The Case for Removing the Security Council’s Powers from the International Criminal Court

D. Yigzaw
{"title":"The Case for Removing the Security Council’s Powers from the International Criminal Court","authors":"D. Yigzaw","doi":"10.1163/15718123-bja10143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The Singapore compromise was the basis for the role of the United Nations Security Council (unsc) in the operations of the International Criminal Court (icc). The compromise was meant to enlist the support of superpowers. Yet, three of the five permanent members of the unsc; namely, China, Russia, and the United States have not only stayed out of the Rome Statute system but also have taken turns in undermining the icc. Thus, the political power they enjoy over the icc– an institution they refuse to recognize–defies elementary requirements of legitimacy. Crucially, the lack of consensus in the unsc due to growing big power confrontations means that it has been unable to make referrals for over a decade. The price the icc pays in terms of its independence and legitimacy due to its association with the unsc is thus for little gain.","PeriodicalId":55966,"journal":{"name":"International Criminal Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Criminal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Singapore compromise was the basis for the role of the United Nations Security Council (unsc) in the operations of the International Criminal Court (icc). The compromise was meant to enlist the support of superpowers. Yet, three of the five permanent members of the unsc; namely, China, Russia, and the United States have not only stayed out of the Rome Statute system but also have taken turns in undermining the icc. Thus, the political power they enjoy over the icc– an institution they refuse to recognize–defies elementary requirements of legitimacy. Crucially, the lack of consensus in the unsc due to growing big power confrontations means that it has been unable to make referrals for over a decade. The price the icc pays in terms of its independence and legitimacy due to its association with the unsc is thus for little gain.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从国际刑事法院撤销安全理事会权力的理由
新加坡的妥协是联合国安理会在国际刑事法院运作中发挥作用的基础。妥协的目的是争取超级大国的支持。然而,联合国教科文组织五个常任理事国中有三个;即,中国、俄罗斯和美国不仅没有加入《罗马规约》体系,而且轮流破坏国际刑事法院。因此,他们对国际刑事法院享有的政治权力——一个他们拒绝承认的机构——违背了合法性的基本要求。至关重要的是,由于大国对抗的加剧,联合国教科文组织缺乏共识,这意味着它十多年来一直无法进行推荐。因此,国际刑事法院因与联合国教科文组织有关联而在其独立性和合法性方面付出的代价是徒劳的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Thus there is also a need for criminological, sociological and historical research on the issues of ICL. The Review publishes in-depth analytical research that deals with these issues. The analysis may cover: • the substantive and procedural law on the international level; • important cases from national jurisdictions which have a bearing on general issues; • criminological and sociological; and, • historical research.
期刊最新文献
Positive Complementarity in Action: International Criminal Justice and the Ongoing Armed Conflict in Ukraine International Criminal Law, Complementarity and Amnesty Within the Context of Transitional Justice: Lessons from Uganda Atrocity Crime Responses in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Navigating Tensions in Multifaceted Approaches Trajectories of Contestation: Motivational Dynamics in Repressive Regimes Corruption: From International Law and Ethics to Realpolitik and Amoralism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1