As the cornerstone of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the principle of complementarity provides that states have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute international crimes, and only when they are inactive, unwilling or unable to genuinely investigate and prosecute the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction. However, the relevance of sentences and sanctions, their severity and modalities in the complementarity assessment (CA) is still ambiguous. Some scholars argue for sentences to play a role in the CA but do not elaborate on what an inadequate sanction is and how it can justify the ICC pre-empting a national prosecution. Others mainly focus on pardons or blanket amnesties, without addressing reduced or alternative sentences developed in the framework of peace negotiations. The existing gap may stall or complicate peace processes in post-conflict situations under the jurisdiction of the ICC where alternative sanctions can be the only viable way to reach an agreement between the warring parties. This article focuses on the role that sentences can play in the CA according to the Rome Statute, on what are the standards on adequacy of sentences/sanctions for international crimes, and analyses how alternative sanctions designed in transitional contexts can play out in such an assessment.

中文翻译：

---

平衡“国际”和“国内”

作为国际刑事法院（ICC）的基石，互补性原则规定，国家对调查和起诉国际犯罪负有首要责任，只有在不积极、不愿或不能真正调查和起诉时，国际刑事法院才能行使自己的职责。管辖权。然而，判决和制裁的相关性、它们在互补性评估 (CA) 中的严重性和方式仍然模棱两可。一些学者主张判决在 CA 中发挥作用，但没有详细说明什么是不适当的制裁以及它如何证明国际刑事法院先于国家起诉是正当的。其他人主要关注赦免或全面大赦，没有解决在和平谈判框架内制定的减刑或替代刑罚。在国际刑事法院管辖下的冲突后局势中，现有的差距可能会使和平进程停滞或复杂化，在这种情况下，替代制裁可能是交战各方达成协议的唯一可行方式。本文重点关注根据《罗马规约》，判决在 CA 中可以发挥的作用，国际犯罪的判决/制裁的充分标准是什么，并分析了在过渡背景下设计的替代制裁如何在此类评估中发挥作用.