What is a "grave" international crime?: The Rome Statute, Durkheim and the sociology of ruling outrages

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

This article interrogates the Rome Statute and its “gravity” threshold as a synonym and antonym of penal accountability, by looking critically into the sociological and doctrinal sources that venerate a circumscribed catalogue of grave international crimes. Specifically, I engage Durkheimian sociology to complement existing doctrinal critiques that have identified a conceptual and policy void within the Rome Statute’s seminal gravity threshold. Such an interdisciplinary move, I argue, highlights how a politics of ruling outrages naturalize, under the cover of doctrinal determinacy, an economy of grave versus non-grave (international) crimes. My argument works between sociology and doctrinal analysis in three steps. First, Emile Durkheim is reintroduced to international lawyers for his scrutiny of crime and penal law as producing and reflecting any society’s outrages. Second, this Durkheimian insight is then used to scrutinize how the Rome Statute’s gravity threshold relies, in part, on symbolic power and sacral appearance to border jurisdiction on what grave crimes are and should be. Finally, we discuss how this sociological and symbolic infrastructure produces a caging effect, because it dulls capacity for reflection on whether international criminalization, under its gravity regime, remains connected to an evolving register of outrages and a more contemporary catalogue of grave crimes.
LanguageEnglish
Pages33
JournalLoyola University Chicago International Law Review
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 1 Sep 2019

Fingerprint

statute
sociology
offense
criminalization
lawyer
jurisdiction
regime
infrastructure
responsibility
economy
Law
politics

Cite this

@article{eb4d8bb7ae454d388ebc1590c29bbe9d,
title = "What is a {"}grave{"} international crime?: The Rome Statute, Durkheim and the sociology of ruling outrages",
abstract = "This article interrogates the Rome Statute and its “gravity” threshold as a synonym and antonym of penal accountability, by looking critically into the sociological and doctrinal sources that venerate a circumscribed catalogue of grave international crimes. Specifically, I engage Durkheimian sociology to complement existing doctrinal critiques that have identified a conceptual and policy void within the Rome Statute’s seminal gravity threshold. Such an interdisciplinary move, I argue, highlights how a politics of ruling outrages naturalize, under the cover of doctrinal determinacy, an economy of grave versus non-grave (international) crimes. My argument works between sociology and doctrinal analysis in three steps. First, Emile Durkheim is reintroduced to international lawyers for his scrutiny of crime and penal law as producing and reflecting any society’s outrages. Second, this Durkheimian insight is then used to scrutinize how the Rome Statute’s gravity threshold relies, in part, on symbolic power and sacral appearance to border jurisdiction on what grave crimes are and should be. Finally, we discuss how this sociological and symbolic infrastructure produces a caging effect, because it dulls capacity for reflection on whether international criminalization, under its gravity regime, remains connected to an evolving register of outrages and a more contemporary catalogue of grave crimes.",
author = "Nikolas Rajkovic",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "1",
language = "English",
pages = "33",
journal = "Loyola University Chicago International Law Review",
issn = "1558-9226",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What is a "grave" international crime?

T2 - Loyola University Chicago International Law Review

AU - Rajkovic, Nikolas

PY - 2019/9/1

Y1 - 2019/9/1

N2 - This article interrogates the Rome Statute and its “gravity” threshold as a synonym and antonym of penal accountability, by looking critically into the sociological and doctrinal sources that venerate a circumscribed catalogue of grave international crimes. Specifically, I engage Durkheimian sociology to complement existing doctrinal critiques that have identified a conceptual and policy void within the Rome Statute’s seminal gravity threshold. Such an interdisciplinary move, I argue, highlights how a politics of ruling outrages naturalize, under the cover of doctrinal determinacy, an economy of grave versus non-grave (international) crimes. My argument works between sociology and doctrinal analysis in three steps. First, Emile Durkheim is reintroduced to international lawyers for his scrutiny of crime and penal law as producing and reflecting any society’s outrages. Second, this Durkheimian insight is then used to scrutinize how the Rome Statute’s gravity threshold relies, in part, on symbolic power and sacral appearance to border jurisdiction on what grave crimes are and should be. Finally, we discuss how this sociological and symbolic infrastructure produces a caging effect, because it dulls capacity for reflection on whether international criminalization, under its gravity regime, remains connected to an evolving register of outrages and a more contemporary catalogue of grave crimes.

AB - This article interrogates the Rome Statute and its “gravity” threshold as a synonym and antonym of penal accountability, by looking critically into the sociological and doctrinal sources that venerate a circumscribed catalogue of grave international crimes. Specifically, I engage Durkheimian sociology to complement existing doctrinal critiques that have identified a conceptual and policy void within the Rome Statute’s seminal gravity threshold. Such an interdisciplinary move, I argue, highlights how a politics of ruling outrages naturalize, under the cover of doctrinal determinacy, an economy of grave versus non-grave (international) crimes. My argument works between sociology and doctrinal analysis in three steps. First, Emile Durkheim is reintroduced to international lawyers for his scrutiny of crime and penal law as producing and reflecting any society’s outrages. Second, this Durkheimian insight is then used to scrutinize how the Rome Statute’s gravity threshold relies, in part, on symbolic power and sacral appearance to border jurisdiction on what grave crimes are and should be. Finally, we discuss how this sociological and symbolic infrastructure produces a caging effect, because it dulls capacity for reflection on whether international criminalization, under its gravity regime, remains connected to an evolving register of outrages and a more contemporary catalogue of grave crimes.

M3 - Article

SP - 33

JO - Loyola University Chicago International Law Review

JF - Loyola University Chicago International Law Review

SN - 1558-9226

ER -