Rectifying the Society of States

The International Criminal Court and the Paradox of International Law

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The practice of prosecuting sitting Heads of State by the International Criminal Court (ICC) was designed to revolutionise international politics by claiming that there are crimes of such magnitude that the perpetrators should be punished, regardless of their status. However, the record of the implementation of this practice is worrying: out of 3 situations (al Bashir in Sudan; Kenyatta in Kenya; and Gaddafi in Libya) not even one was finalised. This paper focuses on the Libyan and Syrian cases to underline how the transition between the two is exemplificative of a paradoxical dynamic: international law is more efficient in situations of balance of power; but violations of international law are, in specific cases, used to rectify it. This apparently paradoxical proposition will be supported introducing the idea that, besides their mandates, international organisations (IOs) channel disagreement on the fundamental norms that should shape interstate relationships, acting as decompression valves for malcontent in international society.
Original languageEnglish
JournalBritish Journal of American Legal Studies
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2019

Keywords

  • International Relations
  • International Law
  • International Criminal Court
  • Legalism
  • Pragmatism

Cite this

@article{16e80abef01c4f15a74c1f8125dfbaa7,
title = "Rectifying the Society of States: The International Criminal Court and the Paradox of International Law",
abstract = "The practice of prosecuting sitting Heads of State by the International Criminal Court (ICC) was designed to revolutionise international politics by claiming that there are crimes of such magnitude that the perpetrators should be punished, regardless of their status. However, the record of the implementation of this practice is worrying: out of 3 situations (al Bashir in Sudan; Kenyatta in Kenya; and Gaddafi in Libya) not even one was finalised. This paper focuses on the Libyan and Syrian cases to underline how the transition between the two is exemplificative of a paradoxical dynamic: international law is more efficient in situations of balance of power; but violations of international law are, in specific cases, used to rectify it. This apparently paradoxical proposition will be supported introducing the idea that, besides their mandates, international organisations (IOs) channel disagreement on the fundamental norms that should shape interstate relationships, acting as decompression valves for malcontent in international society.",
keywords = "International Relations, International Law, International Criminal Court, Legalism, Pragmatism",
author = "Mattia Cacciatori",
year = "2019",
language = "English",
journal = "British Journal of American Legal Studies",
issn = "2049-4092",
publisher = "De Gruyter Open Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rectifying the Society of States

T2 - The International Criminal Court and the Paradox of International Law

AU - Cacciatori, Mattia

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - The practice of prosecuting sitting Heads of State by the International Criminal Court (ICC) was designed to revolutionise international politics by claiming that there are crimes of such magnitude that the perpetrators should be punished, regardless of their status. However, the record of the implementation of this practice is worrying: out of 3 situations (al Bashir in Sudan; Kenyatta in Kenya; and Gaddafi in Libya) not even one was finalised. This paper focuses on the Libyan and Syrian cases to underline how the transition between the two is exemplificative of a paradoxical dynamic: international law is more efficient in situations of balance of power; but violations of international law are, in specific cases, used to rectify it. This apparently paradoxical proposition will be supported introducing the idea that, besides their mandates, international organisations (IOs) channel disagreement on the fundamental norms that should shape interstate relationships, acting as decompression valves for malcontent in international society.

AB - The practice of prosecuting sitting Heads of State by the International Criminal Court (ICC) was designed to revolutionise international politics by claiming that there are crimes of such magnitude that the perpetrators should be punished, regardless of their status. However, the record of the implementation of this practice is worrying: out of 3 situations (al Bashir in Sudan; Kenyatta in Kenya; and Gaddafi in Libya) not even one was finalised. This paper focuses on the Libyan and Syrian cases to underline how the transition between the two is exemplificative of a paradoxical dynamic: international law is more efficient in situations of balance of power; but violations of international law are, in specific cases, used to rectify it. This apparently paradoxical proposition will be supported introducing the idea that, besides their mandates, international organisations (IOs) channel disagreement on the fundamental norms that should shape interstate relationships, acting as decompression valves for malcontent in international society.

KW - International Relations

KW - International Law

KW - International Criminal Court

KW - Legalism

KW - Pragmatism

M3 - Article

JO - British Journal of American Legal Studies

JF - British Journal of American Legal Studies

SN - 2049-4092

ER -