The United States And The International Criminal Court

American reluctance to join the International Criminal Court illuminates important trends in international security and a central dilemma facing U.S. Foreign policy in the 21st century. The ICC will prosecute individuals who commit egregious international human rights violations such as genocide. The Court is a logical culmination of the global trends toward expanding human rights and creating international institutions. The U.S., which fostered these trends because they served American national interests, initially championed the creation of an ICC. The Court fundamentally represents the triumph of American values in the international arena. Yet the United States now opposes the ICC for fear of constraints upon America's ability to use force to protect its national interests. The principal national security and constitutional objections to the Court, which the volume explores in detail, inflate the potential risks inherent in joining the ICC. More fundamentally, they reflect a belief in American exceptionalism that is unsustainable in today's world. Court opponents also underestimate the growing salience of international norms and institutions in addressing emerging threats to U.S. national interests. The misguided assessments that buttress opposition to the ICC threaten to undermine American leadership and security in the 21st century more gravely than could any international institution.

This book aims to investigate whether, and if so, how, an institution designed to bring to justice perpetrators of the most heinous crimes can be regarded a tool of oppression in a (neo-)colonial sense. To do so, it re-invents the concept of neo-colonialism, which is traditionally associated more with economic or political implications, from an international criminal law perspective, combining historical, political and legal analyses. Allegations of neo-colonialism in relation to the International Criminal Court (ICC) became widespread after the Court had issued an arrest warrant against the Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir in 2009. While the Court, since its entry into function in 2002, has been confronted with criticism from various corners, the neo-colonialism controversy was sparked by African stakeholders. Unlike other contributions in this domain, thus, this book provides a Western perspective on an issue more often addressed from an African standpoint, with the intention of distinguishing itself from the more political and emotive and sometimes superficial arguments that exist within critical legal approaches towards the ICC. The subject matter will primarily be of interest to scholars of international criminal law or those operating at the intersection of law and politics/history, nationals of African states and from other parts of the world professionally interested and/or involved in international criminal law and justice and the ICC, and governmental and non-governmental organizations. Secondly, the book will also appeal and speak to critical legal scholars and those interested in historical legal analysis. Res Schuerch is a Swiss lawyer specialized in the field of International Criminal Law and the ICC. He previously worked as a researcher at the University of Amsterdam and as an academic assistant at the University of Zürich.

Why has the United States taken such a firm stance against the International Criminal Court (ICC) and expended such diplomatic goodwill in an attempt to dismantle a tribunal that poses no serious risk to its citizens? This book critiques causal ideologies such as American exceptionalism, state sovereignty and laissez-faire capitalism to show how U.S. opposition is driven by pervasive political, legal, historic, military and economic conditioning factors. It shows how U.S. attitudes transcend partisan politics and predicts how the U.S.-ICC relationship will be affected by the economic crisis, shifting international geopolitical power structures, the crisis in the U.S. military, unfolding international human rights law and the “politics of change” promised by the nascent Obama administration.

This book analyzes patterns and causes of state cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The work focuses on several African cases, including those against leading state officials, to dive into current debates about compliance with international law and resistance to international courts. The book, which draws on interview data collected in The Hague, Kenya, and South Africa, reveals the diversity of state behaviors ranging from full compliance and diplomatic support to partial compliance to resistance and exit. This redirects the widespread narrative about African resistance against the ICC to include evidence of continued Court support. It is argued that the degree of cooperation the Court receives is affected by a government’s perceived costs and benefits of executing an ICC request: a cooperation request is considered high cost or low cost depending on the suspect’s position, the type of action requested, and the government’s domestic and regional policy objectives. In response, the Court has been careful not to alienate states further, thus highlighting that the Court is both above and below the state: having the power to charge individuals including state officials, but relying on governments—sometimes those from which suspects come—to take action on behalf of the Court against the same suspects. The book will be of interest to academics, researchers, and policymakers working in the areas of international law, human rights, international criminal justice, and international relations.

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

"Reassesses U.S. relationship with the ICC and broader issues of U.S. policy toward international justice. Argues U.S. active support of ICC serves U.S. interests and is consistent with values to which America has aspired. Focuses on foreign policy, national security, and moral cases for shifting U.S. policy toward the Court"--Provided by publisher.

American reluctance to join the International Criminal Court illuminates important trends in international security and a central dilemma facing U.S. Foreign policy in the 21st century. The ICC will prosecute individuals who commit egregious international human rights violations such as genocide. The Court is a logical culmination of the global trends toward expanding human rights and creating international institutions. The U.S., which fostered these trends because they served American national interests, initially championed the creation of an ICC. The Court fundamentally represents the triumph of American values in the international arena. Yet the United States now opposes the ICC for fear of constraints upon America's ability to use force to protect its national interests. The principal national security and constitutional objections to the Court, which the volume explores in detail, inflate the potential risks inherent in joining the ICC. More fundamentally, they reflect a belief in American exceptionalism that is unsustainable in today's world. Court opponents also underestimate the growing salience of international norms and institutions in addressing emerging threats to U.S. national interests. The misguided assessments that buttress opposition to the ICC threaten to undermine American leadership and security in the 21st century more gravely than could any international institution.

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?