The Economics of Exceptionalism: The US and the International Criminal Court

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-148
Author(s):  
Tiphaine Dickson
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Us

Law and contestation in international negotiations

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 672-690
Author(s):  
Kyle Rapp
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Negotiations ◽  
The Us ◽  
Legal Grounds

AbstractWhat is the role of rhetoric and argumentation in international relations? Some argue that it is little more than ‘cheap talk’, while others say that it may play a role in persuasion or coordination. However, why states deploy certain arguments, and why these arguments succeed or fail, is less well understood. I argue that, in international negotiations, certain types of legal frames are particularly useful for creating winning arguments. When a state bases its arguments on constitutive legal claims, opponents are more likely to become trapped by the law: unable to develop sustainable rebuttals or advance their preferred policy. To evaluate this theory, I apply qualitative discourse analysis to the US arguments on the crime of aggression at the Kampala Review Conference of the International Criminal Court – where the US advanced numerous arguments intended to reshape the crime to align with US interests. The analysis supports the theoretical propositions – arguments framed on codified legal grounds had greater success, while arguments framed on more political grounds were less sustainable, failing to achieve the desired outcomes. These findings further develop our understanding of the use of international law in rhetoric, argumentation, and negotiation.

International relations and the International Criminal Court

2020 ◽  
pp. 561-575
Author(s):  
Njoki Wamai
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The West ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship

The tensions generated by the International Criminal Court’s (ICC’s) indictment of four prominent Kenyans—including Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, who went on to become president and deputy president of the Kenyan Republic, respectively—in 2013 promised to reorder the relationship between Kenya and the international community. This chapter discusses the ICC’s intervention and its impact on both local Kenyan politics and Kenya’s relationship with its regional and international partners including its traditional Western partners, such as Europe, the UK, and the US. The chapter also discusses how tensions between Kenya and the West influenced Kenya’s relationship with the East including China, India, and Japan.

Worlds Apart on International Justice

2002 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 835-857 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Rabkin
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Moral Self ◽  
The Past ◽  
Self Confidence ◽  
The Us

Differing strategic priorities are only the beginning of the dispute over the International Criminal Court. Americans will not abandon their traditional constitution, as submission to the ICC would require. European states have already subordinated their national constitutions to a German-dominated federation. Americans do not accept international monitors in fighting against evil. Europeans are drawn to relativizing abstractions. For Germans, the ICC promises to “overcome the past,” by licensing German judges to try Americans and Israelis for war crimes. Europeans may feel obliged to fall in step with this latest German project. The US still has the moral self-confidence to resist it.

scholarly journals Tinjauan Hukum Humaniter Internasional dalam Operasi Enduring Freedom Amerika Serikat ke Afghanistan dan Peran International Criminal Court (ICC)

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-24
Author(s):  
Reno Ismadi ◽  
Awatar Bayu Putranto ◽  
Tiffany Setyo Pratiwi
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
World Trade Center ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Us Military ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Military

The US military invasion to Afghanistan took place when the War on Terror declared by the United States after the incident in September, 2001 at World Trade Center. One of the military operations in this invasion was called Enduring Freedom. This research will discuss the violations committed by America in the invasion of Afghanistan, particularly during the Enduring Freedom operation, which it was reviewed through Geneva Law and The Rome Statute. The author using literature studies with qualitative methods. The author found that the violations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and The Rome Statute Article 8 and 11 were carried out by America during the deliberate Enduring Freedom Operation. The violation was proven but the International Criminal Court (ICC) did nothing.

Global Goals versus Bilateral Barriers? The International Criminal Court in the Context of US Relations with Germany and Japan

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
KERSTIN LUKNER
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Other ◽  
Pragmatic Approach ◽  
The Us ◽  
The One

AbstractThis article deals with the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a point of contention in US relations with Germany and Japan. Both countries rank among America's closest allies, but – quite contrary to the US – they have also been supporting the establishment and operation of the ICC, although each to a different extent. The article analyzes the reasons for the three countries’ diverging attitudes and policies towards the establishment and operation of the Court, and contrasts Germany's and Japan's handling of the ICC issuevis-à-visthe US. It suggests that Berlin's idealistic position and full ICC support on the one hand, as well as Japan's cautious and pragmatic approach on the other, are both rooted not only in their individual evaluations of the ICC's institutional design, but also the varying degrees of their bi/multilateral orientation and the extent of their ‘dependence’ on US security commitments.

Partisan politics will muddy Kenya's anti-graft probe

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Partisan Politics ◽  
Senior Leaders ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
The Us ◽  
International Image ◽  
Step Down

Significance President Uhuru Kenyatta used his State of the Nation address on March 26 to demand that officials under investigation by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) step down from office for 60 days. The EACC report is said to relate to past allegations from the Anglo-Leasing corruption scandal, which tarnished the former Mwai Kibaki administration. Kenyatta appears to be leveraging the aftermath of the collapse of his trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) to improve his government's image, albeit potentially for partisan ends. Impacts The US president's first planned trip to Kenya in July will boost the international image of Kenyatta's government, after previous snubs. Obama may mention climate change, as the issue is growing in importance to the White House as he nears the end of his term. However, US geopolitical interest in Africa will wax and wane, depending on the capacity of senior leaders.

Human Rights versus National Interests: Shifting US Public Attitudes on the International Criminal Court

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 1065-1078 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelebogile Zvobgo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Control Group ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
The Us

Abstract The United States—an architect of international criminal tribunals in the twentieth century—has since moderated its involvement in international justice. Striking to many observers is the United States’ failure to join the International Criminal Court—the institutional successor to the tribunals the nation helped install in Germany, Japan, the Balkans, and Rwanda. Interestingly, the US public’s support of the ICC increases yearly despite the government’s ambivalence about, and even hostility toward, the Court. Drawing on the US foreign policy public opinion literature, I theorize that human rights frames increase support for joining the ICC among Americans, whereas national interest frames decrease support. I administer an online survey experiment to evaluate these expectations and find consistent support. I additionally test hypotheses from the framing literature in American politics regarding the effect of exposure to two competing frames. I find that participants exposed to competing frames hold more moderate positions than participants exposed to a single frame but differ appreciably from the control group. Crucially, I find that participants’ beliefs about international organizations’ effectiveness and impartiality are equally, if not more, salient than the treatments. Thus, the ICC may be able to mobilize support and pressure policy change by demonstrating effectiveness and impartiality.

scholarly journals Arguing with law: strategic legal argumentation, US diplomacy, and debates over the International Criminal Court

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
ADAM BOWER
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legal Argumentation ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Us ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Lasting Change

AbstractRecent studies have highlighted the instrumental use of language, wherein actors deploy claims to strategically pursue policy goals in the absence of persuasion or socialisation. Yet these accounts are insufficiently attentive to the social context in which an audience assesses and responds to strategic appeals. I present a theoretical account that highlights the distinctly powerful role of international law in framing strategic argumentation. Legalised discourses are especially legitimate because law is premised on a set of internally coherent practices that constitute actors and forms of action. I then illustrate the implications in a hard case concerning US efforts to secure immunities from International Criminal Court jurisdiction. Contrary to realist accounts of law as a tool of the powerful, I show that both pro- and anti-ICC diplomacy was channelled through a legal lens that imposed substantial constraints on the pursuit of policy objectives. Court proponents responded to US diplomatic pressure with their own legal arguments; this narrowed the scope of the exemptions, even as the Security Council temporarily conceded to US demands. While the US sought to marry coercion with argumentative appeals, it failed to generate a lasting change in global practice concerning ICC jurisdiction.

scholarly journals The measures against the International Criminal Court (USA v. ICC): the perspective of International Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 309-332
Author(s):  
Walid Fahmy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government

Since its creation, the International Criminal Court has faced the refusal of the United States to cooperate, which, in addition to staying outside the Rome Statute, has undertaken a real strategy of weakening the Criminal Code. The argument put forward by the US Government against the Rome Statute is that an international treaty cannot create obligations for a non-party state and therefore the United States denies any jurisdiction of that jurisdiction over its nationals. As early as 2000, that country had unsuccessfully introduced a proposal before the Preparatory Commission to prevent bringing American military personnel to the Court. The American Service Members Protection Act (ASPA), bilateral immunity agreements and Security Council resolutions constitute the arsenal used by States at that time to neutralize the ICC. Recently, the United States signed an order authorizing the United States to prevent and penalize employees of the International Criminal Court from entering the country. The US administration, which has been critical of the ICC for months, is opposed to launching investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan. Is not that a sign of difficulty with the US Legal Justifications? In other words, does this weakness open up the possibility of prosecution in the event of a violation of international law by US?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document