Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:56:17.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2009

Nicole Deitelhoff
Nicole Deitelhoff
Affiliation:
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF), E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

For many political observers the successful creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) came as a surprise, as major powers, in particular the United States, had opposed the plans for the ICC. Moreover, the institutional design of the ICC entails enormous sovereignty costs for states but only uncertain benefits. An analysis of the negotiations suggests that the court's successful creation can be attributed to persuasion and discourse within negotiations, that is, a shift in states' interests. The article develops a theoretical model of institutional change that defines the conditions under which persuasion and discourse can affect collective decision making. In particular, this study attempts to show that if (traditionally) weaker actors alter normative and institutional settings of negotiations they can further the chance of persuasion and discourse.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 33 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abbott, Kenneth W. 1999. International Relations Theory, International Law, and the Regime Governing Atrocities in Internal Conflicts. American Journal of International Law 93 (2):361–79.Google Scholar
Abbott, Kenneth W., Keohane, Robert O., Moravcsik, Andrew, Slaughter, Anne-Marie, and Snidal, Duncan. 2000. The Concept of Legalization. International Organization 54 (3):401–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, Kenneth W., and Snidal, Duncan. 2000. Hard and Soft Law in International Governance. International Organization 54 (3):421–56.Google Scholar
Alioune, Tine. 1998. Africa and the International Criminal Court. International Criminal Court Monitor 7:11.Google Scholar
Amnesty International (AI). 1995. The Quest for International Justice: Time for a Permanent International Criminal Court. Available at ⟨http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGIOR400041995⟩. Accessed 30 September 2004.Google Scholar
Annan, Kofi. 1998. UN Secretary General Declares Overriding Interest of International Criminal Court Conference must be that of Victims and World Community as a Whole. UN press release L/ROM/6.r1, 15 June 1998.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, André, and Steiner, Jürg. 2005. Introduction. Acta Politica 40 (2):153–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassiouni, Cherif M. 1998. The Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Documentary History. Ardsley, N.Y.: Transnational Publishers.Google Scholar
Bassiouni, Cherif M. 1999. Negotiating the Treaty of Rome on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. Cornell International Law Journal 32 (3):443–69.Google Scholar
Benedetti, Fanny, and Washburn, John L.. 1999. Drafting the International Criminal Court Treaty: Two Years to Rome and an Afterword on the Rome Diplomatic Conference. Global Governance 5 (1):1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Bertram S. 2000. The Statute of the ICC: Past, Present, and Future. In The United States and the International Criminal Court: National Security and International Law, edited by Sewall, Sarah B. and Kaysen, Carl, 61–84. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Canada. 1998. Notes for an Address by the Honorable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs Canada, 15 June 1998. Available at ⟨http://www.un.org/icc/index.htm⟩. Accessed 14 October 2008.Google Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2001. Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change. International Organization 55 (1):553–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Andrew F., English, John, and Thakur, Ramesh. 2002. Enhancing Global Governance: Towards a New Diplomacy? Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, James. 1995. The ILC Adopts a Statute for an International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law 89 (2):404–16.Google Scholar
Croatia. 1998. Statement of H. E. Ljerka Mintas Hodak, Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Croatia, 17 June 1998. Available at ⟨http://www.un.org/icc/index.htm⟩. Accessed 14 October 2008.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole. 2006. Überzeugung in der Politik. Grundzüge einer Diskurstheorie internationalen Regierens. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole, and Müller, Harald. 2005. Theoretical Paradise—Empirically Lost? Arguing with Habermas. Review of International Studies 31 (1):167–79.Google Scholar
Diehl, Paul F., Ku, Charlotte, and Zamora, Daniel. 2003. The Dynamics of International Law: The Interaction of Normative and Operating Systems. International Organization 57 (1):43–75.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 1992. How Far Is It from Virginia and Rochester to Frankfurt? Public Choice as Critical Theory. British Journal of Political Science 22 (4):397–417.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1998. Deliberation and Constitution Making. In Deliberative Democracy, edited by Elster, Jon, 97–122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehl, Caroline. 2004. Explaining the International Criminal Court: A ‘Practice Test’ for Rationalist and Constructivist Approaches. European Journal of International Relations 10 (3):357–94.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha J., and Toope, Stephen J.. 2001. Alternatives to ‘Legalization’: Richer Views of Law and Politics. International Organization 55 (3):743–58.Google Scholar
Franck, Thomas M. 1990. The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franck, Thomas M. 1995. Fairness in International Law and Institutions. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Michael J. 2006. Is Enforcement Necessary for Effectiveness? A Model of the International Criminal Regime. International Organization 60 (4):935–67.Google Scholar
Glasius, Marlies. 2002. Expertise in the Cause of Justice: Global Civil Society Influence on the Statute for an International Criminal Court. In Global Civil Society Yearbook 2002, edited by Glasius, Marlies, Kaldor, Mary, and Anheier, Helmut, 137–68. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Judith, Kahler, Miles, Keohane, Robert O., and Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2000. Introduction: Legalization and World Politics. International Organization 54 (3):385–99.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 1996. Institutionalizing the Public Interest: The Defense of Deadlock and Beyond. American Political Science Review 90 (2):331–43.Google Scholar
Graubart, Jonathan. 2004. ‘Legalizing’ Politics, ‘Politicizing’ Law: Transnational Activism and International Law. International Politics 41 (3):319–40.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2005. Concluding Comments on Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics. Acta Politica 40 (3):384–92.Google Scholar
Hall, Christopher Keith. 1998. The Sixth Session of the UN Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law 92 (3):548–56.Google Scholar
Hampson, Fen Osler, Daudelin, Jean, Hay, John B., Martin, Todd, and Reid, Holly. 2002. Madness in the Multitude: Human Security and World Disorder. Don Mills, Canada: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Darren G. 2004. Explaining Costly International Institutions: Persuasion and Enforceable Human Rights Norms. International Studies Quarterly 48 (4):779–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Human Rights Watch (HRW). 1997. Justice in the Balance: Recommendations for an Independent and Effective International Criminal Court. New York: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
International Law Commission (ILC). 1994. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Sixth Session. United Nations Document A/49/10. New York: ILC.Google Scholar
Joakim, Jennifer. 1998. The Singapore Plan: Maximizing the Power of the ICC. New England International and Comparative Law Annual 4:211–20.Google Scholar
Johnston, Alastair Ian. 2001. Treating International Institutions as Social Environments. International Studies Quarterly 45 (4):487–515.Google Scholar
Keck, Margret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Transnational Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., Moravcsik, Andrew, and Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2000. Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational. International Organization 54 (3):457–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, Lipson, Charles, and Snidal, Duncan. 2004. The Rational Design of International Institutions. In The Rational Design of International Institutions, edited by Koremenos, Barbara, Lipson, Charles, and Snidal, Duncan, 1–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich V. 1989. Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (LCHR). 1996. Establishing an International Criminal Court: Major Unresolved Issues in the Draft Statute. International Criminal Court Briefing Series 1 (1). Revised and updated May 1998. Available at ⟨http://www.iccnow.org/documents/LCHRUnresolvedIssues.pdf⟩. Accessed 14 October 2008.Google Scholar
Lose, Lars G. 2001. Communicative Action and the World of Diplomacy. In Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, edited by Fierke, Karin M. and Jøergensen, Knud Erik, 179–200. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Lynch, Marc. 2002. Why Engage? China and the Logic of Communicative Engagement. European Journal of International Relations 8 (2):187–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans. 1946. Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Harald. 2004. Arguing, Bargaining and all that. Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory and the Logic of Appropriateness in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 10 (3):395–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neier, Aryeh. 1998. War Crimes: Brutality, Genocide, Terror and the Struggle for Justice. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
Pace, William R. 1996. Serious Progress Achieved at April ICC “PrepCom.” International Criminal Court Monitor 1:1.Google Scholar
Pace, William R. 1999. The Relationship Between the International Criminal Court and Non-Governmental Organizations. In The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute, edited by Lee, Roy S., 189–211. The Hague, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Pape, Robert A. 2005. Soft Balancing Against the United States. International Security 30 (1):7–45.Google Scholar
Payne, Rodger A. 2001. Persuasion, Frames, and Norm Construction. European Journal of International Relations 7 (1):37–61.Google Scholar
Philippines. 1997. Statement by Ambassador Rail Ilustre Goco before the Sixth Committee of the 52nd General Assembly, regarding agenda item 150: Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 23 October 1997. Available at ⟨http://www.iccnow.org⟩. Accessed 14 October 2008.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2004. The Politics of International Law. In The Politics of International Law, edited by Reus-Smit, Christian, 14–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 2000. “Let's Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization 54 (1):1–39.Google Scholar
Rudolph, Christopher. 2001. Constructing an Atrocities Regime: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals. International Organization 55 (3):655–91.Google Scholar
Rutherford, Kenneth R. 2003. Post–Cold War Superpower? Mid-Size State and NGO Collaboration in Banning Landmines. In Reframing the Agenda: The Impact of NGO and Middle Power Cooperation in International Security Policy, edited by Rutherford, Kenneth R., Brem, Stefan, and Matthew, Richard A., 23–38. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.Google Scholar
Scharf, Michael P. 1999. The Politics Behind the U.S. Opposition to the International Criminal Court. New England International and Comparative Law Annual 5. Available at ⟨http://www.nesl.edu/intljournal/vol5/scharf.htm⟩. Accessed 14 October 2008.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz W. 1997. Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2001. The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union. International Organization 55 (1):47–80.Google Scholar
Sheffer, David J. 1996. International Judicial Intervention. Foreign Policy (Spring):34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheffer, David J. 1997. U.S. Ambassador on Security Council and the ICC Prosecutor. International Criminal Court Monitor (Special ed.):4,10.Google Scholar
Snidal, Duncan. 2002. Rational Choice and International Relations. In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas, and Simmons, Beth A., 73–94. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffek, Jens. 2003. The Legitimation of International Governance: A Discourse Approach. European Journal of International Relations 9 (2):249–75.Google Scholar
Toope, Stephen J. 2000. Emerging Patterns of Governance and International Law. In The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law, edited by Byers, Michael, 91–108. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ulbert, Cornelia, and Risse, Thomas. 2005. Deliberatively Changing the Discourse: What Does Make Arguing Effective? Acta Politica 40 (3):351–67.Google Scholar
United Nations (UN). 1998a. United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Official Records. Vol. I, Final Documents. A/CONF/13 (Vol. I: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Final Act). New York: UN.Google Scholar
United Nations (UN). 1998b United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Official Records. Vol. II, A/CONF/. 183.13 (Vol. II: Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Committee of the Whole). New York: UN.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (GA). 1995. Committee Is Told Proposed International Criminal Court Should be Complementary to National Jurisdictions. UN press release GA/L/2876. New York: GA.Google Scholar
United States Department of State. 1995. Statement by Jamison S. Borek, Deputy Legal Adviser, United States Department of State. U.S./UN Press Release 182, 1 November 1995. Available at ⟨http://www.iccnow.org/documents/US1PrepCmt1Nov95.pdf⟩. Accessed 14 October 2008.Google Scholar
United States Department of State. 1998. Statement by the Hon. Bill Richardson, Unites States Ambassador at the United Nations, 17 June 1998. Available at ⟨http://www.un.org/icc/index.htm⟩. Accessed 14 October 2008.Google Scholar
Weschler, Lawrence. 2000. Exceptional Cases in Rome: The United States and the Struggle for an ICC. In The United States and the International Criminal Court: National Identity and International Law, edited by Sewall, Sarah B. and Kaysen, Carl, 85–114. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Wippman, David. 2004. The International Criminal Court. In The Politics of International Law, edited by Reus-Smit, Christian, 151–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar