It is to be hoped that the ICC, like other courts, would be able to play a crime prevention role in respect of the offences with which it deals; but a few basic points need to be made in the interests of realism.

First it is not like other courts. Domestic criminal courts have jurisdiction over a geographical area covered by law enforcement officials who feed offences into those courts. There is reach, permanence and consistency of action. There is a real risk of detection and adjudication and outcomes are broadly predictable. The ICC has been given the world—but only in respect of some uncommon offences and only when the domestic courts are unable or unwilling to act. It is a backstop. It is not “on the job” in any one place at any time, even for its particular offences.

Secondly, crime prevention is not really the work of the courts, in any event. Crime prevention is done by a wide range of measures affecting persons, places, activities, security, etc—education of people, design concepts for buildings and neighbourhoods, methods of handling valuable goods, control of intoxicating substances, preventive policing and so on. Those measures do not really work for ICC crimes and, other than awareness and action by strong and fearless domestic actors and their allies, it is difficult to think of measures that might.

Thirdly, if crime prevention is meant to be effected by the sentencing function of criminal courts, through individual and general deterrence, then we need to think again. Punishment (and the prospect of punishment) does not deter serious offenders, as countless reputable studies continue to show. And the ICC deals with the most serious. Perpetrators of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity do not think about getting caught, let alone punished.

Fourthly, any deterrent effect of the criminal justice system (that there is) is achieved through the certainty of detection. Psychological studies show that while punishment can modify behaviour, it is most effective when it is: immediate (ie within seconds of the behaviour); inevitable; severe; understood to be a consequence of the behaviour; AND alternative behaviours are understood by the recipient of the punishment to be available. Try fitting that into the ICC’s model.

If the certainty of detection and inevitability of punishment are to be assured for ICC crimes, then more must be done than tinkering with the operations of the Court or its structural framework. This is a job for the domestic politicians and courts and the UN. What are the chances? In the meantime, however, the ICC does have an important role to play in cleaning up after the most horrific of events and carrying out international revenge on our behalf in a principled and broadly acceptable way.