The author concludes that it is impossible to conduct a meaningful analysis of punitiveness in international criminal justice in the same way research on punitiveness is done in the context of national systems. The cumulative experience of a few ad hoc tribunals in diverse locations, most having a limited number of cases, does not permit the use of research techniques such as time series or cross-sectional analysis. The general criminological literature suggests that punitiveness can be studied in relation to three groups of stakeholders: official policymaking bodies and criminal justice agencies, the general public, and crime victims. This paper considers who constitutes these groups in international criminal justice and the methodological issues involved in measuring the punitiveness of their policies, practices, and attitudes. In the context of international criminal justice, identification of the relevant bodies is problematic. The lack of a coherent legislative structure and the absence of a permanent homogeneous judicial system creates difficulties in conducting a systematic assessment of the punitiveness of the policies and practices applied to persons convicted of international crimes. The study of public attitudes reflective of punitiveness is impeded by the undefined nature of the global public. In the context of international criminal justice, punitiveness reflected in public attitudes may be most easily researched in relation to crime victims. Even among this group, however, difficulties may arise in differentiating not only between victims and nonvictims but also between degrees and categories of victims, given the collective character of international conflicts. 44 references