Silvia D’Ascoli discusses some issues that were addressed in the contributions of Whiting, van der Wilt and Werle and Epik. She agrees that the objectives and purposes of punishment guiding the sentencing process should be predetermined by the relevant system and not decided by the judges on a case-by-case basis and is disappointed how little the ICC jurisprudence on sentencing has so far contributed to the development of rationales for international punishment. Similarly, in her view it is a missed opportunity that no clear sentencing guidelines have been determined at the ICC (as was the case at the ad hoc Tribunals), including any expressed weight, from the purposes of punishment. She recalls that the initial Prosecution’s proposition of ‘80 per cent baseline’ of the statutory maximum as a starting point to determine sentences was dismissed by the Trial Chamber – and after that the Prosecution did not propose any other approach or solution. L49

Alex Whiting thoroughly analyzes the submissions by the ICC Office of the Prosecutor and statements made by the Prosecution. He explains the different approaches of the first and the second Prosecutor: The first embraced a theory of ‘disruption and specific deterrence’, seeking to intervene in real time to stop ongoing crimes with the Court being a force for diplomacy and peace. The second Prosecutor, on the other hand, focuses on the judicial tasks of the Court, chooses fewer cases, acts slowly and carefully. This way, the Court moved towards an expressive theory of punishment, investigations and cases are a way of expressing, shaping and enforcing norms. In the end, Whiting concludes that at the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor theory does not dictate practice – it is the other way round: The Office’s strategy is reactive to and constrained by the dependency on state cooperation and the limits of the ICC’s authority. Only within those constraints, can theories of punishment play a role: ‘robust theories of punishment are a luxory of actors with power’.