INCRICO studies the judicial function of the International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) from a socio-legal perspective. It examines how ICC judges themselves view their jobs and cope with difficult legal issues in complex criminal cases, and how judicial understandings of their role influence the actual practices and decisions of the Court. This project develops a broader understanding of the judicial function that encompasses both strictly judicial as well as wider social (manifest and latent) roles of the ICC. Such a comprehensive view of the judicial function involves multiple functions of the ICC: law interpretation/application/development in the context of concrete cases; fact-finding and truth-seeking; dispute settlement; law-making; managing cases and regulating judicial processes; governance; performing social control, fostering social integration/stabilization and international (inter-state) socialization; and protecting the social interests and deep values of the international community.
INCRICO is particularly important for society, as it has the ambition of bringing the society closer to the ICC. First, the ICC is not a ‘regular’ international court engaged in dispute settlement and compliance with treaties, but is primarily a criminal court that convicts and imposes sentences on persons within the limits set forth in its Statute. Awareness of the Court's functions and performance is necessary for decision-makers and the public at large. Second, INCRICO also takes a forward-looking perspective and indicates the future challenges and possibilities of the Court’s action. It addresses the needed reforms of the ICC’s judicial system and the prospects for an improved exercise of its judicial function. Third, by exploring the societal, cultural and political dynamics and power relations characterizing the ICC and its jurisprudence, my analysis is an invitation to the mass media to reflect more and be more attentive to the messages and signals given by the Court. Fourth, INCRICO raises the profile of the core judicial institution of the international community in an era of populism and resistance to international courts. Thus, it may dispel some of the prejudice against international institutions and the ICC in particular by providing further insights into how ICC judges: relate themselves collectively to their direct constituents - the Assembly of States Parties; speak to the larger public; and take into account the legitimate expectations and interests of the international community. ICC judges should also be mindful of the reception of the Court's judgments as authoritative within an international community as the core basis for its legitimacy and wider support. My study therefore provides an authoritative account of the ICC that constitutes a significant response to recent strong criticism surrounding the exercise of its judicial function.
The core objective of INCRICO is to analyse how ICC judges view and experience the international criminal judicial function and how this, in turn, impacts the Court’s practices and decisions. Other objectives of the project are the following: First, to examine the inner (deliberative) process, the drafting process and the functions ICC judges ascribe to their work, including the use of separate and dissenting opinions. Second, to provide an engaging account of the judges’ views and practices and explain commonalities, nuances and differences between judicial conceptions and theoretical explanations of the concept of international judicial function as applicable to the ICC. Third, to offer a refined theoretical proposal for defining the judicial function of the ICC. Fourth, to increase awareness and knowledge of the ICC and its work among relevant scientific and criminal justice management/policy making communities, and the general public.
