Much discussion over Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine focuses on the inability to charge aggression. However, another approach might be available: charging this under the ICC crimes against humanity (CAH) residual clause. First proposed in 2010 by Benjamin Ferencz, who lamented the circumscribed reach of aggression under the ‘Kampala Compromise’, the proposal has met with scepticism, primarily given that textbook aggression targets military forces, not civilians. Yet, civilian populations disproportionately bear the brunt of the violence of modern aggression (often being its direct targets). Russia's 2022 invasion is but the most recent and compelling example. Thus, this article resuscitates Ferencz's proposal, arguing that Russian leaders could be charged with using illegal force as a CAH under the residual clause. This approach would have practical advantages: initiating aggression in the Kremlin links liability to Putin much more directly for killing Ukrainian civilians, and charging it as CAH opens human victims to ICC participation and reparations. There are theoretical advantages, too, with utilitarian/retributive objectives better satisfied. Moreover, Ferencz's approach is better than recently proposed alternatives: using aggression merely as a gravity/liability modes/sentencing enhancer or alleging breach of the right to self-determination as the residual clause gravamen (arguably creating problems with victim group identification).

Despite Article 68(3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) granting victims an autonomous standing in proceedings, victims’ participatory rights have often been tailored to fit within the retributive structure of the trials. This contribution aims to provide a different perspective on victims’ role and their narratives in proceedings at the ICC, building upon the expressivist model of international criminal justice and focusing on a specific strand that engages with the adjudication process’s performative and communicative features. In providing a better understanding of how victims’ narrative unfolds in trials at the ICC, the article addresses two issues: how the concept of the victim is constructed at the ICC; and whether and, eventually, how this construct impedes progress in recognizing their narratives in proceedings at the ICC. Concerning the first issue, drawing on criminologist Nils Christie’s theorizing of the ‘ideal victim’, it will be observed that the construct of victims in proceedings at the ICC reflects three main attributes: weakness; innocence; and dependency. The second issue shed light on the extent to which the emphasis on the ‘ideal victim’ can serve as a tool in the hands of institutional actors at the ICC to pre-empt, constrain and subordinate victims’ narratives, in a manner that oversimplifies victimhood. To impose a particular narrative upon victims’ experiences, three main procedural mechanisms have been identified: appropriation of victims’ interests; legal representation of abstract victimhood; and exclusion from the trial of victims who do not conform to the ideal victim.

This article examines how a therapeutic perspective on victim participation has been conceptualized and implemented in criminal trials in Japan after procedural reforms in 2000 and 2008. Findings are discussed with reference to therapeutic jurisprudence studies on victim participation and relevant literature on Japanese criminal justice. Analysis of policy documents, survey data, interviews, and minutes of Ministry of Justice “expert meetings” reveals how the therapeutic needs of victims and the therapeutic effects of victim participation in court proceedings have been understood and conceptualized based on generalized common-sense assumptions of legal practitioners. In court, participants’ reference to victims’ wellbeing and recovery puts pressure on judges to impose harsher punishment than usual, while reinforcing the position of prosecutors. The adopted therapeutic perspective, combined with traditionally expected displays of remorse, furthermore has the effect of limiting the defence’s ability to argue facts and circumstances favourable to the defendant.

For the first time in the history of international criminal justice, victims of mass crimes have been granted the status of so-called ‘civil parties’ at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). This status grants them – at least theoretically – the right to participate in the proceedings as a formal party with broad participatory rights similar to the those of the defence and the prosecution. While the ECCC is exemplary in how it has addressed the issue of victims’ participation, practical necessities and judicial skepticism have led to significant changes in the civil party mechanism and continuously constrained participatory rights. First, changes in the ECCC's Internal Rules have significantly altered the original civil party mechanism and led to a form of victim participation similar to the one practised at the International Criminal Court (ICC), thus departing from the true meaning of a partie civile. Judicial decisions by the ECCC's judges, as well as changes in the Internal Rules, have abrogated the strong civil party mechanism that was originally anticipated in Cambodian criminal procedure law. Second, the practical challenges surrounding victim participation have been enormous. The Court itself was struggling due to lack of funding and lack of prioritization of a meaningful outreach program for victims and civil parties. The ECCC's Public Affairs Section (PAS) and the Victims Support Section (VSS) held the responsibility of reaching out to the general Cambodian population. However, it was Cambodian NGOs that ultimately established a collaborative outreach system and collected more than 8,000 Victim Information Forms (VIFs). All these efforts notwithstanding, only political willingness and a Cambodian discussion of how to deal with the vast number of perpetrators beyond a handful of criminal trials, can lead to a process of coming to terms with one's past.