The general philosophy of social contrcat is premised on the notion that the state assumes the role of maintaining social relation through diverse political ideas and strategies. Within the context of this historical arrangement, the institution of criminal justice has been foremost in shaping the relationship between members of the community by defining rights and sanctions. These socio-legal trajectories that developed through theories and policies have continued to define the various strategies of crime control as well as the jurisprudence of punishment. It has also been the key measure for the legitimacy of crime control and other dispute resolution technics (Davies et al. 2009). Being a significant component in the formation of political systems, the institution of criminal justice has also developed to encapsulate the values of democracy, constitionalism and human rights. It is from these ideas that criminal justice institutions mainly the police, the prosecutors, the courts and prisons derived their legitimacy, that are today seen by many as the ideal mechanism for maintaining social order. These agencies have, over time, gained prominence within the framework of a larger political order, engaging themselves as some "product of incremental enlightenment, benevolence, and a consensual society" (Burke 2012: 194). Despite these lofty assumptions about the role of criminal justice in the society, this paper argues that the policies and practices in criminal justice are far from benign. By bringing to discourse the contemporary realities of penal justice, this paper argues that many of the traditional values of criminal justice have been tremendously altered; conventional narratives are replaced by a new kind of penology. This includes the way in which the role and rights of various parties and participants in the system have been reconfigured as well as the economic way of thinking that is steadily disrupting the balance and objectives of the entire institution of criminal justice.

The general philosophy of social contrcat is premised on the notion that the state assumes the role of maintaining social relation through diverse political ideas and strategies. Within the context of this historical arrangement, the institution of criminal justice has been foremost in shaping the relationship between members of the community by defining rights and sanctions. These socio-legal trajectories that developed through theories and policies have continued to define the various strategies of crime control as well as the jurisprudence of punishment. It has also been the key measure for the legitimacy of crime control and other dispute resolution technics (Davies et al. 2009). Being a significant component in the formation of political systems, the institution of criminal justice has also developed to encapsulate the values of democracy, constitionalism and human rights. It is from these ideas that criminal justice institutions mainly the police, the prosecutors, the courts and prisons derived their legitimacy, that are today seen by many as the ideal mechanism for maintaining social order. These agencies have, over time, gained prominence within the framework of a larger political order, engaging themselves as some "product of incremental enlightenment, benevolence, and a consensual society" (Burke 2012: 194). Despite these lofty assumptions about the role of criminal justice in the society, this paper argues that the policies and practices in criminal justice are far from benign. By bringing to discourse the contemporary realities of penal justice, this paper argues that many of the traditional values of criminal justice have been tremendously altered; conventional narratives are replaced by a new kind of penology. This includes the way in which the role and rights of various parties and participants in the system have been reconfigured as well as the economic way of thinking that is steadily disrupting the balance and objectives of the entire institution of criminal justice.

The well-known criminal justice constituencies of crime control, due process and penal sentence are facing far reaching transformations resulting in some paradoxical outcomes that include an upsurge in populist legislations and the emergence of non-state actors in justice administration. Although these may be reflections of criminal justice's attempt to enhance effectiveness, the outcome has been severely convoluted that the question of rights and even the foundation of theory of social contract are waning into the shadows of bureaucratic policies and practices that seemed to threaten the fabric of justice administration. This paper is an attempt to show how criminal justice policies and strategies are gravitating from their orthodox constituency to a territory that is mixed in populism, punitivism as well as the compounded regime of coalitions of public and private actors defined mostly by contentious new practices of crime control, procedural changes and an economic way of thinking, leading to unconventional and often controversial practices.

Introduction Although the idea of having a court that will try international crimes has been discussed for some time, it was in 1947 that the U.N. General Assembly requested that the International Law Commission (ILC) to begin to codify the principles of international law that emerged from the Nuremberg Tribunal (Ellis, 2002). This process continued through 1950s, and in 1994, the ILC produced a comprehensive draft that was later to become the Statute to guide the role and jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (Lee, 2001). The draft was adopted as the Rome Statute in 1998 which established the ICC saddled with the role of investigating and prosecuting individuals accused of committing gross violations of international humanitarian law that include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression (Holmes, 1999; Ellis, 2002). For the purpose of the statute, Genocide is any act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Crime against humanity on the other hand is that widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. The statute also defines war crimes is anything that amounts to a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 949, which includes willful killing or causing of great suffering, unlawful deportation or confinement, taking hostage, torture, inhuman treatment that involves extensive and unjustified destruction and appropriation of property, as well as hostility on prisoners of war or depriving them the rights of fair trial (Charney, 2001; Ellis, 2002; Sedman, 2010).The establishment of the ICC brought in a new regime of criminal adjudication onto the world stage where an international court is now given a jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute crimes committed in different parts of the world. This development in international legal regime generated polemics among scholars and commentators on whether the crimes mentioned in the Rome Statute should be tried by domestic courts or that such crimes be left to international jurisdiction (Doherty and Timothy, 1999; Sadat and Carden, 2000). Proponents of international prosecution are of the opinion that lack the capacity and the will to rigorously prosecute grave international crimes. As proponents argue for a strong international court regime, others are of the opinion that the most effective means of dealing with these crimes of international concern is to have robust domestic legal systems across the countries of the world (Charney, 2001). This way, the domain of the 'complementarity' principle features as a genuine support for national courts and further entrenches the principle of sovereignty. Likewise, resort to international courts will become less and rare to be evoked only when it becomes extremely necessary with clear evidence that a crime will go unpunished do to the unwillingness or inability of domestic courts to try such cases. As Jann pointed out, the standard of measuring 'unwillingness' is to determine and ass...