Show simple item record

dc.creatorOmari, Caroline
dc.date06/12/2013
dc.dateWed, 12 Jun 2013
dc.dateWed, 12 Jun 2013 12:52:34
dc.dateWed, 12 Jun 2013 12:52:34
dc.date.accessioned2015-03-18T11:29:00Z
dc.date.available2015-03-18T11:29:00Z
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11071/3606
dc.descriptionUnpublished articles
dc.descriptionSince 1945 when international criminal justice first became a reality the US has been its greatest champion and supporter. As part of the allied movement, the US played a central role in the creation of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal.1 Its support for the process continued through the Tokyo trial, and the various successor trials of Nazi doctors, lawyers, military leaders, political leaders among others.2 The adoption of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the Crime of Genocide also highlights the importance of US support. Unlike the reticent Britain, the US was at the front line pushing for adoption of the convention. Additionally, in 1992 when proposals for international prosecution resurfaced following the outbreak of war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the US took the initiative on a Security Council resolution to establish a commission of inquiry into reports of widespread violations of international humanitarian law.3 Interestingly enough, the US actively participated in the drafting process that led to the adoption of the Rome Statute. The International Law Commission’s draft text was refined through a series of preparatory conferences in which the US played an active role, and even after the adoption of the Statute the US has supported international courts for Sierra Leone and Cambodia. More importantly, the ICC signifies the same values of global justice, human rights and the rule of law that the US is committed to.4 Why then did the US withdraw its support for the ICC at the eleventh hour? What impact has this had on the Security Council’s power to act when National authorities are unable and unwilling? In order to fully understand this question we must delve into the complex relationship between the US and the Security Council.
dc.description.abstractSince 1945 when international criminal justice first became a reality the US has been its greatest champion and supporter. As part of the allied movement, the US played a central role in the creation of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal.1 Its support for the process continued through the Tokyo trial, and the various successor trials of Nazi doctors, lawyers, military leaders, political leaders among others.2 The adoption of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the Crime of Genocide also highlights the importance of US support. Unlike the reticent Britain, the US was at the front line pushing for adoption of the convention. Additionally, in 1992 when proposals for international prosecution resurfaced following the outbreak of war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the US took the initiative on a Security Council resolution to establish a commission of inquiry into reports of widespread violations of international humanitarian law.3 Interestingly enough, the US actively participated in the drafting process that led to the adoption of the Rome Statute. The International Law Commission’s draft text was refined through a series of preparatory conferences in which the US played an active role, and even after the adoption of the Statute the US has supported international courts for Sierra Leone and Cambodia. More importantly, the ICC signifies the same values of global justice, human rights and the rule of law that the US is committed to.4 Why then did the US withdraw its support for the ICC at the eleventh hour? What impact has this had on the Security Council’s power to act when National authorities are unable and unwilling? In order to fully understand this question we must delve into the complex relationship between the US and the Security Council.
dc.languageeng
dc.rightsBy agreeing with and accepting this license, I (the author(s), copyright owner or nominated agent) agree to the conditions, as stated below, for deposit of the item (referred to as .the Work.) in the digital repository maintained by Strathmore University, or any other repository authorized for use by Strathmore University. Non-exclusive Rights Rights granted to the digital repository through this agreement are entirely non-exclusive. I understand that depositing the Work in the repository does not affect my rights to publish the Work elsewhere, either in present or future versions. I agree that Strathmore University may electronically store, copy or translate the Work to any approved medium or format for the purpose of future preservation and accessibility. Strathmore University is not under any obligation to reproduce or display the Work in the same formats or resolutions in which it was originally deposited. SU Digital Repository I understand that work deposited in the digital repository will be accessible to a wide variety of people and institutions, including automated agents and search engines via the World Wide Web. I understand that once the Work is deposited, metadata may be incorporated into public access catalogues. I agree as follows: 1.That I am the author or have the authority of the author/s to make this agreement and do hereby give Strathmore University the right to make the Work available in the way described above. 2.That I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the Work is original, and to the best of my knowledge, does not breach any laws including those relating to defamation, libel and copyright. 3.That I have, in instances where the intellectual property of other authors or copyright holders is included in the Work, gained explicit permission for the inclusion of that material in the Work, and in the electronic form of the Work as accessed through the open access digital repository, or that I have identified that material for which adequate permission has not been obtained and which will be inaccessible via the digital repository. 4.That Strathmore University does not hold any obligation to take legal action on behalf of the Depositor, or other rights holders, in the event of a breach of intellectual property rights, or any other right, in the material deposited. 5.That if, as a result of my having knowingly or recklessly given a false statement at points 1, 2 or 3 above, the University suffers loss, I will make good that loss and indemnify Strathmore University for all action, suits, proceedings, claims, demands and costs occasioned by the University in consequence of my false statement.
dc.subjectUnited States
dc.subjectSecurity Council
dc.subjectICC
dc.titleThe United States, the Security Council and the International Criminal Court: will international criminal justice prevail despite US recalcitrance
dc.typeArticle


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • SU Scholarly Articles [88]
    Assorted scholarly writings by University Staff outside of specific faculty affiliation

Show simple item record