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.

Annotation The Nuremberg Trials at the end of World War II established the principle that individual leaders could be held responsible for "crimes against humanity." Although various ad hoc tribunals were held in the last half of the 20th century, it was not until 2002 that a permanent international court was established, under the auspices, of the United Nations. The international Criminal Court has been controversial with many key nations most notably, the United States refusing to ratify the treaty establishing the court. Some critics object to the adoption of a judicial system that seems to supersede national judicial systems; others fear that the court will be used to pursue narrow political ends. This book will comprise three sections: the first will examine the history of the creation of the court; the second will contain articles that outline objections to the court; the third will contain articles defending and promoting the court. The authors include primary sources on both sides of the controversy, with special attention to America's involvement. A glossary of key terms, and the text of the Rome Statute establishing the court will also be included.

This book explores the institution of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a policy instrument. It argues that after the Cold War the European Union started challenging the unilateral policies of the United States by promoting new norms and institutions, such as the ICC. This development flies in the face of traditional explanations for cooperation, which would theorize institutionalization as the result of hegemonic preponderance, rational calculations or common identities. The book explains the dynamics behind the emergence of the ICC with a novel theoretical concept of normative binding. Normative binding is a strategy that provides middle powers with the means to tie down the unilateral policies of powerful actors that prefer not to cooperate. The idea is to promote new multilateral norms and deposit them in institutions, which have the potential to become binding even on unilateralist actors, if the majority of states adhere to them.

The International Criminal Court ushers in a new era in the protection of human rights. The Court will prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when national justice systems are either unwilling or unable to do so themselves. This third revised edition considers the initial rulings by the Pre-Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber, and the cases it is prosecuting, namely, Democratic Republic of Congo, northern Uganda, Darfur, as well as those where it had decided not to proceed, such as Iraq. The law of the Court up to and including its ruling on a confirmation hearing, committing Chalres Lubanga for trial on child soldiers offences, is covered. It also addresses the difficulties created by US opposition, analysing the ineffectiveness of measures taken by Washington to obstruct the Court, and its increasing recognition of the inevitability of the institution.

The International Criminal Court has ushered in a new era in the protection of human rights. Protecting against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the Court acts when national justice systems are unwilling or unable to do so. Written by the leading expert in the field, the fourth edition of this seminal text considers the Court in action: its initial rulings, cases it has prosecuted and cases where it has decided not to proceed, such as Iraq. It also examines the results of the Review Conference, by which the crime of aggression was added to the jurisdiction of the Court and addresses the political context, such as the warming of the United States to the Court and the increasing recognition of the inevitability of the institution.

This impressive and unique collection of essays covers important aspects of the legal regime of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The volume begins with an analysis of the historical development of the ICC, the progressive development of international humanitarian and international criminal law by the ad hoc Tribunals and the work of mixed national/international jurisdictions. The legal and institutional basis of the ICC is then dealt with in detail, including the organs of the ICC, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression, modes of liability before the ICC and defences before the ICC. Part III focuses on the court at work, including its procedural rules, criminal proceedings at the ICC, penalties and appeal and revision procedures. Part IV deals with the relationship of the ICC with states and international organizations. The contributors are established scholars in the field of international criminal and humanitarian law, many of whom are practitioners in the various tribunals.

The United States spearheaded the creation of many international organizations and treaties after World War II and maintains a strong record of compliance across several issue areas, yet it also refuses to ratify major international conventions like the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Why does the U.S. often seem to support international law in one way while neglecting or even violating it in another? The United States and International Law: Paradoxes of Support across Contemporary Issues analyzes the seemingly inconsistent U.S. relationship with international law by identifying five types of state support for international law: leadership, consent, internalization, compliance, and enforcement. Each follows different logics and entails unique costs and incentives. Accordingly, the fact that a state engages in one form of support does not presuppose that it will do so across the board. This volume examines how and why the U.S. has engaged in each form of support across twelve issue areas that are central to 20th- and 21st-century U.S. foreign policy: conquest, world courts, war, nuclear proliferation, trade, human rights, war crimes, torture, targeted killing, maritime law, the environment, and cybersecurity. In addition to offering rich substantive discussions of U.S. foreign policy, their findings reveal patterns across the U.S. relationship with international law that shed light on behavior that often seems paradoxical at best, hypocritical at worst. The results help us understand why the United States engages with international law as it does, the legacies of the Trump administration, and what we should expect from the United States under the Biden administration and beyond.

In this new work, Dutton examines the ICC and whether and how its enforcement mechanism influences state membership and the court’s ability to realize treaty goals, examining questions such as: Why did states decide to create the ICC and design the institution with this uniquely strong enforcement mechanism? Will the ICC’s enforcement mechanism be sufficient to hold states accountable to their commitment so that the ICC can realize its goal of ending impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes? Will states view the ICC’s enforcement mechanism as a credible threat and refuse to join unless they already have good domestic human rights practices and institutions that are independent and capable of prosecuting human rights abuses? If states that most need to improve their domestic legal practices as relates to protecting against human rights abuses do not join the court, is there any hope that the threat of punishment by the ICC can play a role in bettering state’s human rights practices and deterring individuals from committing mass atrocities? This work provides a significant contribution to the field, and will be of great interest to students and scholars of international law, international relations, international organizations and human rights.

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. “The United States has been at the centre of international criminal justice initiatives, from Nuremberg to the more recent ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Lebanon. But its position has been lukewarm and sometimes, in the darkest days of the Bush administration, outright hostile to the International Criminal Court. Filling a gap in the literature, Dr Mark Kielsgard reviews the history of American policy, analysing the factors that have driven it, making useful and practical suggestions aimed at greater engagement of the United States with the International Criminal Court.” Professor William A. Schabas

This book examines the legal and policy issues involved in the establishment and functioning of the Permanent International Criminal Court.