The relationship between the United States and international criminal tribunals dates back to at least World War I. Currently, there are many anti-American criticisms throughout the international legal community concerning the foreign relations policies of the United States - in particular, its position on the International Criminal Court. Written by Harry M. Rhea, an emerging scholar in the field of international criminal justice, this book considers over 150 years of United States policies on international criminal tribunals and the prosecution of international crimes. Relying on archival research, Rhea demonstrates how the United States has remained consistent supporting all multinational and international criminal tribunals without supporting the International Criminal Court. In June 2013 the author, Dr. Harry M. Rhea, was awarded the Roslyn Muraskin Emerging Scholar Award in the US by the Northeastern Assn. of Criminal Justice Sciences in recognition of outstanding scholarly contributions to the advancement of criminal justice within the first five years of his professional career. (Series: Supranational Criminal Law: Capita Selecta - Vol. 14)

Both the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) are now about to close. Bachmann and Fatic look back at the achievements and shortcomings of both tribunals from an interdisciplinary perspective informed by sociology, political science, history, and philosophy of law and based upon on two key notions: the concepts of legitimacy and efficiency. The first asks to what extent the input (creation) of, the ICTY and the ICTR can be regarded as legitimate in light of the legal and public debate in the early 1990s. The second confronts the output (the procedures and decisions) of the ICTY and the ICTR with the tasks both tribunals were assigned by the UN Security Council, the General Assembly, and by key organs (the president and the chief prosecutors). The authors investigate to what extent the ICTY and the ICTR have delivered the expected results, whether they have been able to contribute to 'the maintenance of peace', 'stabilization' of the conflict regions, or even managed to provide 'reconciliation' to Rwanda. Furthermore, the book is concerned with how many criminals, over whom the ICTY and the ICTR wield jurisdiction, have actually been prosecuted and at what cost. Offering the first balanced and in depth analysis of the International Criminal Tribunals, the volume provides an important insight into what lessons have been learned, and how a deeper understanding of the successes and failures can benefit the international legal community in the future.

Why has the United States taken such a firm stance against the International Criminal Court (ICC) and expended such diplomatic goodwill in an attempt to dismantle a tribunal that poses no serious risk to its citizens? This book critiques causal ideologies such as American exceptionalism, state sovereignty and laissez-faire capitalism to show how U.S. opposition is driven by pervasive political, legal, historic, military and economic conditioning factors. It shows how U.S. attitudes transcend partisan politics and predicts how the U.S.-ICC relationship will be affected by the economic crisis, shifting international geopolitical power structures, the crisis in the U.S. military, unfolding international human rights law and the “politics of change” promised by the nascent Obama administration. “The United States has been at the centre of international criminal justice initiatives, from Nuremberg to the more recent ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Lebanon. But its position has been lukewarm and sometimes, in the darkest days of the Bush administration, outright hostile to the International Criminal Court. Filling a gap in the literature, Dr Mark Kielsgard reviews the history of American policy, analysing the factors that have driven it, making useful and practical suggestions aimed at greater engagement of the United States with the International Criminal Court.” Professor William A. Schabas

This book theorizes the ways in which states that are presumed to be weaker in the international system use the International Criminal Court (ICC) to advance their security and political interests. Ultimately, it contends that African states have managed to instrumentally and strategically use the international justice system to their advantage, a theoretical framework that challenges the “justice cascade” argument. The empirical work of this study focuses on four major themes around the intersection of power, states' interests, and the global governance of atrocity crimes: firstly, the strategic use of self-referrals to the ICC; secondly, complementarity between national and the international justice system; thirdly, the limits of state cooperation with international courts; and finally the use of international courts in domestic political conflicts. This book is valuable to students, scholars, and researchers who are interested in international relations, international criminal justice, peace and conflict studies, human rights, and African politics.

With the ad hoc tribunals completing their mandates and the International Criminal Court under significant pressure, today's international criminal jurisdictions are at a critical juncture. Their legitimacy cannot be taken for granted. This multidisciplinary volume investigates key issues pertaining to legitimacy: criminal accountability, normative development, truth-discovery, complementarity, regionalism, and judicial cooperation. The volume sheds new light on previously unexplored areas, including the significance of redacted judgements, prosecutors' opening statements, rehabilitative processes of international convicts, victim expectations, court financing, and NGO activism. The book's original contributions will appeal to researchers, practitioners, advocates, and students of international criminal justice, accountability for war crimes and the rule of law.

American reluctance to join the International Criminal Court illuminates important trends in international security and a central dilemma facing U.S. Foreign policy in the 21st century. The ICC will prosecute individuals who commit egregious international human rights violations such as genocide. The Court is a logical culmination of the global trends toward expanding human rights and creating international institutions. The U.S., which fostered these trends because they served American national interests, initially championed the creation of an ICC. The Court fundamentally represents the triumph of American values in the international arena. Yet the United States now opposes the ICC for fear of constraints upon America's ability to use force to protect its national interests. The principal national security and constitutional objections to the Court, which the volume explores in detail, inflate the potential risks inherent in joining the ICC. More fundamentally, they reflect a belief in American exceptionalism that is unsustainable in today's world. Court opponents also underestimate the growing salience of international norms and institutions in addressing emerging threats to U.S. national interests. The misguided assessments that buttress opposition to the ICC threaten to undermine American leadership and security in the 21st century more gravely than could any international institution.

83/2/Add. 1, Criminal Court,1998)

This book is a guide to the law that applies in the three international criminal tribunals, for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, set up by the UN during the period 1993 to 2002 to deal with atrocities and human rights abuses committed during conflict in those countries. Building on the work of an earlier generation of war crimes courts, these tribunals have developed a sophisticated body of law concerning the elements of the three international crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes), and forms of participation in such crimes, as well as other general principles of international criminal law, procedural matters and sentencing. The legacy of the tribunals will be indispensable as international law moves into a more advanced stage, with the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Their judicial decisions are examined here, as well as the drafting history of their statutes and other contemporary sources.

The International Criminal Court has significantly grown in importance and impact over the decade of its existence. This book assesses its impact, providing a comprehensive overview of its practice. It shows how the Court has contributed to major developments in international criminal law, and identifies the ways in which it is in need of reform.

The International Criminal Court remains a sensitive issue in U.S. foreign policy circles. It was agreed to at the tail end of the Clinton administration, but with serious reservations. In 2002 the Bush administration ceremoniously reversed course and "unsigned" the Rome Statute that had established the Court. But recent developments in Washington and elsewhere indicate that the United States may be moving toward de facto acceptance of the Court and active cooperation in its mission. In Means to an End, Lee Feinstein and Tod Lindberg reassess the relationship of the United States and the ICC, as well as American policy toward international justice more broadly. Praise for the hardcover edition of Means to an End "Books of this sort are all too rare. Two experienced policy intellectuals, one liberal, one conservative, have come together to find common ground on a controversial foreign policy issue.... The book is short, but it goes a long way toward clearing the ideological air." — Foreign Affairs "A well-researched and timely contribution to the debate over America's proper relationship to the International Criminal Court. Rigorous in its arguments and humane in its conclusions, the volume is an indispensable guide for scholars and policymakers alike." —Madeleine K. Albright, former U.S. Secretary of State "Two of our nation's leading authorities on preventing atrocities have joined to make a convincing argument that closer cooperation with the International Criminal Court will help promote human rights and the values on which America was founded." —Angelina Jolie, co-chair, Jolie-Pitt Foundation