International Criminal Court Part 35
664
Defences before the International Criminal Court : Substantive gro?nds for excluding criminal resp?nsibility-Part 2
Massimo Scaliotti
International Criminal Law Review
Volume 2, Number 1, 2002 p.1-46
LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
665
The Evolution and Establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC): A Selected Annotated Bibliography of Secondary Sources
Rosaria Vigorito
International Journal of Legal Information
Volume 30, Number 1, Spring 2002 p.92
LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
666
International Criminal Court: The Secret of Its Success
William A. Schabas
Criminal Law Forum
Volume 12, Number 4, December 2001 p.415-428
LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
667
Defining Aggression for the International Criminal Court
Theodor Meron
Suffolk Transnational Law Review
Volume 25, Number 1, Winter 2001 p.1
LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
668
Be Careful What You Wish for Because You Just Might Get it: The United States and the International Criminal Court
Suffolk Transnational Law Review
Volume 25, Number 1, Winter 2001 p.249
LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
669
The Mental Element in International Criminal Law : The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Elements of Offences
Roger S. Clark
Criminal Law Forum
Volume 12, Number 3, September 2001 p.291-334
LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
670
Assault on Sovereignty: The Clear and Present Danger of the New International Criminal Court
Guy Roberts
American University International Law Review
Volume 17, Number 1, 2001 p.35
LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
671
William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001)
Shikhar Ranjan
Indian Journal of International Law
Volume 41, Number 4, October-December 2001 p.747
LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
672
BREAKING THE SOVEREIGNTY BARRIER: THE UNITED STATES AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Alex Ward
Santa Clara Law Review
Volume 41, Number 4, 2001 p.1123
LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
In July 1998, world leaders gathered in Rome to express their overwhelming support for the creation of the International Criminal Court. The Court, which will be seated in The Hague, must be ratified by 60 of the 139 signatory states before it comes into force. At that point, it will become the first permanent body dedicated to the prosecution of individuals for the gravest breaches of international law. Amidst these historic developments, the United States has been a surprising critic. Despite its traditional support for international adjudication, the United States was one of seven countries to reject the statute at the 1998 drafting conference. While eventually signing the statute on December 31, 2000 (the final day of eligibility), the United States has continued to voice strong opposition to the Court, and has consequently buried any plans for ratification in the indeterminate future. This comment examines the International Criminal Court and the arguments that the United States has levied against the Court. It begins with a brief overview of international criminal adjudication and highlights the supportive role the United States played over the past fifty years. The comment then addresses the inadequacies of the status quo, and the events which led up to Rome conference of 1998. Although the arguments made against the Court by the United States essentially remained unchanged throughout the process, the comment examines the American position before, during, and following the Rome conference. The author then balances the benefits of the fledgling court against the potential dangers to American interests.
673
Seeking Justice for “Comfort”Women: Without an International Criminal Court, Suits Brought by World War II Sex Slaves of the Japanese Army May Find Their Best Hope of Success in U.S. Federal Courts
Susan Jenkins Vanderweert
North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation
Volume 27, Number 1, Fall 2001 p.141
LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
674
THE RESPONSE OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: REJECTION, RATIFICATION OR SOMETHING ELSE?
Joel F. England
Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law
Volume 18, Number 3, Fall 2001 p.941
LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
In 1998, many nations signed the Rome Statute, setting in motion the establishment of the International Criminal Court, a permanent court having jurisdiction over cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and eventually aggression. The United States signed, but has not ratified the Rome Statute. The United States is concerned about the Court’s potential jurisdiction over Americans, even if the United States is not a party to the agreement. In response, members of Congress introduced two competing Bills , the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (ASPA) and the American Citizens’ Protection and War Criminal Prosecution Act (ACPA). Each bill seeks to protect Americans from the Court’s jurisdiction, but, unlike the ASPA, the ACPA promotes continued engagement and cooperation with the Court. While the United States should seek to protect Americans from the Court’s jurisdiction until it is confident of the Court’s credibility and effectiveness, the United States should not actively oppose the Court and should remain engaged in the Court’s evolution.
675
The International Standard of Direct and Public Incitement to Commit Genocide: An Obstacle to U.S. Ratification of the International Criminal Court Statute?
Ameer F. Gopalani
California Western International Law Journal
Volume 32, Number 1, Fall 2001 p.87
LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
Conclusion
Notes
See Also
References and Further Reading
About the Author/s and Reviewer/s
Author: international
Mentioned in these Entries
Bills, International Criminal Court, International Criminal Law.
Leave a Reply