The Politics Of International Criminal Law

The Politics of International Criminal Law is an interdisciplinary collection of original research that examines the often noted but understudied political dimensions of International Criminal Law, and the challenges this nascent legal regime faces to its legitimacy in world affairs.

This book theorizes how weaker states in the international system use the ICC to advance their security and political interests.

On August 21, 2013, chemical weapons were unleashed on the civilian population in Syria, killing another 1,400 people in a civil war that had already claimed the lives of more than 140,000. As is all too often the case, the innocent found themselves victims of a violent struggle for political power. Such events are why human rights activists have long pressed for institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate and prosecute some of the world’s most severe crimes: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. While proponents extol the creation of the ICC as a transformative victory for principles of international humanitarian law, critics have often characterized it as either irrelevant or dangerous in a world dominated by power politics. Christopher Rudolph argues in Power and Principle that both perspectives are extreme. In contrast to prevailing scholarship, he shows how the interplay between power politics and international humanitarian law have shaped the institutional development of international criminal courts from Nuremberg to the ICC. Rudolph identifies the factors that drove the creation of international criminal courts, explains the politics behind their institutional design, and investigates the behavior of the ICC. Through the development and empirical testing of several theoretical frameworks, Power and Principle helps us better understand the factors that resulted in the emergence of international criminal courts and helps us determine the broader implications of their presence in society.

To anyone setting out to explore the entanglement of international criminal justice with the interests of States, Germany is a particularly curious, exemplary case. Although a liberal democracy since 1949, its political position has altered radically in the last 60 years. Starting from a position of harsh scepticism in the years following the Nuremberg Trials, and opening up to the rationales of international criminal justice only slowly - and then mainly in the context of domestic trials against functionaries of the former East German regime after 1990 - Germany is today one of the most active supporters of the International Criminal Court. The climax of this is its campaigning to make the ICC independent of the UN Security Council - a debate in which Germany took a position in stark contrast to the United States. This book offers new insight into the debates leading up to such policy shifts. Drawing on government documents and interviews with policymakers, it enriches a broader debate on the politics of international criminal justice which has to date often been focused primarily on the United States.

International and Comparative Criminal Law.

This book theorizes how weaker states in the international system use the ICC to advance their security and political interests.

With the sensational arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998, the rise to prominence of universal jurisdiction over crimes against international law seemed to be assured. The arrest of Pinochet and the ensuing proceedings before the UK courts brought universal jurisdiction into the foreground of the "fight against impunity" and the principle was read as an important complementary mechanism for international justice –one that could offer justice to victims denied an avenue by the limited jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals. Yet by the time of the International Court of Justice’s Arrest Warrant judgment four years later, the picture looked much bleaker and the principle was being read as a potential tool for politically motivated trials. This book explores the debate over universal jurisdiction in international criminal law, aiming to unpack a practice in which international lawyers continue to disagree over the concept of universal jurisdiction. Using Martti Koskenniemi’s work as a foil, this book exposes the argumentative techniques in operation in national and international adjudication since the 1990s. Drawing on overarching patterns within the debate, Aisling O’Sullivan argues that it is bounded by a tension between contrasting political preferences or positions, labelled as moralist ("ending impunity") and formalist ("avoiding abuse") and she reads the debate as a movement of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions that struggle for hegemonic control. However, she draws out how these positions (moralist/formalist) merge into one another and this produces a tendency towards a "middle" position that continues to prefer a particular preference (moralist or formalist). Aisling O’Sullivan then traces the transformation towards this tendency that reflects an internal split among international lawyers between building a utopia ("court of humanity") and recognizing its impossibility of being realized.

This innovative and systematic work on the political and ethical dimensions of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first comprehensive attempt to situate the politics of the ICC both theoretically and practically. Steering a new path between conventional approaches that stress the formal link between legitimacy and legal neutrality, and unconventional approaches that treat legitimacy and politics as inextricable elements of a repressive international legal order, Steven C. Roach formulates the concept of political legalism, which calls for a self-directed and engaged application of the legal rules and principles of the ICC Statute. Politicizing the International Criminal Court is a must-read for scholars, students, and policymakers interested in the dynamics of this important international institution.