Strong, Independent, and Effective: The European Union’s Promotion of the International Criminal Court

Chapter
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

The European Union has profiled itself as a staunch supporter of the ICC. This chapter provides an overview of the EU’s campaign for the ICC and seeks to explain why and how the EU supports the ICC? I argue that the EU has a special interest in the ICC, because it offers the EU a framework to oppose unilateralist policies of the US. Given that the Bush administration ferociously opposed the ICC, I argue that the EU has engaged in what I call “normative binding” in its global campaign for the ratification of the Rome Statute. Since the EU cannot compete with the US on military terms, an international system based on restrictive norms is important for increasing its power. By drawing the US into a debate over international norms, the EU may be able to build up its soft power by signaling an alternative concept of multilateral order to the rest of the world. Thus, the promotion of international legal institutions has implications for the international system by enabling normative binding. The EU’s policy towards the ICC forms the heart of the paper as I discuss the EU’s role in the establishment and promotion of the ICC and contrast it to the opposing US policy.

Keywords

United Nations International Criminal Court International Criminal Rome Statute Bush Administration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard and soft law in International Governance. International Organization, 54(3).Google Scholar
  2. Amnesty International. International Criminal Court: Foreign Ministers of France, Italy, Span and the UK Should Say No to Impunity Agreements. 11.10.2002.Google Scholar
  3. Amupadhi, T. (2003, July 31). Country Snubs US on ICC. The Namibian Google Scholar
  4. Arsanjani, M. H. (1999). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law, 93(1).Google Scholar
  5. Becker, E. (2002, August 26). U.S. Issues warning to Europeans in dispute over new court. The New York Times Google Scholar
  6. Black I., Borger J. (2001, March 30). EU Dismay as bush Reneges on Kyoto: Blair seeks ‘Constructive’ talks as world denounces decision to put US trade before global climate. The Guardian Google Scholar
  7. Bolton, J. (1999). Speech two: reject and oppose the International Criminal Court. In A. Frye (Ed.), Toward an International Criminal Court. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
  8. Bolton, J. (2003). American justice and the International Criminal Court, remarks at the American Enterprise Institute. Washington D.C., 3.11.2003Google Scholar
  9. Brown, B. S. (2000). The statute of the ICC: From The Hague to Rome and Back again. In S. B. Sewall & C. Kaysen (Eds.), The United States and the International Criminal Court: National Security and International Law. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Byrne, D. Commission statement on the consequences for transatlantic relations of the American service members’ Protection Act (ASPA). SP02-228EN, 3.7.2002.Google Scholar
  11. Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. H. (1995). The New Sovereignty: compliance with International Regulatory Agreements. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. CICC. Quotes from High Officials Opposing the US Campaign for Bilateral Immunity Agreements. Accessed May 20, 2012 from http://www.iccnow.org/documents/HighOfficialQuotes_Current.pdf.
  13. CICC. Summary of Information on Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs) or So-Called “Article 98” Agreements as of July 8, 2006. Accessed May 20, 2012 from http://www.iccnow.org/documents/BIAdb_Current.pdf.
  14. CICC. “Countries Opposed to Signing a US Bilateral Immunity Agreement (BIA): US Aid Lost in FY04&FY05 and Threatened in FY06,” Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Accessed May 20, 2012 from http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CountriesOpposedBIA_final_11Dec06_final.pdf.
  15. CNN, Skeptical Leaders Await Bush on European Trip, 11.6.2001.Google Scholar
  16. Crawford, J. (2003). The drafting of the Rome statute. In P. Sands (Ed.), From Nuremberg to The Hague: the future of International Criminal Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Crook, J. R. (Ed.). (2005). United States abstains on security council resolution authorizing referral of Darfur Atrocities to International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law, 99(3).Google Scholar
  18. Cryer, R. (2006). Sudan, Resolution 1593, and International Criminal Justice. Leiden Journal of International Law, 19, 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cummins, S. J. & Stewart, D. P. (Eds.) (2003), Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2002, Washington D.C.: Office of the Legal Adviser, United States Department of State, International Law Institute.Google Scholar
  20. Cunningham, J. B. (2004). Remarks on the ICC at the Security Council Stakeout. USUN Press Release 110(04), 22.6.2004.Google Scholar
  21. Deitelhoff, N. (2009). The discursive process of legalization: Charting Islands of persuasion in the ICC case. International Organization, 63(1).Google Scholar
  22. Department of State, Daily Press Briefing, Richard Boucher, Spokesman, 23.6.2004.Google Scholar
  23. Diez, T., & Manners, I. (2007). Reflecting on normative power Europe. In F. Berenskoetter & M. J. Williams (Eds.), Power in world politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Duchêne, F. (1973). The European Community and the Uncertainties of Interdependence. In M. Kohnstam & W. Hager (Eds.), A nation writ large? Foreign-policy problems before the European community. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. European Commission Directorate-General for Development and Relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific States, Partnership Agreement ACP-EC, Signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, Revised in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005, ACP-CE 2128/05.Google Scholar
  26. European Commission (2008). Programming guide for strategy papers, Programming Fiche, The ICC and the Fight Against Impunity, Nov. 2008.Google Scholar
  27. European Union, Statement—Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 14.12.2011, EUUN11-148EN.Google Scholar
  28. European Union, Statement by the Spokesperson of HR Ashton on President Al-Bashir, 22.7.2010, EU10-152EN.Google Scholar
  29. European Union, Statement by the spokesperson of HR Ashton on Sudanese President Al-Bashir’s Visit to Kenya, 27.8. 2010, EU10-186EN.Google Scholar
  30. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4).Google Scholar
  31. Forsberg, T. (2011). Normative power Europe, once again: a conceptual analysis of an ideal type. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(6).Google Scholar
  32. Franck, T. M. & Yuhan, S. H. (2003). The United States and the International Criminal Court: Unilateralism Rampant, International Law and Politics, 35Google Scholar
  33. Gardner, M. (2003). Sanctioning allies: Effects of the "Article 98" campaign. World Federalist Association. Accessed February 15, 2013, from http://www.iccnow.org/documents/12.02.03-BIAsDamage.doc.pdf
  34. General Secretariat of the Council. (2008). The European Union and the International Criminal Court. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  35. General Secretariat of the Council. (2010). The European Union and the International Criminal Court. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  36. Georgetown Law Library. International Criminal Court—Article 98 Agreements Research Guide. Accessed May 20, 2012, from http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/guides/article_98.cfm.
  37. Goldsmith, J. (2003). The self-defeating international criminal court. University of Chicago Law Review, 70.Google Scholar
  38. Grant, C. (2009). Is Europe doomed to fail as a power? London: Centre for European Reform.Google Scholar
  39. Groenleer, M., & Rijks, D. (2009). The European Union and the International Criminal Court: The politics of International Criminal Justice. In K. E. Jorgensen (Ed.), The European Union and international organizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Groenleer, M., & 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. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(5).Google Scholar
  41. Grossman, M. American Foreign Policy and the International Criminal Court: Remarks to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Washington D.C., 6.5.2002.Google Scholar
  42. Habermas, J. (2000). Beyond the nation state? On some consequences of economic globalization. In E. O. Eriksen & J. E. Fossum (Eds.), Democracy in the European Union: Integration through deliberation? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. HRW. Letter to US Secretary of State Colin Powell on US Bully Tactics against the International Criminal Court. 30.6.2003.Google Scholar
  44. HRW. EU should push for ICC Referral of Darfur during rice Visit. 8.2.2005.Google Scholar
  45. Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After victory: institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Ikenberry, G. J. (2006). Liberal order and imperial ambition: essays on American power and world politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kaul, H.-P (1998a). Durchbruch in Rom. Der Vertag über den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof. Vereinte Nationen. 4.Google Scholar
  48. Kaul, H.-P (1998b). Special note: the struggle for the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. 6(4)Google Scholar
  49. Kaul, H.-P. (1997). Statement—complementarity, trigger mechanism-, United Nations Negotiations on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC), New York, 4.8.1997.Google Scholar
  50. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in International politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Kelley, J. (2007). Who Keeps International Commitments and Why? The International Criminal Court and Bilateral Nonsurrender Agreements. American Political Science Review, 101(3).Google Scholar
  52. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: cooperation and discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Kirsch, P. (2008). Introductory remarks. In M. Politi & F. Gioia (Eds.), The International Criminal Court and national jurisdictions. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  54. Kirsch, P., & Holmes, J. T. (1999). The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: The Negotiating Process. American Journal of International Law, 93(1).Google Scholar
  55. Koh, H. H. (2010). U.S. engagement with the International Criminal Court and the outcome of the recently concluded review conference. Special Briefing with Stephen J. Rapp. Washington D.C., June 15.Google Scholar
  56. Kratochwil, F. V. (1989). Rules, norms, and decisions: On the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kristof, N. D. (2005, February 2) Why should we shield the killers?” The New York Times.Google Scholar
  58. Kristof, N. D. (2005, October 16) Schoolyard bully diplomacy. The New York Times Google Scholar
  59. Lee, R. S. (1999). Introduction: The Rome conference and its contributions to International Law. In R. S. Lee (Ed.), The International Criminal Court: The making of the Rome statute—issues, negotiations, results. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  60. Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2).Google Scholar
  61. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1998). The Institutional dynamics of International Political orders. International Organization, 52(4).Google Scholar
  62. Maull, H. W. (1990). Germany and Japan: the new civilian powers. Foreign Affairs, 69(5).Google Scholar
  63. Mayerfeld, J. (2003). Who shall be judge? The United States, the International Criminal Court, and the global enforcement of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 25, 93–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moravcsik, A. (2010). Europe: rising superpower in a bipolar world. In A. Alexandroff & A. Cooper (Eds.), Rising states, rising institutions: challenges for global governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  65. Murphy, S. D. (Ed.). (2001). U.S. Signing of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law, 95(2), 397–400.Google Scholar
  66. Murphy, S. D. (Ed.). (2002). Efforts to Obtain Immunity from ICC for U.S. Peacekeepers, American Journal of International Law, 96(3), 725–729Google Scholar
  67. Patten, C. Statement on ICC and UN Mission Mandate in Bosnia-Herzegovina. EC02-138EN, 3.7.2002.Google Scholar
  68. Patten, C. (2002, July 9) Why does America fear this court? Washington PostGoogle Scholar
  69. Piron, L.-H., & O’Neil, T. (2005). Integrating human rights into development: a synthesis of donor approaches and experiences. London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  70. Portugal (2007). EU’s reply to the information request of Paragraph h) of the Plan of Action for achieving universality and full implementation of the Rome Statute.Google Scholar
  71. Power, S. (2005, February10) Court of first resort. The New York Times Google Scholar
  72. Ralph, J. (2007). Defending the society of states: why American opposes the international criminal court and its vision of world society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Reeker, P. (2002, August 13) State department regular briefing, Federal News ServiceGoogle Scholar
  74. Ribando, C. M. (2007). Article 98 Agreements and sanctions on US foreign aid to Latin America. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  75. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.Google Scholar
  76. Schabas, W. A. (2011). An introduction to the International Criminal Court (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Scharf, M. P. (1999). The politics behind U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, VI(1).Google Scholar
  78. Scheffer, D. (2012). All the missing souls: a personal history of the war crimes tribunals. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Scheffer, D. J. (2001–2002). Staying the course with the international criminal court. Cornell International Law Journal 47Google Scholar
  80. Scheffer, D. (1999). The United States and the International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law, 93(1)Google Scholar
  81. Scheffer, D. J. (1999, February 23) Deterrence of War Crimes in the 21st Century. Twelfth Annual U.S. Pacific Command, International Military Operations and Law Conference, Honolulu, HIGoogle Scholar
  82. Scheffer, D. J. Statement in Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Operations of the Committee on Foreign Relations. United States Senate, 23.7.1998.Google Scholar
  83. Scheffer, D. J. Address before the Carter center. Atlanta, GA, 13.11.1997.Google Scholar
  84. Simmons, B. A. & Danner, A. (2010). Credible Commitments and the International Criminal Court. International Organization, 64(2)Google Scholar
  85. Smith, K. E. (2005). Beyond the civilian power debate. Politique Europeenne, 17(1).Google Scholar
  86. Struett, M. J. (2008). The politics of constructing the International Criminal Court: NGOs, discourse, and agency. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Taft W. H., et al. (2009). U.S. policy toward the International Criminal Court: furthering positive engagement. Report of an Independent Task Force. Washington, D.C.: American Society of International Law.Google Scholar
  88. Thomas, D. C. (2012). Still punching below its weight? Coherence and effectiveness in European Union Foreign policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(3).Google Scholar
  89. 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).Google Scholar
  90. United Nations Statistics Division. Composition of macro geographical (Continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings, revised 20.9.2011. Accessed May 20, 2012, from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm.
  91. United Nations Treaty Collection. Multilateral treaties deposited with the secretary-general, Chapter XVIII, Penal matters, Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. Accessed May 20, 2012 from http://treaties.un.org/Pages/Treaties.aspx?id=18&subid=A&lang=en.
  92. U.S. Congress, H.R.4775, II—American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, 2002.Google Scholar
  93. U.S. Congress, H.R. 4818, Sec. 574, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005.Google Scholar
  94. United States Delegation, Crimes against humanity: lack of a requirement for a Nexus to Armed Conflict, 26.3.1996Google Scholar
  95. United States Delegation to the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Statement, 23.3.1998.Google Scholar
  96. Washburn, J. (1999). The Negotiation of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and International Lawmaking in the 21st Century. Pace International Law Review, 11(2).Google Scholar
  97. Wellenstein, E. H. EU—Japan ICC dialogue, Introductory statement/Press briefing, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, Tokyo, 1.12.2004.Google Scholar
  98. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2).Google Scholar
  99. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Council of the European Union (CEU)

  1. /443/CFSP, OJ L 155, 12.6.2001.Google Scholar
  2. /474/CFSP, OJ L 164, 22.6.2002.Google Scholar
  3. /444/CFSP, OJ L 150, 18.6.2003.Google Scholar
  4. /168/CFSP, OJ L 76/56, 21.3.2011.Google Scholar
  5. /02, 13.5.2002.Google Scholar
  6. /02, 17.6.2002.Google Scholar
  7. /02, 30.9.2002.Google Scholar
  8. /03, 21.6. 2003.Google Scholar
  9. /04, 4.2.2004.Google Scholar
  10. /05, 8.2.2005.Google Scholar
  11. /09, 1.12.2009.Google Scholar
  12. /09, 8.12.2009.Google Scholar
  13. /10, 3.3.2010.Google Scholar
  14. /11, 12.7.2011.Google Scholar

European Parliament (EP)

  1. Debates, 25.9.2002.Google Scholar
  2. OJ C 126, 22.05.1995.Google Scholar
  3. OJ C 320, 28.10.1996.Google Scholar
  4. OJ C 020, 20.01.1997.Google Scholar
  5. P_5TA(2002)0449, 26.9.2002.Google Scholar

UN Documents

  1. A/AC.249/CRP.l/Rev.l.Google Scholar
  2. A/AC.249/L.3.Google Scholar
  3. A/AC.249/1998/DP.2.Google Scholar
  4. A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.42.Google Scholar
  5. A/CONF.183/SR.9.Google Scholar
  6. A/CONF.183/2.Google Scholar
  7. A/CONF.183/ 13 (Vol. II).Google Scholar
  8. A/C.6/50/SR.25.Google Scholar
  9. A/C.6/50/SR.27.Google Scholar
  10. A/C.6/51/SR.26.Google Scholar
  11. A/C.6/51/SR.27.Google Scholar
  12. A/C.6/51/SR.29.Google Scholar
  13. A/C.6/52/SR.11.Google Scholar
  14. A/C.6/52/SR.13.Google Scholar
  15. A/C.6/53/SR.9.Google Scholar
  16. A/C.6/54/SR.11.Google Scholar
  17. A/C.6/55/SR.9.Google Scholar
  18. A/C.6/56/SR.25.Google Scholar
  19. A/C.6/56/SR.27.Google Scholar
  20. A/C.6/58/SR.9.Google Scholar
  21. A/C.6/58/SR.10.Google Scholar
  22. A/C.6/58/SR.13.Google Scholar
  23. A/C.6/59/SR.6.Google Scholar
  24. A/C.6/59/SR.27.Google Scholar
  25. A/RES/51/207.Google Scholar
  26. A/ RES/52/160.Google Scholar
  27. A/RES/58/79.Google Scholar
  28. A/RES/58/318.Google Scholar
  29. A/RES/1593.Google Scholar
  30. A/59/PV.65.Google Scholar
  31. Draft Resolution S/2002/712.Google Scholar
  32. SC/10187/Rev.1.Google Scholar
  33. S/PV.4563.Google Scholar
  34. S/PV.4568.Google Scholar
  35. S/PV.5158.Google Scholar
  36. S/RES/1422.Google Scholar
  37. S/RES/1487.Google Scholar
  38. S/RES/1970.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political and Economic StudiesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations