Status and Intervention in Darfur, Sudan 2004–2008

2019 ◽  
pp. 63-87
Author(s):  
Courtney J. Fung
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Beijing Olympic Games ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Peace Operation ◽  
Domestic Affairs ◽  
2008 Beijing Olympic Games

Chapter 4 analyzes China’s decision to shift its position on intervention in Sudan over the Darfur crisis. China went from viewing Sudan’s problems as domestic affairs not for the UN Security Council’s purview, to actively supporting intervention. China wrangled and effectively “enforced” consent from Khartoum for a UN Charter Chapter VII peacekeeping mission, and acquiesced to a referral of the Sudan case to the International Criminal Court, which led to an indictment of sitting President Omar al-Bashir. Though this case is popularly understood as being determined by material drivers—like shielding the Sino-Sudanese economic relationship, or addressing the reputational threat of the “Genocide Olympics” to the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games—the chapter demonstrates that status is the key variable to explain China’s shifting position. Under mounting pressure from both the great powers (the “P3” of the United States, the United Kingdom, France) and the African Union, in particular, China gravitated to supporting and permitting intervention with a yes vote for the UN-AU Hybrid Peace Operation (UNAMID) and an abstention vote for an International Criminal Court referral in 2005, and again in 2008.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahnoush H. Arsanjani
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Intergovernmental Organizations ◽  
Food And Agriculture ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Food And Agriculture Organization ◽  
The Russian Federation

The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC) took place in Rome at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization from June 15 to July 17, 1998. The participants numbered 160 states, thirty-three intergovernmental organizations and a coalition of 236 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The conference concluded by adopting the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court by a nonrecorded vote of 120 in favor, 7 against and 21 abstentions. The United States elected to indicate publicly that it had voted against the statute. France, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation supported the statute.

The United States, the International Criminal Court, and Afghanistan: The Rupturing of Mutual Accommodation

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 1068-1107
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Robb ◽  
Shan Patel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Strategic Approach ◽  
Chief Prosecutor ◽  
The U.S

Abstract In September 2018, then U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton delivered a speech that ushered in a new, more aggressive era of U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis the International Criminal Court (icc). Washington’s disapprobation over the icc’s interest in the alleged crimes of U.S. personnel in Afghanistan has been seen as the cause for this change. While this is certainly partly true, little attention has been paid to Fatou Bensouda’s prosecutorial behaviour as an explanatory factor. Using the framework from David Bosco’s Rough Justice, this article demonstrates that a distinct shift in prosecutorial behaviour occurred when Fatou Bensouda took over as Chief Prosecutor. In contrast to Luis Moreno Ocampo’s strategic approach, avoidant of U.S. interests, Bensouda’s apolitical approach directly challenged the U.S. This shift in prosecutorial behaviour ruptured the ‘mutual accommodation’ that previously characterised the icc-U.S. relationship and, in turn, produced the shift in U.S. policy that now marginalises the Court.

Reforming the International Criminal Court (icc) to Achieve Increased State Cooperation in Investigations and Prosecutions of International Crimes

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-61
Author(s):  
Jeremy Sarkin
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Defensive Strategies ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Set Up ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
State Cooperation

This article examines the issue of state cooperation with the International Criminal Court (icc), and why it is vitally needed to achieve the institution’s mandate, including that of human rights protection. The article examines why state cooperation with the icc is so important and what issues undermine it, including disputes with the African Union, but many other issues as well. It surveys what the icc has done to promote cooperation and what steps ought to be taken to try and enhance state cooperation in the future. This is timely as the icc has set up a review process in 2020 to deal with a range of problems including state non-cooperation. The article therefore examines the practices and procedures of the Court, matters concerning its judges and staff, issues around the appointment of a new prosecutor, as well as and judicial appointments, as well as its jurisprudence. The article examines the issues that ought to be addressed, as well as how a variety of actors could better assist the Court, including the Security Council, the wider United Nations system, and the methodology for doing so. The article also reviews what defensive strategies can be taken up to defend the Court, including against aggressive anti-icc actors, such as the United States of America, who are ramping up their attacks on the Court and its personnel.

The United States and the International Criminal Court: Avoiding Jurisdiction Through Bilateral Agreements in Reliance on Article 98

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila Bogdan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
General Obligation ◽  
History Of ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

AbstractState-parties to the International Criminal Court Statute have a general obligation to cooperate with the Court. The duty to cooperate represents the functional cornerstone of the Court's existence. A narrow exception to this duty is contained in Article 98 of the Statute, which provides for limited circumstances in which the Court must refrain from seeking a surrender of an individual to the Court. Following rules of treaty interpretation, as well as an examination of the legislative history of the ICC Statute, the article explores the scope of Article 98, the provision the United States relied on in concluding a series of bilateral agreements that are primarily aimed at preventing the surrender of any U.S. nationals to the ICC. The article considers the issue of what impact, if any, the agreements have in the context of extradition, and the U.S.' legal ability to fulfill the commitments made in the "Article 98" agreements.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document