SOVEREIGNTY AS RESPONSIBILITY AT THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. : THE “FRONTIERS” OF INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL INTERVENTION

Show full item record



Permalink

http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-5877-2
Title: SOVEREIGNTY AS RESPONSIBILITY AT THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. : THE “FRONTIERS” OF INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL INTERVENTION
Author: Koskimies, Emanuela
Contributor: University of Helsinki, Faculty of Social Sciences
Doctoral Programme in Political, Societal and Regional Changes
Publisher: Helsingin yliopisto
Date: 2020-03-06
URI: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-5877-2
http://hdl.handle.net/10138/311654
Thesis level: Doctoral dissertation (monograph)
Abstract: This doctoral dissertation investigates the development of the norm of sovereignty as responsibility by focusing on its institutionalization in the framework of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Prominent observers have regarded the emergence of a new norm of sovereignty as responsibility as one of the most significant normative shifts in international society since the aftermath of World War II. Against this backdrop, accounts have proliferated situating the ICC at the cutting edge of normative change. The present study critically engages with the whole set of theoretical foundations underlying this view, including the conventional constructivist understanding of norm development upon which the latter is premised. This, on the one hand, emphasizes the importance of norm institutionalization within “tangible” sets of rules or organizations. On the other, it understands institutionalization itself as a moment of clarity and stabilization, thus largely reducing it to an end-point of the norm emergence process. In other words, norm institutionalization is confined to a positivist view in which institutions fall back to the role of neutral fora. The result is a linear, static, and largely depoliticized account of norm content, which, while yielding to the traditional lack of communication between normative and empirical studies, ends up reiterating a dichotomic and simplistic view in which norms are scripts of emancipation, and power a practice of domination. The dissertation aims to unravel this dilemma altogether by offering a step forward in the development of a post-positivist constructivist approach. In other words, it takes a genuinely trans-disciplinary perspective and delves into the configuration of normativity as part of institutional practice, paying special attention to how the relative power of relevant actors reconstitutes norms during norm negotiation and implementation. Hence, the study unfolds from an unusual location – at the intersection between normative international theory and the politics of international criminal law; and from there, it seeks to revive discussions about the power-laden nature of the normative fabric of international society, its own dis-symmetries, and its outright hierarchies. To this end, the dissertation asks two major sequential questions: how the overarching system negotiated by states at the Rome Conference affects the selection of situations and cases before the ICC and their outcomes; and how the selection of situations and cases and their outcomes, in turn, “feeds back” to the norm of sovereignty institutionalized through the Court’s practice. The resulting analysis shows the following. While the Rome Statute reflects the persistence of the state as the primary site of political authority and coercion, it also cuts against the normative aspirations of sovereignty as responsibility by leaving the Court specifically ill-equipped to break with a notorious pattern of hyper-protected sovereignty. Outstanding issues such as the ICC’s selectivity and African bias, as well as the Court’s future prospects, are then reconsidered under this light. Those findings are then discussed in the final part of the study. Focusing on questions of delegation to international institutions, this ends with a note of caution. It concludes that the prospects of sovereignty as responsibility, as well as the broader discussion about cosmopolitan governance, lie more with the re-politicization of the debate than a straightforward invocation of greater forms of supranationalism.
Subject: World Politics (Political Science)
Rights: This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record