Skip to main content
  • 384 Accesses

Abstract

The emergence of the ICC is puzzling. Empirically, the ICC distinguishes from other institutions by establishing independent judicial capacity that challenges the principle of state sovereignty. Theoretically, since it was opposed by the USA and does not generate direct benefits, traditional explanations for cooperation fail to explain its design. The introduction describes the negotiation process of the Rome Statute and discusses the ICC’s jurisdiction and main points of critique to the Court, followed by a short overview to the EU’s campaign for the ICC and the theoretical concept of normative binding. The pros and cons of the ratification of the Rome Statute are examined before moving to the so-called Obama effect, namely the turn in the US policy toward positive cooperation with the ICC, which together with the EU’s campaign for the ICC provides an explanation for late ratifications of the Rome Statute. The introduction concludes with the research design of the book.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    States joining the ICC have the possibility to opt out from jurisdiction for war crimes for seven years and can ratify amendments on the crime of aggression and of Art. 8 and Art. 124 of the Rome Statute.

  2. 2.

    The Rome Statute also includes, among others, the following central principles of international criminal law: ne bis in idem (the prohibition of double jeopardy, Art. 20 of the Rome Statute); nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege (no crime and no punishment without encoded law at the time of the offence, Art. 22–23 of the Rome Statute); and aut dedere aut judicare (either extradite or prosecute, Schabas 2011, 131)

References

  • UN documents (references starting with A/… and S/…) available at documents.un.org or unbisnet.un.org.

  • 2003/444/CFSP. 2003. “Council Common Position on the International Criminal Court.” Council of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abbott, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal. 2000. “Hard and Soft Law in International Governance.” International Organization 54 (3): 421–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainley, Kirsten. 2011. “The International Criminal Court on Trial.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 24 (3): 309–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akhavan, Payam. 2001. “Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities?” The American Journal of International Law 95 (1): 7–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arsanjani, Mahnoush H. 1999. “The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.” The American Journal of International Law 93 (1): 22–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aust, Anthony. 2010. Handbook of International Law, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belczyk, Jaclyn. 2010. “US War Crimes Ambassador Says US Unlikely to Join ICC in ‘Foreseeable Future.’” Jurist, January 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedetti, Fanny, and John L. Washburn. 1999. “Drafting the International Criminal Court Treaty: Two Years to Rome and an Afterword on the Rome Diplomatic Conference.” Global Governance 5 (1): 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Andrew. 2010. “Process Tracing and Causal Inference.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, edited by Henry E. Brady and David Collier, 2nd ed., 207–19. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Andrew, and Colin Elman. 2006. “Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence.” Political Analysis 14 (3): 250–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borek, Jamison. 1995. “Statement: Agenda Item 142: Establishment of an International Criminal Court. United Nations General Assembly.” USUN Press Release #182. U.S. Department of State.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Bartram S. 2000. “The Statute of the ICC: From The Hague to Rome and Back Again.” In The United States and the International Criminal Court: National Security and International Law, edited by Sarah B. Sewall and Carl Kaysen, 61–84. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, George W. 2002. “Remarks Prior to Discussions with President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia and an Exchange with Reporters.” Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 38 (39): 1618.

    Google Scholar 

  • CB/MM-Doc.6. 1998. “Draft Declaration on the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court by the Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement.” NAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, Terrence L., and Stephen Chaudoin. 2013. “Ratification Patterns of the International Criminal Court.” International Studies Quarterly 57 (2): 400–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chayes, Abram, and Antonia Handler Chayes. 1995. The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, David. 2011. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44 (4): 823–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, James. 2003. “The Drafting of the Rome Statute.” In From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice, edited by Philippe Sands, 109–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, John. 2004. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good For?” American Political Science Review 98 (2): 341–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, Michael J. 2006. “Is Enforcement Necessary for Effectiveness? A Model of the International Criminal Regime.” International Organization 60 (4): 935–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, Judith, and Robert O. Keohane. 1993. “Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework.” In Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, edited by Judith Goldstein and Robert O. Keohane, 3–30. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodliffe, Jay, Darren Hawkins, Christine Horne, and Daniel L. Nielson. 2012. “Dependence Networks and the International Criminal Court.” International Studies Quarterly 56 (1): 131–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, Marc. 2002. “American Foreign Policy and the International Criminal Court: Remarks to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.” U.S. Department of State.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Christopher Keith. 1998. “The Sixth Session of the UN Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court.” The American Journal of International Law 92 (3): 548–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkin, Louis. 1979. How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoile, David. 2010. The International Criminal Court: Europe’s Guantánamo Bay? Africa Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICC. 2017. “Situations under Investigation.” https://www.icc-cpi.int/pages/situations.aspx.

  • ICC-01/04-01/06. 2012. “Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dylio. Public Decision on Sentence Pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute”.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICC-02/05-01/09. 2010. “Situation in Darfur, Sudan in the Case of The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (‘Omar Al Bashir’). Public Document. Second Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaul, Hans-Peter. 1998. “Durchbruch in Rom. Der Vertag Über Den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof.” Vereinte Nationen 4: 125–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, Judith. 2007. “Who Keeps International Commitments and Why? The International Criminal Court and Bilateral Nonsurrender Agreements.” American Political Science Review 101 (3): 573–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinkel, Klaus. 1998. “Statement on July 17, 1998.” Völkerrechtliche Praxis Der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Im Jahre 1998. Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, Philippe. 2008. “Introductory Remarks.” In The International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions, edited by Mauro Politi and Federica Gioia. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, Philippe, and John T. Holmes. 1999. “The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: The Negotiating Process.” American Journal of International Law 93 (1): 2–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Roy S. 1999. “Introduction: The Rome Conference and Its Contributions to International Law.” In The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute—Issues, Negotiations, Results, edited by Roy S. Lee, 1–40. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayerfeld, Jamie. 2003. “Who Shall Be Judge?: The United States, the International Criminal Court, and the Global Enforcement of Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly 25 (1): 93–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, Kurt. 2012. “‘Bashir Is Dividing Us’: Africa and the International Criminal Court.” Human Rights Quarterly 34 (2): 404–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer, Eric. 2009. “New Moral Hazard? Military Intervention, Peacekeeping and Ratification of the International Criminal Court.” Journal of Peace Research 46 (5): 659–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, Charles C. 2004. “Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented Research Challenges Variable-Oriented Research.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, edited by Henry E. Brady and David Collier, 123–38. London: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Bill. 1997. “Statement Before the Sixth Committee of the 52nd General Assembly, Regarding Agenda Item 150: Establishment of an International Criminal Court.” U.S. Department of State.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, Steven C. 2009. “Justice of the Peace? Future Challenges and Prospects for a Cosmopolitan Court.” In Governance, Order, and the International Criminal Court: Between Realpolitik and a Cosmopolitan Court, edited by Steven C. Roach, 225–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. “The Turbulent Politics of the International Criminal Court.” Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice 23 (4): 546–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodman, Kenneth A., and Petie Booth. 2013. “Manipulated Commitments: The International Criminal Court in Uganda.” Human Rights Quarterly 35 (2): 271–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, Christopher. 2001. “Constructing an Atrocities of War Regime: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunal.” International Organization 55 (3): 655–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas, William A. 2007. An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. “Victor’s Justice: Selecting ‘Situations’ at the International Criminal Court.” John Marshall Law Review 43 (2): 535–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, 4th ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer, David 1999. “The United States and the International Criminal Court.” American Journal of International Law 93 (1): 12–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. All the Missing Souls: A Personal History of the War Crimes Tribunals. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, Beth A., and Allison Danner. 2010. “Credible Commitments and the International Criminal Court.” International Organization 64 (2): 225–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Office of Legal Affairs, Treaty Section. 2006. Treaty Handbook. United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Delegation. 1998. “Statement: United States Delegation to the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court”.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Senate. 1998. “Is a U.N. International Criminal Court in the U.S. National Interest? Hearing Before the Subcommittee on International Operations of the Committee on Foreign Relations.” S. Hrg. 105–724. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Schaak, Beth. 2007. “The Establishment of the Permanent International Criminal Court.” In An International Symposium, Working Paper, No. 7–40. Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara University School of Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washburn, John. 1999. “The Negotiation of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and International Lawmaking in the 21st Century.” Pace International Law Review 11 (2): 361–77.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salla Huikuri .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Huikuri, S. (2019). Introduction. In: The Institutionalization of the International Criminal Court. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95585-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics