Why has the United States taken such a firm stance against the International Criminal Court (ICC) and expended such diplomatic goodwill in an attempt to dismantle a tribunal that poses no serious risk to its citizens? This book critiques causal ideologies such as American exceptionalism, state sovereignty and laissez-faire capitalism to show how U.S. opposition is driven by pervasive political, legal, historic, military and economic conditioning factors. It shows how U.S. attitudes transcend partisan politics and predicts how the U.S.-ICC relationship will be affected by the economic crisis, shifting international geopolitical power structures, the crisis in the U.S. military, unfolding international human rights law and the “politics of change” promised by the nascent Obama administration.
The Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) entered into force on July 1, 2002. With the Court now established and developing a track record of engagement in situations, such as Darfur, that are of great interest to the United States, it seemed that there might be important ways in which the United States might engage and support the Court, whether joining it or short of joining it. This Task Force has undertaken such a review, hearing from more than a dozen experts and officials representing a variety of perspectives on the ICC. Our conclusion, detailed in the recommendations in this report, is that the United States should announce a policy of positive engagement with the Court, and that this policy should be reflected in concrete support for the Court's efforts and the elimination of legal and other obstacles to such support. The Task Force does not recommend U.S. ratification of the Rome Statute at this time. But it urges engagement with the ICC and the Assembly of States Parties in a manner that enables the United States to help further shape the Court into an effective accountability mechanism. The Task Force believes that such engagement will also facilitate future consideration of whether the United States should join the Court.
A growing international consensus supports the idea of holding individuals responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights such as genocide. This consensus lies behind the recent efforts to create an International Criminal Court (ICC). The United States, however, has refused to support the ICC, citing concerns that the Court may pose a threat to national security. This volume brings legal, historical, military, and political perspectives to an examination of U.S. concerns about the ICC. The contributors assess not only the potential national security risks that would be associated with a functioning ICC, but also the potential costs to U.S. security that may result from opposing the Court's creation.
Changes to U.S. strategic policy since September 11, 2001, have shifted the focus of American security efforts toward building and maintaining strategic partnerships, as well as increasing the capacity of partner nations to respond to crises and contribute to local, regional, and international stability. These themes run throughout U.S. national security policy documents -- including the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy, National Strategy for Maritime Security, and Quadrennial Defense Review -- and the military Services are being reshaped accordingly. Changes in forces include an increased emphasis on language training and cultural awareness, greater engagement/theater security cooperation, and organizational changes to support more training and engagement with partner nations. The President's 2008 budget submission to Congress includes considerable funding in support of diplomatic and military programs fostering improved international partnerships. Unfortunately, U.S. policy on the International Criminal Court (ICC), including the associated American Service-members' Protection Act (ASPA) of 2002 and Nethercutt Amendment, runs counter to this strategic partnership theme. ASPA and the Nethercutt Amendment have strained U.S. relations with many partners and have caused significant damage at the operational and strategic levels. At the operational level, ASPA has harmed military-to-military relationships, particularly in the case of international military education and training. At the strategic level, U.S. policy on the ICC separates the United States from the overwhelming majority of the world's modern societies and is further isolating America from its partners and potential partners.
Drawing on both theory and practice, this insightful book offers a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), centred on the referral mechanism. Arguing that the legal nature of the referral must be conceptualized as a conferral of powers from the UNSC to the ICC, the author explores the complex legal relationship between interacting international organizations.
This pioneering book explores the intersections of law and culture at the International Criminal Court (ICC), offering insights into how notions of culture affect the Court’s legal foundations, functioning and legitimacy, both in theory and in practice.
The International Criminal Court (ICC), created in 2002 to combat impunity, projects a sense of unfairness and stirs an unending debate. A trial before the court epitomizes the controversy surrounding it, perceived as a neocolonialist tool in the hands of the most powerful nations. This research critically examines the trial of the former president of Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbagbo. The two-decade crisis in Ivory Coast was a series of armed, diplomatic, and political conflicts in which human rights were violated by all sides. Military confrontation resumed as a result of an electoral stalemate that followed a controversial presidential election in the fall of 2010. The most atrocious human rights abuse was perpetrated at the end of March 2011 by the rebel forces backed by the French and the United Nations troops: the massacre of Duékoué. In one day, hundreds of Laurent Gbagbo’s followers were killed. However, the ICC undertook a selective prosecution against Gbagbo’s camp. After a trial of eight years, Laurent Gbagbo was finally acquitted. The news of his unanticipated acquittal shocked the world. Later, that decision was overturned and transformed into freedom with binding and coercive conditions by the Appeals Chamber, which had succumbed to political pressure. The former president of Ivory Coast spent months of confinement in Belgium until the Appeals Chamber rebutted the prosecutor’s appeal against his release and confirmed his total acquittal and that of Blé Goudé. He eventually went back to Ivory Coast on June 17, 2021. The trial of Laurent Gbagbo before the ICC, despite his acquittal (a tardy one), reflects a series of biases germane to international law and international justice, such as the victor’s justice stance, the conflict between national law and international law, the question of sovereignty, and the issue of lawfare. The trial of Laurent Gbagbo, which was the hallmark of the selective international justice system embedded in unfairness, led to a historical landmark with his shocking acquittal, which led to the indictment of the International Court, whose fate has thus been sealed before history.
The present collection of essays offers the reader a broad range of original perspectives on democracy and the rule of law in the European Union, approaching the existing policy area from new points of view. Leading experts from different countries and backgrounds focus on how democracy and the rule of law are related to topics like security, pension rights, judicial cooperation and human rights protection. Their expert views are based on a combination of theory and knowledge acquired in their practice as academics or practitioners in the field of European integration.. The issue of the rule of law and democracy is close to the heart of Professor Jaap de Zwaan, a true European, building bridges between countries and peoples. He has written extensively on the subject of European integration. Therefore, this collection of expert views is not only an original and valuable contribution to the literature and discussion on the development and enlargement of the European Union, but at the same time it is a tribute to Jaap de Zwaan, whose academic and diplomatic career can be characterized as always serving “an ever closer Union”. Flora Goudappel is Jean Monnet Professor of EU Trade Law in the Overseas Territories at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and a consultant on European Union law Ernst Hirsch Ballin is Professor of Dutch and European Constitutional Law at Tilburg University and Professor of Human Rights Law at the University of Amsterdam.
