The International Criminal Court and the Paradox of Authority

Abstract

The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been one of the boldest progressive moves in the history of international relations.At the heart of the Rome Statute is a commitment to the spirit and principle of international criminal justice.States under the jurisdiction of the ICC agree to cede sovereignty over individual perpetrators suspected of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes unless they are able and willing to prosecute perpetrators of these crimes at home.Even heads of state have not been immune from the formal legal authority of the ICC.Given the reach of its ambitions, it is unsurprising that the ICC has struggled to achieve some of its goals.It has, though, become a focal point for a vibrant and committed network of international advocates, lawyers, and civil society organizations committed to advancing international criminal justice.1 States also recognize the ICC's importance.No fewer than 123 states have ratified the Rome Statute. 2 Among both states and, especially, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the ICC's authority is derived from what it is, especially the principles it embraces and the commitments it espouses.What the ICC does, though, has elicited mixed reactions.In many instances, ICC investigations or arrest warrants have provoked a backlash, casting a shadow over not only the situations it investigates, but also over the Court.States that remain outside the ICC have protested vehemently when they come under its jurisdiction.Sudan, for example, has waged an active campaign against the ICC.