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.

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.

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

Ten years ago, in the wake of massive crimes in central Africa and the Balkans, the first permanent international criminal court was established in The Hague despite resistance from some of the world's most powerful states. In the past decade, the court has grown from a few staff in an empty building to a bustling institution with more than a thousand lawyers, investigators, and administrators from around the world. Despite its growth and the backing of more than 120 nations, the ICC is still struggling to assert itself in often turbulent political crises. The ICC is generally autonomous in its ability to select cases and investigate crimes, but it is ultimately dependent on sovereign states, and particularly on the world's leading powers. These states can provide the diplomatic, economic, and military clout the court often needs to get cooperation-and to arrest suspects. But states don't expend precious political capital lightly, and the court has often struggled to get the help it needs. When their interests are most affected, moreover, powerful states usually want the court to keep its distance. Directly and indirectly, they make their preferences known in The Hague. Rough Justice grapples with the court's basic dilemma: designed to be apolitical, it requires the support of politicians who pursue national interests and answer to domestic audiences. Through a sharp analysis of the dynamics at work behind the scenes, Bosco assesses the ways in which powerful states have shaped the court's effort to transform the vision of international justice into reality. This will be the definitive account of the Court and its uneven progress toward advancing accountability around the world.

Seminar paper from the year 2015 in the subject Politics - Topic: International Organisations, grade: 1,0, University of Tubingen, language: English, abstract: More than 10 years ago the International Criminal Court entered into force. It was designed to be a model of a global governing of human rights. Trying to set universal standards for the jurisdiction of human rights, it is the first time in human history, that serious human rights violations such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression can be judged in a court of law. The thesis will argue, that the ICC therefore presents a milestone on the realization of international human rights. However, the ICC has to face many obstacles, most prominently the opposition by several UN member states, who refuse to accede the Court. The thesis will illuminate this development with the help of some cosmopolitan approaches. The focus will be on the progress of universal human rights over the last centuries with the remarkable climax of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which also laid the roots for the later foundation of the ICC. In chapter 3 this thesis will broach the issue of the obstacles regarding the realization of human rights. As mentioned above, a major opposition still stems from the nation states, who are partly still stuck on a realist view of the international system. Out of fear, that they might lose sovereignty, they prefer to follow their national interest instead of putting universal human rights into practice. To explicate this behavior of nation states, I have consulted the article „In the national interest“, published by Allen Buchanan in 2005. He reflects on the observation that human rights are in practice in most of all cases incompatible with the national interest of a nation state. Although the majority of all states will commit themselves on paper to the noble goal of human rights promotion, in reality their foreign policy will quite often display quite the opposite. As a reply, I will argue with the help of David Held, that a cosmoplitan answer to overcome these obstacles is possible by creating common institutions as a new layer of legal competence to which people can transfer public powers. To illustrate these considerations I will then discuss the International Criminal Court, as an example of such a cosmopolitan 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?

'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.