The International Criminal Court at 25: Politics and Perceptions

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

In 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of its constitutive treaty, the Rome Statute, in 1998, and over two decades since the commencement of its operations with the Statute’s entry into force in 2002. The ICC was established with ambitious goals, including ending impunity for atrocity crimes, delivering justice to the victims of these crimes, and contributing to their prevention. On the one hand, the ICC has achieved some success in achieving these goals, as the Court’s membership has expanded to include 123 States Parties, it has opened investigations into over one dozen “situations,” returned landmark convictions for child soldiering (Lubanga), sexual violence (Ongwen), and cultural heritage (Al Mahdi) crimes, and ordered the payment of reparations to victims in multiple cases; moreover, notwithstanding initial skepticism about the ICC’s deterrent powers, there is a growing body of evidence that the Court can—under certain conditions—contribute to the prevention of atrocity crimes (Jo and Simmons, 2016; Meernik, 2015; Hillebrecht, 2016). At the same time, the Court has encountered multiple challenges and obstacles in fulfilling its mission, including difficulties in securing arrests of suspects, perhaps most notably the former President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, who has yet to appear in the dock at The Hague; accusations of neocolonialism and bias stemming mostly from its initial near-exclusive focus on situations in Africa (Clarke, 2019); the instrumentalization of the Court by state governments to target domestic opponents (Bâ, 2020; Hillebrecht and Straus, 2017); tensions over the relationship between “peace and justice” in the context of interventions during ongoing conflicts (Kersten, 2016; Krcmaric, 2020; Prorok, 2017); and opposition—if not outright hostility—from powerful non-States Parties, including the United States, Russia, and China, (Bosco, 2013).
Against the backdrop of the Court’s mixed record in the quarter-century since the adoption of the Rome Statute, the papers on this panel offer fresh insight into the role and impact of the ICC in international relations. In doing so, these papers highlight the importance of domestic politics and the Court’s relationship with states—both States Parties and non-States Parties—in explaining the ICC’s effectiveness (or lack thereof). Specifically, M.P. Broache and Audrey Comstock’s paper examines the domestic politics and international effects of signature—the initial stage in treaty commitment—with respect to the ICC, drawing on Comstock’s prior work on modes of commitment to international human rights treaties. The second paper, by Michael Strausz, presents a case study of the domestic politics of Japan’s decision to accede to the Rome Statute in 2007, while the third contribution, co-authored by Kelebogile Zvobgo and Alan J. Simmons, examines public opinion toward the ICC in the United States in the context of the Court’s recent decision to open an investigation in Afghanistan, including alleged war crimes by American military personnel. Finally, Michael Struett’s paper moves beyond allegations of war crimes in Afghanistan to propose a more general typology of war crimes accusations before the ICC. Together, these papers provide insight into the Court’s role and effectiveness at a crucial time in its history, as it ramps up its investigation in Ukraine and navigates complicated political relationships with both States Parties and non-States Parties.

Sub Unit

• Division 45: Human Rights

Individual Presentations

• Explaining Non-binding Signature of the Rome Statute - M.P. Broache, University of North Carolina at Greensboro; Audrey Lynn Comstock, Arizona State University

• Japan and the International Criminal Court - Michael Strausz, Texas Christian University

• Do Americans Support War Crimes Prosecutions? - Kelebogile Zvobgo, College of William & Mary; Alan Simmons, University of Illinois Springfield

• War Crimes Accusations: A Typology - Michael J. Struett, North Carolina State University

• Russian Perspectives on Human Rights and War Crimes in Ukraine - Steven Feldman

Chair

• Courtney Hillebrecht University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Discussant

• Genevieve Bates University of Wisconsin, Madison