International criminal law is being pulled in different directions by various conflicting considerations – deterrence, retribution, justice for victims, reconciliation, and setting the historical record. This trend is detrimental for the survival of the system as it erodes the coherence and undermines its legitimacy. One may suggest that international criminal law needs a principle objective to bring order to the system. This article argues that while this statement may be true, it is equally important to have a discussion about pragmatic policy choices underlying the system. Acknowledging that the role of international criminal law is symbolic assists with constraining overambition implicit in the discipline. Treating symbolism as a policy consideration places necessary checks on other goals proclaimed by international courts and the UN executive bodies and also serves as a tool informing the exercise of discretion in international criminal law.