Most practitioners of icl thought that that the Appeals Chamber employed three putatively distinct standards of review with respect to questions of facts, law, and the exercise of discretion: respectively correctness, reasonableness, and abuse of discretion. However, the Bemba Appeals Decision turned this all on its head. The Appeals Chamber found (by the narrowest 3–2 vote) that while correctness remained the standard of review with respect to errors of law, errors of fact would no longer be reviewed on a purely reasonableness standard. Although the Bemba decision provoked immediate outrage, this article argues that the jurisprudence of the icc was never clear on the standard of view – pace the view of many scholars. Analysing the decisions of the Appeals Chamber, it shows that the debate between correctness and reasonableness had never been fully resolved. It concludes with a proposal for how the court might simplify its approach.

多数icl的从业者认为，上诉分庭在事实，法律和行使自由裁量权问题上采用了三种公认的不同审查标准：分别是正确性，合理性和滥用自由裁量权。但是，《本巴上诉裁决》却使这一切陷入了困境。上诉分庭裁定（以最小的3票至2票），尽管正确性仍然是对法律错误的审查标准，但事实错误将不再按照纯粹的合理性标准进行审查。尽管本巴的决定引起了立即的愤慨，但本文认为，国际刑警组织的判例在观点标准上从未明确-步伐许多学者的看法。分析上诉分庭的决定，它表明正确与合理之间的争论从未得到完全解决。最后提出了关于法院如何简化其处理方法的建议。