The International Criminal Court (ICC) is surrounded by controversies and criticisms. Rather than engaging in any particular controversy, this article surveys the discourse at a more panoramic level, highlighting some patterns in the arguments about the ICC. I will show that many plausible criticisms reflect underlying inescapable dyads. For any position that Court might take, one or more powerful criticisms can inevitably be advanced. My point is not reducible to “you can’t please everyone”: I show the contradictory expectations for the Court, and how the same powerful terms (“political”, “legitimacy”, “interests of victims”) are recruited for opposite meanings, making them inescapable. Awareness of these patterns can (1) provide a typology to help situate and appreciate arguments, (2) reveal the deeper complexity of the problems, and (3) help us to evaluate and improve upon the arguments.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Robinson: Inescapable Dyads: Why the ICC Cannot Win
Darryl Robinson (Queen's Univ., Canada - Law) has posted Inescapable Dyads: Why the ICC Cannot Win (Leiden Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract: