The Jurisdiction Of The Icc In Relation To The Great Powers The Us Impact On Sovereignty And Authority

Essay from the year 2023 in the subject Law - European and International Law, Intellectual Properties, grade: 1,0, Göteborg University (Rechtswissenschaft), course: International Criminal Law, language: English, abstract: How can the U.S. arguments regarding the ICC as a threat to state sovereignty be assessed? How is the ICC as an institution affected by the fact that the U.S. – one of the Permanent Five – is not part of the Rome Statute? The ICC, being the world’s first permanent international criminal court, was established to prosecute individuals for “the most serious crimes of international concern”, namely genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; and the crime of aggression. Some controversies among states arose during the establishment, primarily concerning the court’s jurisdiction and its effects on state sovereignty. The clash between the authority of the ICC and the sovereignty of states has thereafter repeatedly been up for discussion. The U.S. is often depicted as one of the main opponents to the ICC due to the court’s alleged impact on state sovereignty. What may be considered ironic in the context is that the U.S. initially constituted one of the key creators of the court, to ultimately neither sign nor ratify its statute. An argument that has been put forward by the U.S. is that there is no need for an external juridical body for such a well-established, sovereign state as the U.S. However, such a body would serve a purpose for other states, which do not meet the high U.S. standards. This argument shows clear tendencies of so-called American exceptionalism, which is the idea that the U.S. is superior to other states for historical, ideological or religious reasons. What makes this standpoint further interesting is that the U.S., despite not being part of the Rome Statute, may refer cases to the ICC in its capacity as one of the permanent members of the UNSC – which they have, on several occasions. In other words, the U.S. appears to be in the position to exercise indirect control over an international institution which their own nationals cannot be subjects to.

This book is among the first to address the issues raised by the International Criminal Court (ICC) from an International Relations perspective. By clearly outlining a theoretical framework to interpret these issues, Ralph makes a significant contribution to the English School's study of international society. More specifically, he offers a concise definition of 'world society' and thus helps to resolve a longstanding problem in international theory. This groundbreaking conceptual work is supported by an in-depth empirical analysis of American opposition to the ICC. Ralph goes beyond the familiar arguments related to national interests and argues that the Court has exposed the extent to which American notions of accountability are tied to the nation-state. Where other democracies are willing to renegotiate their social contract because they see themselves as part of world society, the US protects its particular contract with 'the people' because it offers a means of distinguishing America and its democracy from the rest of the world. This 'sovereigntist', or more accurately 'Americanist', influence is further illustrated in chapters on the sources of law, universal jurisdiction, transatlantic relations and US policy on international humanitarian law in the war on terror. The book concludes by evoking E.H. Carr's criticism of those great powers who claim that a harmony exists between their particular interests and those of wider society. It also recalls his argument that great powers sometimes need to compromise and in this context, Ralph argues that support for the ICC is a more effective means of fulfilling America's purpose and a less costly sacrifice than that demanded by the 'Americanist' policy of nation-building.

Galand critically spells out a comprehensive conception of the nature and effects of Security Council referrals that responds to the various limits to the International Criminal Court's exercise of jurisdiction over situations that concern nationals and territories of non-party States.

The International Criminal Court ("ICC") is widely regarded within the international community as a positive and necessary step toward individual accountability for those who order and carry out the most heinous of crimes genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The United States government views the ICC as an international institution that threatens U.S. sovereignty and has the potential to be a forum in which its servicemembers and government officials may fall victim to malicious, politically motivated prosecutions. Congress and the Bush administration instituted measures to minimize the possibility of American citizens falling under ICC jurisdiction. These measures accomplished little in terms of true protection of U.S. citizens from ICC prosecution; they did, however, adversely impact U.S. strategic interests. This paper will examine the ICC's authority, U.S. objections to ICC authority, U.S. actions to prevent the ICC from obtaining jurisdiction over American citizens and the adverse impact these actions had on its strategic interests, and offer a less contentious approach for dealing with both the ICC and other nations that support the Court.

A universal criminal court : the emergence of an idea -- The global civil society campaign -- The victory : the independent prosecutor -- The defeat : no universal jurisdiction -- The controversy : gender and forced pregnancy -- The missed chance : banning weapons -- A global civil society achievement : why rejoice?

Responsibility to Protect: Research, bibliography, background. Supplementary volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

'State sovereignty' is often referred to as an obstacle to criminal justice for core international crimes by members of the international criminal justice movement. The exercise of State sovereignty is seen as a shield against effective implementation of such crimes. But it is sovereign States that create and become parties to international criminal law treaties and jurisdictions. They are the principal enforcers of criminal responsibility for international crimes, as reaffirmed by the complementarity principle on which the International Criminal Court (ICC) is based. Criminal justice for atrocities depends entirely on the ability of States to act. This volume revisits the relationship between State sovereignty and international criminal law along three main lines of inquiry. First, it considers the immunity of State officials from the exercise of foreign or international criminal jurisdiction. Secondly, with the closing down of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals, attention shifts to the exercise of national jurisdiction over core international crimes, making the scope of universal jurisdiction more relevant to perceptions of State sovereignty. Thirdly, could the amendments to the ICC Statute on the crime of aggression exacerbate tensions between the interests of State sovereignty and accountability? The book contains contributions by prominent international lawyers including Professor Christian Tomuschat, Judge Erkki Kourula, Judge LIU Daqun, Ambassador WANG Houli, Dr. ZHOU Lulu, Professor Claus Kre, Professor MA Chengyuan, Professor JIA Bingbing, Professor ZHU Lijiang and Mr. GUO Yang.

International law in national courts, and among politicians and citizens, does not always have the desired effect at the domestic level. This volume is a genuinely interdisciplinary analysis of international law and courts, examining a wide range of courts and judicial bodies, including human rights treaty bodies, and their impact and shortcomings. By employing social science methodology combined with classical case studies, leading lawyers and political scientists move the study of courts within international law to an entirely new level. The essays question the view that legal docmatics will be enough to understand the increasingly complex world we are living in and demonstrate the potential benefits of adopting a much broader outlook drawing on empirical legal research. This volume will have great appeal to anyone interested in the effects - rather than just the processes and structures - of international law and courts.

This book theorizes the ways in which states that are presumed to be weaker in the international system use the International Criminal Court (ICC) to advance their security and political interests. Ultimately, it contends that African states have managed to instrumentally and strategically use the international justice system to their advantage, a theoretical framework that challenges the “justice cascade” argument. The empirical work of this study focuses on four major themes around the intersection of power, states' interests, and the global governance of atrocity crimes: firstly, the strategic use of self-referrals to the ICC; secondly, complementarity between national and the international justice system; thirdly, the limits of state cooperation with international courts; and finally the use of international courts in domestic political conflicts. This book is valuable to students, scholars, and researchers who are interested in international relations, international criminal justice, peace and conflict studies, human rights, and African politics.