A Review of The United States and the International Criminal Court: National Security and International Law: The Challenge To Create A System Of International Criminal Justice

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa M.G. von Struensee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
National Security ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Justice

The United States, the International Criminal Court, and Afghanistan: The Rupturing of Mutual Accommodation

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 1068-1107
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Robb ◽  
Shan Patel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Strategic Approach ◽  
Chief Prosecutor ◽  
The U.S

Abstract In September 2018, then U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton delivered a speech that ushered in a new, more aggressive era of U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis the International Criminal Court (icc). Washington’s disapprobation over the icc’s interest in the alleged crimes of U.S. personnel in Afghanistan has been seen as the cause for this change. While this is certainly partly true, little attention has been paid to Fatou Bensouda’s prosecutorial behaviour as an explanatory factor. Using the framework from David Bosco’s Rough Justice, this article demonstrates that a distinct shift in prosecutorial behaviour occurred when Fatou Bensouda took over as Chief Prosecutor. In contrast to Luis Moreno Ocampo’s strategic approach, avoidant of U.S. interests, Bensouda’s apolitical approach directly challenged the U.S. This shift in prosecutorial behaviour ruptured the ‘mutual accommodation’ that previously characterised the icc-U.S. relationship and, in turn, produced the shift in U.S. policy that now marginalises the Court.

Types of Injury in Inter-State Reparation Claims: A Guide for the International Criminal Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (02) ◽  
pp. 259-276
Author(s):  
Hirad Abtahi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Inter State

Abstract In determining “the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims” under article 75(1) of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) Statute, the ICC will progressively lay the foundation of reparations in international criminal justice. In the process of establishing the typology of harms sustained by natural and—under some qualifications—legal persons, inter-state claims practice may prove to be of assistance to the judges in light of the particular circumstances of each case. In addition, such an exercise illuminates how the doctrinal methods adopted in public international law scholarship categorize and describe the harms that have given rise to reparation claims during both war and peacetime.

scholarly journals Piracy Prosecutions in National Courts

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maggie Gardner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Key Questions

10 Journal of International Criminal Justice 797 (2012)At least for the time being, the international community must rely on national courts to prosecute modern-day pirates. The first wave of domestic piracy prosecutions suggests, however, that domestic courts have yet to achieve the necessary consistency and expertise in resolving key questions of international law in these cases. This article evaluates how courts trying modern-day pirates have addressed common questions of international law regarding the exercise of universal jurisdiction, the elements of the crime of piracy, and the principle of nullum crimen sine lege. In doing so, it evaluates five decisions issued in 2010 by courts in Kenya, the Netherlands, the Seychelles and the United States, and it proposes some clear answers to these recurrent questions of international law in domestic piracy prosecutions.

scholarly journals Trump Administration Expresses Strong Disapproval of the International Criminal Court

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-173
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Intelligence Agencies ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

On September 10, 2018, U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton delivered an address fiercely criticizing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bolton challenged the legitimacy of the ICC and expressed particular concern over its inquiry into potential war crimes committed by members of the U.S. military and intelligence agencies in Afghanistan. He identified retaliatory measures the United States would undertake if the ICC “comes after us, Israel or other U.S. allies.”

scholarly journals United States Visa Ban on Officials of the ICC: International Criminal Justice on Trial

2020 ◽  
pp. 468-475
Author(s):  
James E. Archibong
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
The Us ◽  
Court Proceedings

The isolation of the United States (US) from the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty has dealt a heavy blow on the potency of the Court. By making efforts to frustrate the ICC’s activities and withholding support for United Nations (UN) peacekeeping unless United States (US) citizens are exempted from international enforcement arising out of such operations; and mandating other countries to sign treaties such as the "bilateral immunity agreements" that exempts the US citizens from Court proceedings as a criteria for rendering assistance or giving aids, the US makes it more difficult to enforce the laws prohibiting genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The recent decision by the US to deny officials of the ICC access to its territory, even to the UN headquarters places a further strain on the Court’s efforts to achieve international justice. This paper highlights the implications of the US antagonism to the ICC on international criminal justice.

On co-operation by states not party to the International Criminal Court

2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (861) ◽  
pp. 87-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhu Wenqi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Legal Consequences

Before the International Criminal Court (ICC) came into being, world public attention was focused on issues such as the significance of the Court's establishment, the importance of implementing international criminal justice and the time when the Rome Statute could enter into force. Once the Court was established, attention naturally turned to practical issues, such as whether it would be able to operate normally and perform its historic mission. The question of whether the ICC can operate effectively and perform its mission largely depends on the scope and degree of co-operation provided to it by states. This co-operation concerns not only states party to the ICC but also non-party states. This article offers to explore the obligation of non-party states to co-operate under international law, the prospects of their co-operation and the legal consequences of non-co-operation. The author suggests that beyond the general principle of the law of treaties according to which treaties are binding only on states parties, when viewed in the light of other general principles of international law, co-operation with the ICC is no longer voluntary in nature, but is instead obligatory in the sense of customary international law. Therefore, while a state may not have acceded to the ICC, it may still be subject to an obligation to co-operate with it in certain cases.

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