the application of such an additional mechanism at the national level, which go beyond merely defining the wrongfulness of acts that undermine the international foundations of human coexistence. In light of the requirements for punishment for the most serious and large-scale human rights violations, there is always the task of, on the one hand, achieving justice for the victims of horrific crimes, and on the other, adhering to the principles of legality and equality for those who committed such atrocities, thus following the principles of the rule of law. Here, the issue of punishment for international crimes acquires special meaning both in terms of its preventive influence and in relation to its other functions. To investigate and highlight the relevant challenges in holding perpetrators accountable, a comprehensive analysis of theoretical and practical issues has been carried out, particularly regarding sentencing, through the prism of international standards and national legislation. Using the comparative legal method largely, based on an analysis of international documents and relevant international and national practice, the authors explore the interaction of the principle of legality (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) with the principles of justice and proportionality. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the "gravity" of the offense in the context of ordinary and international crimes. In this regard, the authors examine the features and problems of holding individuals accountable for "crimes of concern to the international community as a whole," as well as issues of selective justice, mechanisms for the differentiation and individualization of responsibility and punishment, and the significance of sanctions in norms on international crimes, considering the complementary nature of the ICC. Special emphasis is placed on the challenges faced by the Ukrainian legal system in the context of a prolonged armed conflict. The authors criticize the practice of "legal simplification," where international crimes are essentially substituted by ordinary crimes. The paper argues that such a path is a dangerous illusion of efficiency that distorts the very idea of justice and becomes an obstacle to achieving it. Through a critical examination of the phenomenon of "selective" justice, it is argued that a different approach to responsibility for identical internationally recognized wrongful acts committed in connection with the same events undermines the principles of equality and nullifies the idea of a fair trial for those guilty of international crimes, also violating the principles of the inevitability of responsibility and the absence of statutes of limitations. The methodological basis of the study consists of a comprehensive combination of general scientific and specialized legal methods aimed at analysing the punishability of international crimes. In addition to the comparative legal method, which allowed for a comparison of the Rome Statute standards and international case law with national law enforcement, the study was conducted using systemic-structural and formal-dogmatic analysis. Through these, the sanction was investigated not only as a means of reflecting punishment but also as a systemic element that essentially determines the legal regime of a crime in connection with several other institutions, including statutes of limitations and immunities. A hermeneutic approach was applied when considering the categories of gravity and justice, and the legal modelling method allowed for the substantiation of unified approaches to responsibility, which is important for the purposes of the legitimacy of the justice being administered. The main focus of this study is centred on the sanction as an instrument that should reflect the real social danger of acts and as a means that facilitates the implementation of a range of other legal guarantees, while simultaneously performing preventive and retributive functions. In the context of the principles of predictability, other mechanisms for guaranteeing responsibility for the most serious offenses, such as genocide, aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, are also analysed. Contemporary events demonstrate that international criminal law must evolve further, and certain approaches require revision in light of the requirements of justice and the inevitability of punishment, which is particularly relevant for Ukraine today.