Advertisement

The European Union and the International Criminal Court: Contested Abroad, Consensual at Home?

  • Gemma Collantes-CeladorEmail author
  • Oriol Costa
Chapter
Part of the Norm Research in International Relations book series (NOREINRE)

Abstract

A breakthrough in the evolution of international criminal law, the International Criminal Court (ICC) came into force in 2002 with the authority to bring to justice individuals guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and—since 2017—crimes of aggression. Much has been written about the contestation of norms and practices embodied in the ICC, best exemplified by the deteriorating relations between the Court and the African Union, the withdrawal of Russia and the fluctuating stance of the USA. Contrary to these actors, the EU is normally conceived of as a loyal supporter; the ICC fits in its promotion of the fundamental norm of justice in a multilateral rules-based order. Nevertheless, there are recurrent bouts of disagreement in the EU too. Differences tend to re-emerge at significant junctures in the development of the Court, usually accompanied by contestation from other actors in the international system. In this chapter, we focus on the relationship between the internal and external levels and ask how the EU has reacted to external contestation of the ICC. ¿Can the EU rally behind a common position or does external contestation promote internal differences?

References

  1. Ainley, K. (2015). The responsibility to protect and the International Criminal Court: Counteracting the crisis. International Affairs, 91(1), 37–54.Google Scholar
  2. Akande, D. (2017, December 15). The International Criminal Court gets jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. EJIL: Talk!—Blog of the European Journal of International Law. Retrieved from: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-international-criminal-court-gets-jurisdiction-over-the-crime-of-aggression/. Last accessed 15.08.2018.
  3. Aoun, E. (2008). Beyond EU/US early contentions over the International Criminal Court: The development of the EU’s loyalty to the ICC. Studia Diplomatica, LXI(4), 155–171.Google Scholar
  4. Bekou, O. (2014). Mainstreaming support for the ICC in the EU’s policies. Report EXPO/B/DROI/2013/28 commissioned by the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights, Brussels.Google Scholar
  5. Bolton, J. (2018). Protecting American constitutionalism and sovereignty from international threats. [Speech at the Federalist Society in Washington, D.C., 10 September]. Retrieved from: https://www.justsecurity.org/60674/national-security-adviser-john-bolton-remarks-international-criminal-court/. Last accessed 12.04.2019.
  6. Bosco, D. (2014). Rough justice: The International Criminal Court in a world of power politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cassese, A. (1999). The statute of the International Criminal Court: Some preliminary reflections. European Journal of International Law, 10, 144–171.Google Scholar
  8. CICC—Coalition for the International Criminal Court. (2010). Report on the first Review Conference on the Rome Statute, 31 May—11 June 2010, Kampala, Uganda. Retrieved from: http://www.iccnow.org/documents/RC_Report_finalweb.pdf. Accessed 12.04.2019.
  9. Collantes-Celador, G. (2012). La UE en la Negociación, Revisión e Implementación del Estatuto de Roma – Sus Limites como “Actor Global Dinámico y Eficaz”. In E. Barbé (Ed.), Cambio Mundial y Gobernanza Global: La Interacción entre la Unión Europea y las Instituciones Internacionales (pp. 142–159). Barcelona: Tecnos.Google Scholar
  10. Collantes-Celador, G. (2016). The defence of an institution under challenge: The EU and the International Criminal Court. In E. Barbé, O. Costa, & R. Kissack (Eds.), EU Policy responses to a shifting multilateral system (pp. 71–92). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costa, O., & Müller, P. (2018). Une Liaison Transnationale. Exploring the Role of NGOs in EU Foreign Policy-making on the ICC. Comparative European Politics. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41295–018-0121-6.
  12. Council of the EU. (2002, September 30). EU guiding principles concerning arrangements between a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the United States regarding the conditions to surrender of persons to the court. Brussels.Google Scholar
  13. Council of the EU. (2013, November 27). The EU’s response to non-cooperation with the International Criminal Court by third states. Document 16993/13, Brussels.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, L. (2014). Discreet effectiveness: The EU and the ICC. In E. Drieskens & L. G. van Schaik (Eds.), The EU and effective multilateralism: Internal and external reform practices (pp. 84–100). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Duerr, B. (2017, 15 December). ICC jurisdiction set to expand: Will states be deterred from war? CSS Blog Network. Retrieved from https://isnblog.ethz.ch/justice/icc-jurisdiction-set-to-expand-will-states-be-deterred-from-war. Accessed 12.04.2019.
  16. European Council—The President. (2010, September 10). Statement by Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, following his meeting with Judge Song President of the International Criminal Court. PCE 182/10, Brussels.Google Scholar
  17. European Parliament. (2011, November 17). EU support for the International Criminal Court: Facing challenges and overcoming difficulties. Document 2011/2109(INI). Retrieved from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2011-0368+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#title5. Accessed 09.04.2019.
  18. European Union. (2011, October 14). Statement by high representative Catherine Ashton on the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court by Cape Verde. Document A 413/11, Brussels.Google Scholar
  19. Fehl, C. (2004). Explaining the International Criminal Court: A ‘Practice Test’ for rationalist and constructivist approaches. European Journal of International Relations, 10(3), 357–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fehl, C. (2012). Living with a Reluctant Hegemon: Explaining European responses to US unilateralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Groenleer, M. L. P., & Rijks, D. (2009). The European Union and the International Criminal Court: The politics of international criminal justice. In K. E. Jørgensen (Ed.), The European Union and International Organizations (pp. 167–187). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Groenleer, M. L. P., & Van Schaik, L. G. (2007). United we stand? The European Union’s international actorness in the cases of the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(5), 969–998.Google Scholar
  23. Hellwig-Bötte, M. (2014). Political bickering over the International Criminal Court. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik Comments no. 5. Retrieved from: https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/kenya-and-the-international-criminal-court/. Accessed 13.04.2019.
  24. Hoover, J. (2013). Moral practices: Assigning responsibility in the International Criminal Court. Law and Contemporary Problems, 76(3–4), 263–286.Google Scholar
  25. Kreß, C. (2018). On the activation of the ICC jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 16, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Márquez Carrasco, C. (2010, June 15). The EU and the ICC. Post in IntLawGrrls: Voices on international lsaw. Retrieved from: http://www.intlawgrrls.com/2010/06/eu-and-icc.html. Last accessed 06.03.2012.
  27. Mills, K., & Bloomfield, A. (2018). African resistance to the International Criminal Court: Halting the advance of the anti-impunity norm. Review of International Studies, 44(1), 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. No author. (2013, November 28). The Kampala amendments on the crime of aggression: A promise for the end of illegal use of force in international relations. Meeting organized by Helmut Scholz (Chairperson, PGA Group in the European Parliament/ member of the EP Friends of the ICC), European Parliament, Brussels. Retrieved from http://www.pgaction.org/news/the-kampala-amendments-the-crime-aggression.html. Last accessed 15.08.2018.
  29. Review Conference. (2010, June 11). Resolution RC/Res.6—The Crime of Aggression. Adopted at the 13th plenary meeting, Kampala. Retrieved from https://asp.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/reviewconference/resolutions%20and%20declarations/Pages/resolutions%20and%20declarations.aspx. Last accessed 15.08.2018.
  30. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (2002, July 1). Document A/CONF.183/9, Rome, 17 July 1998 (adoption) (entry into force).Google Scholar
  31. Sadushaj, M., Shatku, S., Pustina, F., Kuka, E., & Taraj, G. (2017). Interpretation and Application of Article 98 of the Rome Statute. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 6(1), 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomas, D. C. (2005). The institutional construction of EU foreign policy: CFSP and the International Criminal Court. Presented at European Union Studies Association Conference, Austin, Texas, 2014.Google Scholar
  33. Thomas, D. C. (2009). Rejecting the US challenge to the International Criminal Court: Normative entrapment and compromise in EU policy-making. International Politics, 46(4), 376–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomas, D. C. (2012). Still punching below its weight? Coherence and effectiveness in European Foreign Policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(3), 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cranfield University at the Defence Academy of the United KingdomShrivenhamUK
  2. 2.Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations