International criminal law (ICL) and in particular, the International Criminal Court (ICC), have increasingly faced criticism relating to neo-colonialism, asymmetries of power and western hegemony in recent times.Footnote ¹ Marketing Global Justice similarly presents an intriguing critique of the manner in which ICL, as the dominant global justice project of the early twenty-first century, sells itself in what Christine Schwöbel-Patel calls the ‘global justice sector’.Footnote ² The book cleverly details the parallels between marketing techniques, including branding, and international criminal law. The author employs a political economy analysis to underscore her argument that global elites benefit from marketized global justice whilst victims – the ‘faces’ of global justice – are instrumentalized and commodified.

The first five chapters conclude that marketized global justice takes shape in the interconnection between: (i) branding, (ii) the attention economy, (iii) spectacle, (iv) ICL, (v) neoliberalism, and (vi) neo-colonialism. Schwöbel-Patel asserts that not only is marketing practiced in the for-profit corporate sector, but also in the global justice sector and that branding is central to the formation and functioning of the dominant understanding of global justice. This marketized global justice gravitates towards a ‘spectacularised version of justice’ relying on colonial tropes of ‘good’ versus ‘evil’, ‘propping up the global market system’, and is implicated in inequalities between the Global North and the Global South.Footnote ³ In particular, the author holds that marketized global justice – a term that remains undefined in the book – is harmful rather than beneficial to victims of mass atrocities.Footnote ⁴ They are most likely to be invoked rhetorically and visually to justify global justice projects such as the ICC and other international tribunals, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC).

Marketing practices are most clearly demonstrated in what Schwöbel-Patel terms as ‘the ICC’s practices of persuasion and distraction’.Footnote ⁵ She argues that the ICC utilizes a number of marketing practices such as branding, advertising, PR and publicity, and uses the same means as a corporation to protect its ‘brand’ and logo. Arguably, much of this was developed in response to the accusations that the ICC did not make enough of an effort to reach out and explain its work to a non-specialist public.Footnote ⁶ This analysis of market practices, leads Schwöbel-Patel to conclude that the prominence of the market in the global justice sector has become apparent in three ways: firstly in the adoption of marketing practices by the not-for-profit limb of the global justice sector; secondly, in the focus on market-friendly global justice issues, constructed on the basis of spectacularized courtroom drama which obscures the context and root causes of conflict,Footnote ⁷ and thirdly in the construction of an audience for global (in)justice issues on the basis of purchasing power.Footnote ⁸ However, the author’s stance on branding is arguably overstated in negative terms. It can be argued that perception is central to the formation and functioning of any concept and not limited to the ICC. For example, the ICC has been confused with the United Nations in certain situation countries by victims, intermediaries, and the general public. In other cases, it has been important for the ICC to protect and promote its ‘brand’ in order to prevent other interlocutors from purporting to act on its behalf, potentially putting victims and witnesses at risk.Footnote ⁹

The author contends that the proliferation of images by the ICC, for example, of the emotionless black male as a perpetrator of terrible crimes and the stereotype of the Global South as requiring development (or ‘civilisation’ as the author puts it) and global justice intervention is used to distract from the fact that ‘global justice is an “empty shell” of the devalued notions of democracy, equality, and social justice, and more importantly obscures structural violence with its focus on individuals, [both victims and perpetrators]’.Footnote ¹⁰ She rightly points out that although there is frequent reference to ‘stakeholders’ of global justice, questions of structural inequality are rarely part of the global justice debate. It is difficult to disagree with these assertions, very often in international criminal trials the focus of the attention economy is on the spectacular as opposed to structural issues that may have given rise to conflict in the first place. Furthermore, simplified tropes of ‘good’ versus ‘evil’ and the racialized aspects of international criminal trials are undeniable at the ICC.

One of the more controversial assertions made by the author is that victims of conflict are exploited as the faces of global justice.Footnote ¹¹ She discusses the construction and reproduction of an ‘ideal victim’ through marketized global justice, one where the ‘ideal victim’ is feminized, infantilized and racialized. She argues that the key value attributes by which victims are able to gain ‘currency’ are vulnerability and weakness, dependency and grotesqueness. In the dichotomy of ‘good’ versus ‘evil’ the the ‘ideal’ victims represent ‘the good’ and more often than not are the racialized stereotypes of black and brown women and children in need. Furthermore, in terms of dependency, the author asserts that ‘ideal’ victims remain dependent on interlocutors such as judges, prosecutors, victim representatives, NGO representatives and the media to speak on their behalf and lose their agency when they attempt to ‘liberate themselves on their own terms’.Footnote ¹²

While there is no doubt that international criminal trials are often spectacularized and often focus on familiar tropes of ethnic violence, for example, in the media and public reporting, the author does not consider that these trials often provide the only historical record of conflict for victims and the affected communities at large. While the author is undoubtedly correct in saying that there is a tendency to focus on the spectacularized aspects of criminal trials, such an analysis is overly reductionist and does not consider the less spectacular benefits of these trials for victims and communities who are more interested in their truth-seeking function and reparative aspects.Footnote ¹³

Furthermore, with regards to victims being the ‘face’ of the global justice movement, it is indeed arguable that the ICC gains moral legitimacy from its victim participation regime. The lack of agency of victims who participate in ICC proceedings is clear and can be demonstrated by the numerous ways in which victims’ choices regarding their legal representation have been rejected by the Court, as highlighted by the author.Footnote ¹⁴ Furthermore, victim participation can often be symbolic, especially where legal representatives are appointed by the Court without consultation with victims, and where legal representatives fail to maintain a presence in the situation country or fail to interact with their clients on a regular basis. The use of images of what the author terms as the ‘ideal’ victim is rampant in the ICC’s outreach campaigns and infographicsFootnote ¹⁵ which do act to further the stereotype of victims as being weak and always from the Global South.

However, Schwöbel-Patel’s analysis of victims also plays into her own critique of victims as being weak and infantilized. For example, she assumes that victims are weak enough to be ‘used’ by the ICC and the global justice movement in order to ‘sell’ their brand. However, this analysis fails to consider that victims and civil society actors, especially in the Global South, are in fact fully cognisant of the many limitations of the ICC, but are also using the ICC as a means to counter domestic hegemonic power and abuses. Victim communities view the ICC in a pragmatic manner: as a means to render some form of justice and reparations given that they do not have access to domestic accountability mechanisms.

In the last five chapters, Schwöbel-Patel illustrates the modalities of marketized global justice using three case studies. The Kony 2012 global campaign is the first of the case studies, where the author gives a detailed description of a global NGO campaign by a United States (US) based NGO, aimed at bringing Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony to justice. The discussions remind us of the racial stereotypes in the international human rights and global justice arenas, where whites are perceived to be the de facto custodians of justice, in what the author describes as ‘racial capitalism’.Footnote ¹⁶

The second case study discusses what the author calls ‘Special Effects’ of the ICC in the global market, where she analyses the ICC engagement with African states from a business perspective. She considers the ratification of the Rome Statute as a starting point for the business, with the subsequent identification of victims and perpetrators, and creation of global justice narratives for the expansion of the institution.Footnote ¹⁷ The backlash against the ICC is couched in a typical market-response angle, with cost-benefit arguments for investigations and prosecutions. She attributes the underlying structural inequalities between the Global North and South to racial capitalism and neo-colonialism of the international legal institutions. Schwöbel-Patel also illustrates a pivotal role of ICC prosecutors in the marketing of global justice. Whilst Moreno Ocampo’s discourse features prominently in the direct branding practices, the author construes Fatou Bensouda’s appointment and discourses as part of the ICC’s re-branding.Footnote ¹⁸

The third case study analyses what the author calls place branding practices of The Hague, South Africa, and Cambodia, to illustrate a marketized global justice theory. She argues that these cities are symbolic market points for tourism and investment, due to the presence of marketized justice. In essence, such market points are important avenues for attracting resources and investments in the marketized global justice.

In sum, the three mini studies show a distinction between justice dispensing and justice receiving states.Footnote ¹⁹ In general, an examination of these three mini case studies offers useful comparisons, casting the net wide enough to capture how states have contributed to the development of the contemporary ICL. These discussions also make an important addition to existing literature on the impact of donor and market-oriented dynamics of ICL.Footnote ²⁰

Schwobel-Patel also discusses possibilities of resisting marketized global justice under the existing neo-liberal order, using the prism of social and political movements like Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street to illustrate how structural inequalities can be dismantled. She proposes a limit on the heavy reliance on visual stereotypes of global justice, for example, images of sad African children. She argues for visual habits like satire as a way of unmasking stereotypes and opening up new spaces of critique.Footnote ²¹ Additionally, structural inequalities can further be dismantled in the courtrooms by using the controversial defence tactic of rapture to expose the uneven political structures behind the courts.Footnote ²² Last but not least, the author calls for the decolonization of global justice in Western universities through the revision of ICL pedagogy. It is, indeed, imperative to consider the underlying structural inequalities in the global legal order, within the pedagogy and scholarship.

The most significant contribution of the book, one that we find intriguing, lies in the way Schwobel-Patel unpacks marketing practices within ICL, to articulate a form of marketized justice. By exploring the work of the ICC from a global marketing perspective, the author has undertaken a brave endeavour – one that elicits interdisciplinary insights, but also immeasurable critique of ICL, in a field still dominated by legalism.

Indeed, the issues of marketized global justice that the book considers offer challenges to proponents of institutions like the ICC. As we question the orthodoxy of dominant Western perspectives in ICL, it is also relevant to reflect on the ways in which ICL is adopted or adapted in national contexts. A more detailed discussion on the Rome Statute’s complementarity framework would help to elaborate ways in which we could reimage ICL. Important questions also arise: how do the global politics of hegemony and marketized justice impact on the ICC’s complementarity regime? Are there any efforts to reimagine ICL at the domestic or regional levels in the Global South?

Whilst the author emphasizes the role of non-state actors like NGOs and donors in ICL, it is important to recognize the role of states, particularly in the Global South, in the work of the ICC. To this end, a redirecting of ICL from The Hague towards national courts can be viewed as a space for counter-hegemonic strategies in the Global South. Undoubtedly, there remain common feature across The Hague and domestic sites of justice, in the form of victims’ participation in the trials. Therefore, by focusing on global marketing practices of the ICC, the book leaves open the question of how domestic prosecutions and hybrid ICL courts engage with the so-called global market. For the future, it will be interesting to see how domestic ICL courts influence the local people’s perceptions of justice. Would they visualize or manipulate the victims to accumulate capital? In sum, this book offers a timely opportunity of rethinking on the regionalized ICL mechanisms. It provides illuminating discussions on marketized global justice to a broad readership including legal practitioners, academics in the fields of international relations, international criminal law and transitional justice.