Law and contestation in international negotiations

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 672-690
Author(s):  
Kyle Rapp
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Negotiations ◽  
The Us ◽  
Legal Grounds

AbstractWhat is the role of rhetoric and argumentation in international relations? Some argue that it is little more than ‘cheap talk’, while others say that it may play a role in persuasion or coordination. However, why states deploy certain arguments, and why these arguments succeed or fail, is less well understood. I argue that, in international negotiations, certain types of legal frames are particularly useful for creating winning arguments. When a state bases its arguments on constitutive legal claims, opponents are more likely to become trapped by the law: unable to develop sustainable rebuttals or advance their preferred policy. To evaluate this theory, I apply qualitative discourse analysis to the US arguments on the crime of aggression at the Kampala Review Conference of the International Criminal Court – where the US advanced numerous arguments intended to reshape the crime to align with US interests. The analysis supports the theoretical propositions – arguments framed on codified legal grounds had greater success, while arguments framed on more political grounds were less sustainable, failing to achieve the desired outcomes. These findings further develop our understanding of the use of international law in rhetoric, argumentation, and negotiation.

International relations and the International Criminal Court

2020 ◽  
pp. 561-575
Author(s):  
Njoki Wamai
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The West ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship

The tensions generated by the International Criminal Court’s (ICC’s) indictment of four prominent Kenyans—including Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, who went on to become president and deputy president of the Kenyan Republic, respectively—in 2013 promised to reorder the relationship between Kenya and the international community. This chapter discusses the ICC’s intervention and its impact on both local Kenyan politics and Kenya’s relationship with its regional and international partners including its traditional Western partners, such as Europe, the UK, and the US. The chapter also discusses how tensions between Kenya and the West influenced Kenya’s relationship with the East including China, India, and Japan.

scholarly journals "The Legal Basis for the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court and the Preparatory Work of the Rome Statute (I)," Journal of International Relations and Comparative Culture, Vol. 16, No. 2 (March 2018), pp. 67-74.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiaki Kitano
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Preparatory Work

This paper aims to discuss the legal basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court while viewing the topic as one of the issues demonstrating the current status of general international law concerning the creation of obligations for non-party states. The table of contents included in this part 1 is as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction (Section 1 Exercise of Jurisdiction by the ICC and Consent of States: Provisions of the Statute / Section 2 Rules of the Law of Treaties on Creation of Obligations for Non-Party States: Provisional Examination).

scholarly journals Can the International Criminal Court Deter Atrocity?

2016 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyeran Jo ◽  
Beth A. Simmons
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Systematic Assessment ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Rebel Groups

AbstractWhether and how violence can be controlled to spare innocent lives is a central issue in international relations. The most ambitious effort to date has been the International Criminal Court (ICC), designed to enhance security and safety by preventing egregious human rights abuses and deterring international crimes. We offer the first systematic assessment of the ICC's deterrent effects for both state and nonstate actors. Although no institution can deter all actors, the ICC can deter some governments and those rebel groups that seek legitimacy. We find support for this conditional impact of the ICC cross-nationally. Our work has implications for the study of international relations and institutions, and supports the violence-reducing role of pursuing justice in international affairs.

scholarly journals "The Legal Basis for the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court and the Preparatory Work of the Rome Statute (VI)," Journal of International Relations and Comparative Culture, Vol. 19, No. 1 (September 2020), pp. 41-52.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiaki Kitano
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
State Consent ◽  
Preparatory Work

This paper aims to discuss the legal basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court while viewing the topic as one of the issues demonstrating the current status of general international law concerning the creation of obligations for non-party states. The table of contents included in this part 6 is as follows: Chapter 3 Examination of the Preparatory Work of the Statute (Continued) (Section 2 Analysis of the Relevant Discussions Conducted in the Preparatory Work of the Statute (Continued) (2. Discussions on the State-Consent Requirements and Legal Basis for the Proposed ICC’s Exercise of Jurisdiction (Continued) ((B) Exercise of Jurisdiction in the Cases of the Security Council’s Referral))).

scholarly journals Arguing with law: strategic legal argumentation, US diplomacy, and debates over the International Criminal Court

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
ADAM BOWER
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legal Argumentation ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Us ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Lasting Change

AbstractRecent studies have highlighted the instrumental use of language, wherein actors deploy claims to strategically pursue policy goals in the absence of persuasion or socialisation. Yet these accounts are insufficiently attentive to the social context in which an audience assesses and responds to strategic appeals. I present a theoretical account that highlights the distinctly powerful role of international law in framing strategic argumentation. Legalised discourses are especially legitimate because law is premised on a set of internally coherent practices that constitute actors and forms of action. I then illustrate the implications in a hard case concerning US efforts to secure immunities from International Criminal Court jurisdiction. Contrary to realist accounts of law as a tool of the powerful, I show that both pro- and anti-ICC diplomacy was channelled through a legal lens that imposed substantial constraints on the pursuit of policy objectives. Court proponents responded to US diplomatic pressure with their own legal arguments; this narrowed the scope of the exemptions, even as the Security Council temporarily conceded to US demands. While the US sought to marry coercion with argumentative appeals, it failed to generate a lasting change in global practice concerning ICC jurisdiction.

scholarly journals "The Legal Basis for the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court and the Preparatory Work of the Rome Statute (III)," Journal of International Relations and Comparative Culture, Vol. 17, No. 2 (March 2019), pp. 55-64.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiaki Kitano
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Preparatory Work

This paper aims to discuss the legal basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court while viewing the topic as one of the issues demonstrating the current status of general international law concerning the creation of obligations for non-party states. The table of contents included in this part 3 is as follows: Chapter 2 Existing Theories (Continued) (Section 2 Creation of the Nationality State's Obligation to Acquiesce (1. Consent Given in Accordance with Article 12 of the Statute / 2. Consent Given in Accordance with Article 25 of the UN Charter / 3. Formation of Customary International Law) / Section 3 Three Crucial Issues Relating to Existing Theories and the Necessity of Examining the Preparatory Work of the Statute).

scholarly journals The measures against the International Criminal Court (USA v. ICC): the perspective of International Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 309-332
Author(s):  
Walid Fahmy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government

Since its creation, the International Criminal Court has faced the refusal of the United States to cooperate, which, in addition to staying outside the Rome Statute, has undertaken a real strategy of weakening the Criminal Code. The argument put forward by the US Government against the Rome Statute is that an international treaty cannot create obligations for a non-party state and therefore the United States denies any jurisdiction of that jurisdiction over its nationals. As early as 2000, that country had unsuccessfully introduced a proposal before the Preparatory Commission to prevent bringing American military personnel to the Court. The American Service Members Protection Act (ASPA), bilateral immunity agreements and Security Council resolutions constitute the arsenal used by States at that time to neutralize the ICC. Recently, the United States signed an order authorizing the United States to prevent and penalize employees of the International Criminal Court from entering the country. The US administration, which has been critical of the ICC for months, is opposed to launching investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan. Is not that a sign of difficulty with the US Legal Justifications? In other words, does this weakness open up the possibility of prosecution in the event of a violation of international law by US?

scholarly journals The International Criminal Court, Sitting Heads of State Prosecutions, and the Paradox of the Balance of Power

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 465-481
Author(s):  
Mattia Cacciatori
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Track Record ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
Inter State

Abstract Compliance with international law is commonly accepted as strengthening inter--state relationships and, therefore, consolidating inter-state politics. This article argues that, in certain circumstances, hostility to international law can be regarded as indicative of shifts in the balance of power that undermine the enforcement of injunctions of international law. These, it will be shown, need to be addressed through inter-state dialogue. To sustain the argument proposed, the article focuses, from an international relations perspective, on the resistance to the practice of prosecuting sitting Heads of State by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The prosecution of a sitting Head of State is considered in this article as the poster--child of liberal institutionalism. The track record of the ICC in this domain is worrying: out of 3 situations (Omar al Bashir in Sudan; Uhuru Kenyatta in Kenya; and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya) the Court was unable to finalize a single one. Following theoretical plexuses derived from the English School of international relations, and particularly Hedley Bull’s “Paradox of the Balance of Power”, the article draws attention to the case of Gaddafi in Libya and to the international debate on the potential prosecution of Bashar al Assad in Syria. This is done to show that the transition between the two is exemplificative of a paradoxical dynamic: international law is more efficient in situations of balance of power; but violations of international law are, in specific cases, necessary to rectify it. Ultimately, the article argues, more attention should be dedicated to the resistance to the prosecutions of sitting Heads of State to understand the implications that this might have for the balance of power, and in the construction of a truly pluralist international society based on inter-state dialogue.

The Denial of the Right of Return as a Rome Statute Crime

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micheal G Kearney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Final Section ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
The Right

Abstract In 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held that conduct preventing the return of members of the Rohingya people to Myanmar could fall within Article 7(1)(k) of the Statute, on the grounds that denial of the right of return constitutes a crime against humanity. No international tribunal has prosecuted this conduct as a discrete violation, but given the significance of the right of return to Palestinians, it can be expected that such an offence would be of central importance should the ICC investigate the situation in Palestine. This comment will review the recognition of this crime against humanity during the process prompted by the Prosecutor’s 2018 Request for a ruling as to the Court’s jurisdiction over trans-boundary crimes in Bangladesh/Myanmar. It will consider the basis for the right of return in general international law, with a specific focus on the Palestinian right of return. The final section will review the elements of the denial of right of return as a crime against humanity, as proposed by the Office of the Prosecutor in its 2019 Request for Authorization of an investigation in Bangladesh/Myanmar.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document