Who Stands Up for the ICC? Explaining Variation in State Party Responses to US Sanctions

Abstract

On September 2, 2020, the United States sanctioned two International Criminal Court (ICC) officials, under an executive order issued 3 months previously. In response, over two-thirds of ICC States Parties issued or joined public statements supporting the Court. Why did some ICC members condemn the sanctions or otherwise express support for the Court, while others did not? We begin by documenting variation in the type and timing of statements before proposing and testing a theory focused on the interaction between security dependence on the United States and domestic rule of law norms. We find that states more dependent on the United States for security were less likely to issue statements; furthermore, among states that issued statements, security dependence was associated with issuing weaker—and fewer—statements. Conversely, states with stronger domestic rule of law issued stronger—and more—statements, although rule of law was not significantly associated with issuing any statement.