Why the International Criminal Court Should Apply Restorative Justice and Transitional Justice Principles to Improve the Impact of Its Criminal Trials on Societies around the World

ABSTRACT Both restorative and transitional justice have increasingly been applied in transitional settings to overcome the insufficient role that criminal trials have played. Using restorative justice was supposedly incorporated into the International Criminal Court (ICC) processes to overcome the so-called justice versus peace dilemma, that is, the choice between punishment or contributing to peacebuilding and preventing their reoccurrence. However, this so-called absorption has been based on a mistaken appreciation of restorative justice. It has been reduced to a mere alternative to retributive justice and overlaps with the broader concept of transitional justice. It has, therefore, failed to reap restorative justice’s true potential. This article, using theoretical and empirical methodologies, argues for the reconceptualization of international criminal justice within the ICC’s framework to effectively integrate retributive and restorative proceedings and punishments. It contends that changes to ICC practice are needed concerning victim participation, reparations and guarantees of non-repetition. It maintains that the ICC should cooperate more with local justice and transitional justice processes to positively enhance the role of the Court and for victims to attain more truth and foster reconciliation. In that way, the ICC could be more effective in dealing with atrocious human rights violations, ensuring justice delivery, while promoting enduring peace and fostering reconciliation.