Skip to main content
  • 341 Accesses

Abstract

The negotiations on the ICC allowed the EU to unite its member states behind a common cause and to create a counterweight to the USA. A cross-case comparison finds that Germany, promoter of multilateralism, has the least in common with the other countries. The Philippines is a typical straggler, which does not emphasize international norms, but utilizes them to serve its preferences. The USA and Indonesia have most commonalities with their high regard for state sovereignty. However, the USA as a declining hegemon actively engages in the management of the system, while Indonesia takes halfhearted actions regarding human rights only if it has to. In general, the case of the ICC shows that normative binding is a useful tool to promote new norms and unilateralist power politics do not grant the legitimacy that is required to claim global leadership in the field of human rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Annan, Kofi. 2010. “Address by H.E. Kofi Annan. Review Conference on the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.” Kampala: Kofi Annan Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, Harold Hongju. 2012. “International Criminal Justice 5.0: Justice Address 2012 at the Vera Institute of Justice, The Paley Center, New York, NY.” U.S. Department of State.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1998. “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders.” International Organization 52 (4): 943–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, Thomas C. 1980. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salla Huikuri .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Huikuri, S. (2019). Conclusion. In: The Institutionalization of the International Criminal Court. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95585-8_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics