Traditionally Indeterminate Terms at the International Criminal Court

• Published in: SAIS review (Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies) 2022, Vol.42 (1), p.119-132
• Main Author: Kane, Matthew
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Atrocities; Bicycles; Criminal law; Defendants; Eradication; Imprisonment; International courts; Jargon; Judges & magistrates; Language; Language usage; Life imprisonment; Offenses; Rule of law; Terminology; Verbal communication; Victims; Vocabulary
• ISSN: 1945-4716; 1945-4724; 1945-4724
• DOI: 10.1353/sais.2022.0007

While much has been made of the Rome Statute's exhaustive definitions and stated desire for strict construction, the Statute and the International Criminal Court regularly employ terminology that is, by its very nature, vague and potentially unclear. Consider terms like "atrocities" (how many people must be harmed to qualify), "moral" (what and how many data points must be considered to find a judge does or does not have it), and "appropriate" (some would argue the only appropriate sentence for a convicted genocidaire under the Statute is life imprisonment). This is not a novel concern. Rather, states have consistently and often intentionally used relatively open-ended language when more precise terminology is insufficient or impractical. Many of the drafters of the Rome Statute and the judges presiding at the Court are from states where such terminology is ingrained in their legal vocabulary. Identifying such language usage is essential, not for purposes of eradication, but rather so that judges, practitioners, and those seeking to amend the Statute can recognize such terminology and how it affects the potential application of the law in actual cases involving defendants accused of the worst crimes and victims who have suffered immeasurable harm.