This piece examines a hitherto underexplored legal history chapter in international criminal law pioneer Benjamin Ferencz’s career, and, based on that, offers fixes for problems in current atrocity victim law. Known primarily for his Nuremberg prosecutorial exploits, Ferencz actually spent most of his career innovatively seeking reparations for Holocaust survivors and then later, with the benefit of such experience, sought to ensure coverage of victims in the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute. After examining this history, the article maps Ferencz’s trailblazing practices onto the atrocity victim lex lata. It then considers that law’s deficits, including front-end and back-end problems (i.e., at the investigation and early release application phases), International Criminal Court retributive versus reparative mission dissonance, inadequate funding, hindrances to proactive victim participation and victim exclusion in prosecuting aggression. For each problem, Ferencz’s history offers viable solutions, such as victim-oriented investigations, bifurcated retribution/restitution processes, bilateral treaty funding, transnational victim networking, and charging illegal use of force as crimes against humanity. As a result, perhaps such proposed modifications of the framework should not be called lex ferenda, but rather ‘lex ferencza.’

这篇文章审视了国际刑法先驱本杰明·费伦茨 (Benjamin Ferencz) 职业生涯中迄今未被充分探索的法律历史章节，并在此基础上为当前暴行受害者法中的问题提供解决方案。Ferencz 主要以其在纽伦堡检察机关的功绩而闻名，实际上他职业生涯的大部分时间都在创新地为大屠杀幸存者寻求赔偿，后来，凭借这些经验，寻求确保国际刑事法院罗马规约对受害者的覆盖。在研究了这段历史之后，这篇文章将 Ferencz 的开拓性做法映射到暴行受害者现行法上. 然后，它考虑了该法律的缺陷，包括前端和后端问题（即在调查和提前释放申请阶段）、国际刑事法院的报复性与赔偿性任务不一致、资金不足、阻碍受害者积极参与和将受害者排除在外起诉侵略。对于每个问题，Ferencz 的历史都提供了可行的解决方案，例如以受害者为导向的调查、分叉的报复/赔偿程序、双边条约资助、跨国受害者网络以及将非法使用武力指控为危害人类罪。因此，或许此类拟议的框架修改不应称为lex ferenda，而应称为“ lex ferencza ”。