Common narratives in international criminal law give the impression that the arc of international criminal law is long but bends towards justice. In this article, I wish to challenge this and show that we actually see more of the same. I adopt a consequentialist approach for analysing these issues: what are the real outcomes of the structural changes that happened via the involvement of the UN Security Council (unsc) and are they driven more by power or principle? Through case studies of the two existing referrals of the situations of Darfur and Libya I challenge the progress narrative often implied in international criminal law discourse. I show that through the institutional structure and limitations in practice, the unsc referral mechanism operates as a continuation of double standards by other means and that power influences accountability much more than principle even without direct unsc intervention.

国际刑法中的常见叙述给人的印象是，国际刑法的弧线很长，但却趋于正义。在本文中，我想挑战这一点，并表明我们实际上看到了更多相同的东西。我采用结果论方法来分析这些问题：在联合国安理会（unsc）的参与下发生的结构性变化的真正结果是什么？它们是由权力还是原则驱动的？通过对两个现有的达尔富尔和利比亚局势的转介进行案例研究，我对国际刑法话语中通常隐含的进展叙述提出了挑战。我表明，通过在实践中的体制结构和限制，联合国安理会推荐机制是通过其他手段实现双重标准的延续，即使没有直接的非政府干预，权力对问责制的影响也远大于原则。