A distinguishing feature of the International Criminal Court is its recognition of victims' rights. Victims have been described as the raison d'être of this new, permanent court. But when can the Court be considered successful with regard to victims? Should the Court help victims' recovery, should it facilitate reconciliation or should it simply punish? Will the Court be judged based on the outcomes it provides or based on the way in which these outcomes are reached (process)? Based on interviews with Court personnel, this paper examines possible criteria for measuring the success of the Court.
AdamsJ.S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. In Advances in Social Psychology, Volume 2 (BerkowitzL., ed.) pp. 267–299. Academic Press; New York.
2.
BassiouniM.C. (2006). International Recognition of Victims' Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 6 (2), 203–279.
3.
BladerS.TylerT. (2003). A Four-component Model of Procedural Justice: Defining the Meaning of a ‘Fair’ Process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (6), 747–758.
4.
ColquittJ.A. (2001). On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 386–400.
5.
ErezE. (1999). Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Victim? Victim Impact Statements as Victim Empowerment and Enhancement of Justice. Criminal Law Review, 545–556, 1999.
6.
FIDH (2007). Victims Rights Before the ICC. Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'Homme; Paris.
7.
GibsonJ.L. (2002). Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation: Judging the Fairness of Amnesty in Sout Africa. American Journal of Political Scienc, 46 (3), 540–556.
8.
International Criminal Court (1998). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in Rome on 17 July 1998. A/CONF.183/9. Available at: http://www.icc.org.
9.
Kutnjak IvkovichS.HaganJ. (2008). Bargain Justice? Perceptions of Procedural Justice at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Law & Society Association, Montreal. May 29–June 1, 2008.
10.
LindE.A.TylerT. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum Press; New York, NY.
11.
MaslowA.H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. 2nd Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold; New York.
12.
OrthU. (2002). Secondary Victimization of Crime Victims by Criminal Proceedings. Social Justice Research, 15 (4), 313–325.
13.
RoachK. (1999). Due Process and Victims' Rights: The New Law and Politics of Criminal Justice. University of Toronto Press; Toronto.
14.
SmartC. (1989). Feminism and the Power of Law. Routledge; London.
15.
StoverE. (2005). The Witnesses. University of Pennsylvania Press; Philadelphia.
16.
StrangH. (2002). Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice. Clarendon Press; Oxford.
17.
ThibautJ.WalkerL. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Wiley; Hillsdale, NJ.
18.
TylerT. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. Yale University Press; New Haven.
19.
TylerT.HuoY.J. (2002). Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. Russell Sage Foundation; New York.
20.
TylerT.LindE.A. (1992). A Relational Model of Authority in Groups. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25 (ZannaM.P., ed.) pp. 115–191. Academic Press; San Diego.
21.
Van den BosK.LindE.A. (2002). Uncertainty Management By Means of Fairness Judgements. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 1–59.
22.
Von HirschA. ( 1985). Past or Future Crimes: Deservedness and Dangerousness in the Sentencing of Criminals. Rutgers University Press; New Brunswick.
23.
WalsterE.WalsterG.W.BerscheidE. (1973). New Directions in Equity Research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25 (2), 151–176.
24.
WemmersJ. (1996). Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Kugler Publications; Amsterdam.
25.
WemmersJ. (2006). Reparation and the International Criminal Court: Meeting the Needs of Victims. Research Group Victimology and Restorative Justice, International Centre for Comparative Criminology, University of Montreal; Montreal.
