Pub Date : 2023-01-20DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2158723
Shanshan Lian, Amanda Murdie
Abstract A crackdown on the activities of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) has recently swept the globe. When faced with increased restrictions, how do NGOs respond? We argue there is a curvilinear relationship between increases in NGO repression and the conflict-to-cooperative nature of NGO interactions with a government. On one end of the spectrum, when civil society repression is limited or nonexistent, NGOs have many reasons to be cooperative with the government. As NGO repression increases, we should see NGOs take more of a conflictual stance, publicly voicing their displeasure and bringing attention to the abuses and deficiencies they see within the regime. As NGO repression continues to increase, however, there will be a tipping point at which the NGOs that remain in the country will once again take a more cooperative tack with the government. We use a quantitative event data approach to examine the implications of our arguments.
{"title":"How closing civil society space affects NGO-Government interactions","authors":"Shanshan Lian, Amanda Murdie","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2158723","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2158723","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A crackdown on the activities of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) has recently swept the globe. When faced with increased restrictions, how do NGOs respond? We argue there is a curvilinear relationship between increases in NGO repression and the conflict-to-cooperative nature of NGO interactions with a government. On one end of the spectrum, when civil society repression is limited or nonexistent, NGOs have many reasons to be cooperative with the government. As NGO repression increases, we should see NGOs take more of a conflictual stance, publicly voicing their displeasure and bringing attention to the abuses and deficiencies they see within the regime. As NGO repression continues to increase, however, there will be a tipping point at which the NGOs that remain in the country will once again take a more cooperative tack with the government. We use a quantitative event data approach to examine the implications of our arguments.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"431 - 450"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45588263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-13DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2158724
H. M. Haugen
Abstract The first decade of the 21st century had annual United Nations (UN) resolutions on the defamation of religion, followed by a shorter period with resolutions on promoting human rights and fundamental freedom through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind. However, in 2011, the strongest promoter of the defamation of religion resolutions, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), chose to shift the focus in the UN on individual victims, not the religions as such, resulting in the Istanbul Process. Moreover, the exploration of links between Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights resulted in the Rabat Plan of Action. Other progress within freedom of religion or belief include the Faith4Rights resources, acknowledging the right to change one’s religion and stopping violations in the name of "honour," as well as other approaches, that so far have inadequate impact on the domestic level.
{"title":"A decade of revitalizing UN work concerning freedom of religion or belief (2010–2020)","authors":"H. M. Haugen","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2158724","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2158724","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The first decade of the 21st century had annual United Nations (UN) resolutions on the defamation of religion, followed by a shorter period with resolutions on promoting human rights and fundamental freedom through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind. However, in 2011, the strongest promoter of the defamation of religion resolutions, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), chose to shift the focus in the UN on individual victims, not the religions as such, resulting in the Istanbul Process. Moreover, the exploration of links between Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights resulted in the Rabat Plan of Action. Other progress within freedom of religion or belief include the Faith4Rights resources, acknowledging the right to change one’s religion and stopping violations in the name of \"honour,\" as well as other approaches, that so far have inadequate impact on the domestic level.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"469 - 486"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44633886","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2150516
Genevieve Bates, Shauna N. Gillooly
Abstract In contemporary international politics, states face numerous challenges to their sovereignty, especially in the realm of human rights. We argue that rather than simply fight back when sovereignty is challenged, states sometimes instrumentalize sovereignty challenges in pursuit of their own domestic and international political agendas. We identify two key ways that governments frame sovereignty challenges to use in these pursuits, what we call negotiation and legitimation strategies, and outline the conditions under which states may choose to employ these strategies. In order to evaluate our argument, we present a case study of Colombia’s interactions with the International Criminal Court over the course of the ICC’s seventeen-year preliminary examination. Drawing on evidence gathered from ICC records and media archives from the Colombian executive, we show first that the ICC continually challenged Colombian sovereignty by threatening to intervene, especially during the peace negotiations with the FARC. Rather than fight back against the sovereignty challenge or instrumentalize the Court to punish enemies, we also show that three successive Colombian administrations used this challenge to frame debates around contentious domestic human rights policies.
{"title":"Between negotiation and legitimation: The international criminal court and the political use of sovereignty challenges","authors":"Genevieve Bates, Shauna N. Gillooly","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2150516","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2150516","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In contemporary international politics, states face numerous challenges to their sovereignty, especially in the realm of human rights. We argue that rather than simply fight back when sovereignty is challenged, states sometimes instrumentalize sovereignty challenges in pursuit of their own domestic and international political agendas. We identify two key ways that governments frame sovereignty challenges to use in these pursuits, what we call negotiation and legitimation strategies, and outline the conditions under which states may choose to employ these strategies. In order to evaluate our argument, we present a case study of Colombia’s interactions with the International Criminal Court over the course of the ICC’s seventeen-year preliminary examination. Drawing on evidence gathered from ICC records and media archives from the Colombian executive, we show first that the ICC continually challenged Colombian sovereignty by threatening to intervene, especially during the peace negotiations with the FARC. Rather than fight back against the sovereignty challenge or instrumentalize the Court to punish enemies, we also show that three successive Colombian administrations used this challenge to frame debates around contentious domestic human rights policies.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"47 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43243237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2150517
M. Broache, Juhi Kore
Abstract Human rights activists, international organizations, and certain governments have championed prosecutions as a strategy to prevent conflict-related sexual violence, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) has focused extensively on prosecuting sexual violence crimes during its first two decades of operations. However, even as a growing body of empirical evidence suggests that the ICC contributes to improved human rights practices and the prevention of other atrocity crimes, such as violence against civilians, claims concerning the preventive effects of prosecutions on sexual violence remain largely untested. The purpose of this article is to test these claims. To this end, we analyzed the effects of ICC jurisdiction, interventions, and cross-case actions on sexual violence by government forces in intrastate conflicts from 1989 to 2018, using the Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict (SVAC) dataset. Contrary to the optimistic claims of proponents of prosecutions, we found that ICC jurisdiction and cross-case actions have negligible effects for this category of actors. We also found that ICC interventions are associated with increased sexual violence by government forces in intrastate conflicts. These findings suggest that prevention might require alternative—and, in some cases, potentially costlier—interventions.
{"title":"Can the International Criminal Court prevent sexual violence in armed conflict?","authors":"M. Broache, Juhi Kore","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2150517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2150517","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Human rights activists, international organizations, and certain governments have championed prosecutions as a strategy to prevent conflict-related sexual violence, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) has focused extensively on prosecuting sexual violence crimes during its first two decades of operations. However, even as a growing body of empirical evidence suggests that the ICC contributes to improved human rights practices and the prevention of other atrocity crimes, such as violence against civilians, claims concerning the preventive effects of prosecutions on sexual violence remain largely untested. The purpose of this article is to test these claims. To this end, we analyzed the effects of ICC jurisdiction, interventions, and cross-case actions on sexual violence by government forces in intrastate conflicts from 1989 to 2018, using the Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict (SVAC) dataset. Contrary to the optimistic claims of proponents of prosecutions, we found that ICC jurisdiction and cross-case actions have negligible effects for this category of actors. We also found that ICC interventions are associated with increased sexual violence by government forces in intrastate conflicts. These findings suggest that prevention might require alternative—and, in some cases, potentially costlier—interventions.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"78 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47142086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2156276
Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm, K. Ainley
Abstract In this article, we introduce a new dataset on financial support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and examine how this support has changed over its two decades of existence. We first consider how the ICC’s overall budget has changed over time. Then, we explore the evolution of support from individual donor governments. In addition, given former Prosecutor Bensouda’s emphasis on the effective investigation and prosecution of sexual and gender-based crimes, we examine the extent to which ICC funding is consistent with its apparent commitment to gender justice. Our research contributes to debates about the cost of justice, donors and norm diffusion, South–North clashes over the definition and delivery of justice, and gender mainstreaming within costly international justice processes. We argue that the level of funding state parties and other bodies allocate to particular forms of justice is a better proxy for their commitment to justice than their rhetoric, and conclude that the patterns of funding seen at the ICC support the claim that the Court remains, to a significant extent, a tool of powerful states.
{"title":"The evolution of funding for the International Criminal Court: Budgets, donors and gender justice","authors":"Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm, K. Ainley","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2156276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2156276","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, we introduce a new dataset on financial support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and examine how this support has changed over its two decades of existence. We first consider how the ICC’s overall budget has changed over time. Then, we explore the evolution of support from individual donor governments. In addition, given former Prosecutor Bensouda’s emphasis on the effective investigation and prosecution of sexual and gender-based crimes, we examine the extent to which ICC funding is consistent with its apparent commitment to gender justice. Our research contributes to debates about the cost of justice, donors and norm diffusion, South–North clashes over the definition and delivery of justice, and gender mainstreaming within costly international justice processes. We argue that the level of funding state parties and other bodies allocate to particular forms of justice is a better proxy for their commitment to justice than their rhetoric, and conclude that the patterns of funding seen at the ICC support the claim that the Court remains, to a significant extent, a tool of powerful states.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"31 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47844389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2150515
Oumar Ba
Abstract It is often pointed out that African states were early and eager supporters of the international criminal justice regime. Yet the current international legal order is starkly different from the one African states had envisioned. By revisiting the archives of two pivotal moments in the establishment of the current international legal order—the work of the International Legal Commission (ILC) in drafting the Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind and negotiations that led to the draft statute of the ICC—we find that Africa had proposed a different version of the international legal order. I contend that the visions African states held were reflective of their experience of colonial subjugation. Therefore, the Draft Code and establishment of the ICC were meant to provide an avenue for redress, amid a deep mistrust between Africa and “international law.” This article offers a revisionist historiography of the international criminal justice regime, which “writes Africa in,” and presents Africans as challengers and advocates of norms and a legal architecture borne out their experience of global marginality and the shadow of colonial domination.
{"title":"Constructing an international legal order under the shadow of colonial domination","authors":"Oumar Ba","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2150515","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2150515","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is often pointed out that African states were early and eager supporters of the international criminal justice regime. Yet the current international legal order is starkly different from the one African states had envisioned. By revisiting the archives of two pivotal moments in the establishment of the current international legal order—the work of the International Legal Commission (ILC) in drafting the Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind and negotiations that led to the draft statute of the ICC—we find that Africa had proposed a different version of the international legal order. I contend that the visions African states held were reflective of their experience of colonial subjugation. Therefore, the Draft Code and establishment of the ICC were meant to provide an avenue for redress, amid a deep mistrust between Africa and “international law.” This article offers a revisionist historiography of the international criminal justice regime, which “writes Africa in,” and presents Africans as challengers and advocates of norms and a legal architecture borne out their experience of global marginality and the shadow of colonial domination.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"4 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43627172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2156275
Jacqueline R. McAllister
Abstract Twenty years after the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) entered into force, the ICC’s role in preventing atrocity crimes remains controversial, with skeptics arguing that it is unrealistic, pessimists that it overlooks the potential of the Court to escalate conflicts, and optimists contending that it can work for both government and rebel leaders. I argue that during civil wars the ICC is only likely to deter rebel forces, given that Court officials are likely to have an easier time pursuing their leaders should they commit atrocity crimes. This article systematically evaluates these competing claims by providing the most extended look yet at the ICC’s record in African civil wars, the primary focus of the Court’s efforts to date. I find that existing perspectives do not tell the full story of the ICC’s impact in war zones. The results suggest that the ICC has failed to deter African government forces. However, I uncover highly suggestive evidence that the more actions the ICC takes to pursue suspected war criminals during ongoing conflicts, the more likely it is to deter rebels. Notably, most of these ICC actions have targeted rebels. Importantly, I find no indication that the ICC is associated with increased civilian killings by either government or rebel forces. With the permanent ICC, the shadow of criminal prosecution now extends to modern-day conflicts. This study helps to broaden our understanding of how and when the ICC might contribute to deterrence.
{"title":"Casting a shadow over war zones? Hard truths about the ICC’s efforts to deter wartime atrocities","authors":"Jacqueline R. McAllister","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2156275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2156275","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Twenty years after the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) entered into force, the ICC’s role in preventing atrocity crimes remains controversial, with skeptics arguing that it is unrealistic, pessimists that it overlooks the potential of the Court to escalate conflicts, and optimists contending that it can work for both government and rebel leaders. I argue that during civil wars the ICC is only likely to deter rebel forces, given that Court officials are likely to have an easier time pursuing their leaders should they commit atrocity crimes. This article systematically evaluates these competing claims by providing the most extended look yet at the ICC’s record in African civil wars, the primary focus of the Court’s efforts to date. I find that existing perspectives do not tell the full story of the ICC’s impact in war zones. The results suggest that the ICC has failed to deter African government forces. However, I uncover highly suggestive evidence that the more actions the ICC takes to pursue suspected war criminals during ongoing conflicts, the more likely it is to deter rebels. Notably, most of these ICC actions have targeted rebels. Importantly, I find no indication that the ICC is associated with increased civilian killings by either government or rebel forces. With the permanent ICC, the shadow of criminal prosecution now extends to modern-day conflicts. This study helps to broaden our understanding of how and when the ICC might contribute to deterrence.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"94 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46714975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2150514
C. Hillebrecht, Hannah Roesch Read
Abstract Although the ICC is, first and foremost, a court, it is also a quasi-judicial body and a large international bureaucracy. In addition to trying suspected perpetrators, the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor makes statements about instances of mass atrocity, conducts site visits, and puts situations under preliminary examination. Although much of the scholarly research has focused on the ICC’s prosecutorial work, the Court’s work beyond the courtroom is equally important for understanding how and under which conditions the ICC can facilitate accountability and deter atrocity crimes. In this article, we document the breadth and scope of the ICC’s work beyond the courtroom. First, we offer a theoretical framework for understanding these activities. We then introduce a new dataset on the ICC’s activities beyond the courtroom, which we use to answer three questions: (1) What activities does the ICC undertake before and in parallel to prosecutions? (2) How do those activities align with the threats the ICC makes to prosecute perpetrators? (3) When does the ICC follow through with its threats? We conclude by considering the broader impacts of the ICC’s work beyond the courtroom, which will continue to shape the role of the ICC in the coming decades.
{"title":"The ICC beyond the courtroom: Activities, warnings, and impact","authors":"C. Hillebrecht, Hannah Roesch Read","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2150514","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2150514","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although the ICC is, first and foremost, a court, it is also a quasi-judicial body and a large international bureaucracy. In addition to trying suspected perpetrators, the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor makes statements about instances of mass atrocity, conducts site visits, and puts situations under preliminary examination. Although much of the scholarly research has focused on the ICC’s prosecutorial work, the Court’s work beyond the courtroom is equally important for understanding how and under which conditions the ICC can facilitate accountability and deter atrocity crimes. In this article, we document the breadth and scope of the ICC’s work beyond the courtroom. First, we offer a theoretical framework for understanding these activities. We then introduce a new dataset on the ICC’s activities beyond the courtroom, which we use to answer three questions: (1) What activities does the ICC undertake before and in parallel to prosecutions? (2) How do those activities align with the threats the ICC makes to prosecute perpetrators? (3) When does the ICC follow through with its threats? We conclude by considering the broader impacts of the ICC’s work beyond the courtroom, which will continue to shape the role of the ICC in the coming decades.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"62 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44270135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2157206
Lucrecia García Iommi
Abstract Despite significant structural and domestic changes, states’ attitudes toward the International Criminal Court (ICC) have not fundamentally changed since 1998. In her 2021 article, García Iommi identified four levels of support for the adoption of the Rome Statute—Entrepreneurs, Supporters, Accepting States, and Detractors—and argued that a combination of identity and interests explained what category states fell into. Building on this argument, and using a combination of statistical methods and case studies, this article establishes that the aforementioned categories of support constitute a good predictor of support for the ICC today and explains that the reason is that the underlying conditions have not changed. Accordingly, it is unsurprising that countries that endorsed the adoption of the Rome Statute but never championed it (Accepting States) display lower levels of support for the Court than Entrepreneurs and Supporters. This suggests that the difficulties the ICC has faced in Africa, where almost a third of Accepting States are located, could also take place in other regions with Accepting States.
{"title":"Nothing changed after Rome: Continuity in state support for the International Criminal Court","authors":"Lucrecia García Iommi","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2157206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2157206","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite significant structural and domestic changes, states’ attitudes toward the International Criminal Court (ICC) have not fundamentally changed since 1998. In her 2021 article, García Iommi identified four levels of support for the adoption of the Rome Statute—Entrepreneurs, Supporters, Accepting States, and Detractors—and argued that a combination of identity and interests explained what category states fell into. Building on this argument, and using a combination of statistical methods and case studies, this article establishes that the aforementioned categories of support constitute a good predictor of support for the ICC today and explains that the reason is that the underlying conditions have not changed. Accordingly, it is unsurprising that countries that endorsed the adoption of the Rome Statute but never championed it (Accepting States) display lower levels of support for the Court than Entrepreneurs and Supporters. This suggests that the difficulties the ICC has faced in Africa, where almost a third of Accepting States are located, could also take place in other regions with Accepting States.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"16 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46003980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2150518
M. Broache, Kate Cronin-Furman, David Mendeloff, Jacqueline R. McAllister
Abstract On July 17, 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will mark the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Rome Statute, its founding treaty. The Statute constituted a remarkable transfer of authority from sovereign states to an international institution: The ICC is the first permanent court charged with prosecuting individuals, including senior political and military leaders, for atrocity crimes. Per the Statute, the ICC was designed with the goals of ending impunity for these crimes, contributing to their prevention, and delivering justice to victims. To what extent has the ICC achieved these and other goals in the Rome Statute? The ICC’s upcoming anniversary provides an opportune moment to examine this question and take stock of the Court’s performance. This special issue of the Journal of Human Rights addresses this question from an empirical perspective, focusing on two themes: (1) the ICC’s relations with states, which critically condition its operations and impact, (2) the Court’s effectiveness in achieving the goals outlined in the Rome Statute, specifically ending impunity and mitigating violence.
{"title":"The International Criminal Court at 25","authors":"M. Broache, Kate Cronin-Furman, David Mendeloff, Jacqueline R. McAllister","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2150518","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2150518","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract On July 17, 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will mark the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Rome Statute, its founding treaty. The Statute constituted a remarkable transfer of authority from sovereign states to an international institution: The ICC is the first permanent court charged with prosecuting individuals, including senior political and military leaders, for atrocity crimes. Per the Statute, the ICC was designed with the goals of ending impunity for these crimes, contributing to their prevention, and delivering justice to victims. To what extent has the ICC achieved these and other goals in the Rome Statute? The ICC’s upcoming anniversary provides an opportune moment to examine this question and take stock of the Court’s performance. This special issue of the Journal of Human Rights addresses this question from an empirical perspective, focusing on two themes: (1) the ICC’s relations with states, which critically condition its operations and impact, (2) the Court’s effectiveness in achieving the goals outlined in the Rome Statute, specifically ending impunity and mitigating violence.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"1 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47309459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：