Advertisement

The Defence of an Institution Under Challenge: The EU and the International Criminal Court

  • Gemma Collantes-Celador
Chapter
Part of the The European Union in International Affairs book series (EUIA)

Abstract

This chapter analyses EU deployment of strategies of ‘entrenchment’ and ‘accommodation’ to react to challenges that could have negatively affected—or that might in the future negatively affect—the attainment of universal ratification of the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court’s institutional development and its day-to-day effectiveness. Two episodes are discussed: First, US policy before and after the signing of the Rome Statute (a power-based challenge) and resultant limitations on the Court’s independence and jurisdiction following the misalignment of power with institution and ideas; and, second, the resentment increasingly voiced by the African Union on behalf of certain African states over the Court’s caseload (ideational-based challenge) and the impact this resentment could have on the normative congruence between the Court and prevailing ideas in the international structure.

Keywords

United Nations Security Council International Criminal Court Rome Statute State Party 
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. Amnesty International. (2015). Kenya: State Parties run dangerously close to interfering with the ICC’s independence, 27 November 2015. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/11/kenya-state-parties-run-dangerously-close-to-interfering-with-the-iccs-independence/. Accessed 30 Nov 2015.
  2. 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
  3. Bekou, O. (2014). Mainstreaming support for the ICC in the EU’s policies, Study for Directorate B, Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union, European Parliament.Google Scholar
  4. Benedetti, F., & Washburn, J. L. (1999). Drafting the International Criminal Court Treaty: Two years to Rome and an afterword on the Rome Diplomatic Conference. Global Governance, 5(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
  5. Bosco, D. (2014a). Rough justice: The international criminal court in a world of power politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bosco, D. (2014b). The war over US war crimes in Afghanistan is heating up. Foreign Policy, 3 December 2014. Available at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/03/the-war-over-u-s-war-crimes-in-afghanistan-is-heating-up-icc-hague/. Accessed 25 Nov 2015.
  7. Bosco, D. (2016). Who’s afraid of aggression prosecutions? Lawfare Blog posting, 8 January 2016. Available at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/whos-afraid-aggression-prosecutions. Accessed 9 Jan 2016.
  8. Brody, R. (2009). Playing it firm, fair and smart: The EU and the ICC’s indictment over Bashir, ISS Opinion, European Union Institute for Security Studies, Paris, March.Google Scholar
  9. CICC—Coalition for the International Criminal Court. (2013). ICC must be defended from political interference, Press Release, 28 November 2013. Available at: http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICCPR_Closing_ASP_2013.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015.
  10. 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. Barbe (Ed.), Cambio Mundial y Gobernanza Global: La Interacción entre la Unión Europea y las Instituciones Internacionales (pp. 142–159). Madrid: Tecnos.Google Scholar
  11. Council of the European Union. (2002). 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, 30 September 2002.Google Scholar
  12. Council of the European Union. (2013). The EU’s response to Non-Cooperation with the International Criminal Court by Third States, 16993/13, Brussels, 27 November 2013.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Dietelhoff, N. (2008). Deliberating CFSP: European foreign policy and the International Criminal Court, RECON Online Working Paper no. 2008/10. Available at: http://www.reconproject.eu/projectweb/portalproject/AbstractRECONwp0810.html. Accessed 25 Nov 2011.
  15. du Plessis, M. et. al. (2013). Africa and the International Criminal Court, Research Paper, Chatham House, 1 July 2013. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/193415. Accessed 25 Nov 2015.
  16. EU Delegation to the UN. (2013). Address by H.E. Mariangela Zappia, Head of the EU delegation to the UN, 24th Session of the Human Rights Council, 10 September 2013.Google Scholar
  17. European Council—the President. (2010). 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 10 September 2010.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Fehl, C. (2012). Living with a reluctant hegemon: Explaining European responses to US unilateralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press/Oxford Scholarship Online.Google Scholar
  20. FES—Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. (2014). EU-Africa relations after the fourth summit: Finding common ground, Berlin. Available at: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/11159-20150123.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015.
  21. General Secretariat of the Council. (2014). 4th EU-Africa summit—Declaration, Brussels, 2–3 April 2014.Google Scholar
  22. Hoover, J. (2013). Moral practices: Assigning responsibility in the International Criminal Court. Law and Contemporary Problems, 76(3–4), 263–286.Google Scholar
  23. HRW—Human Rights Watch. (2015). India: Do not welcome Bashir: International Criminal Court seeking his arrest, 19 October 2015. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/19/india-do-not-welcome-bashir. Accessed 25 Nov 2015.
  24. HRW—Human Rights Watch, et al. (2011). Observations and recommendations on the International Criminal Court and the African Union in advance of the 17th African Union Summit, 27 June 2011. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/06/27/observations-and-recommendations-international-criminal-court-and-african-union. Accessed 25 Nov 2015.
  25. ICC—International Criminal Court. (2010). Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Kampala, 31 May–11 June 2010, Official Records, The Hague.Google Scholar
  26. ICC. (2015a). Judge Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi, President of the International Criminal Court—Presentation of the Court’s Annual Report to the UN General Assembly, New York, 5 November 2015.Google Scholar
  27. ICC. (2015b). Twenty-second report of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to the UN Security Council pursuant to the UNSC 1593(2005), The Office of the Prosecutor, 15 December 2015.Google Scholar
  28. ICC website. (no date). https://www.icc-cpi.int/ Last accessed 9 Jan 2016.
  29. Keppler, E. (2012). Managing setbacks for the International Criminal Court in Africa. Journal of African Law, 56(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mills, K. (2012). Bashir is dividing us: Africa and the International Criminal Court. Human Rights Quarterly, 34(2), 404–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. No author. (2010). US delegation active in ICC negotiations to define crime of aggression. The American Journal of International Law, 104(3), 511–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ohlin, J. D. (2015). The assault on international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rome Statute. (1998). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. A/CONF.183/9, Rome, 17 July 1998 (adoption), 1 July 2002 (entry into force).Google Scholar
  34. Roth, K. (2014). Africa attacks the International Criminal Court. The New York Review of Books, 6 February 2015. Available at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/02/06/africa-attacks-international-criminal-court/. Accessed 25 Nov 2015.
  35. Scheipers, S., & Sicurelli, D. (2008). Empowering Africa: Normative power in EU-Africa relations. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 607–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stuenkel, O. (2014). The BRICS and the future of R2P and was Syria or Libya the exception? Global Responsibility to Protect, 6(1), 3–24.Google Scholar
  37. The Guardian. (2015). Why South Africa is wrong to leave the International Criminal Court, 14 October 2015.Google Scholar
  38. Thomas, D. C. (2012). Still punching below its weight? Coherence and effectiveness in European Union foreign policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(3), 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. UN Security Council. (2012). The promotion and strengthening of the rule of law in the maintenance of international peace and security, Open Debate, S/PV.6849 (Provisional), New York, 17 October 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gemma Collantes-Celador
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of International PoliticsCity University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations