Can International Criminal Law Exist When States Choose to Ignore It? LAW4001

Instructions:

• This is a research essay, so the structure is:

1. Introduction paragraph (I have written this already)


2. Body:

• 5 arguments (1 paragraph per argument)


• 3-4 counterarguments (1 paragraph per counterargument)

3. Conclusion (I will write this myself)

• I want 1500 words


• Follow the rubric I have sent


• Minimum of 20 references in APA7 form. I want these as in-text citations, and then placed in a bibliography list (again, in APA7 form).


• The prompt is: 'There is no such thing as international criminal law if States can choose whether or not to abide by it'


• This essay must be highly researched, so it should make sure of: international and domestic materials, for example, the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court (ICC), the United Nations (UN) like the Security Council, the International Criminal Court of Justice -not limited to these, but this is a starting point. Go beyond these materials too. Additionally, there must be a lot of cases used, etc., the situation of Palestine, the al-Bashir case -not limited to these, go beyond these too.

'There is no such thing as international criminal law if States can choose whether or not to abide by it'

Introduction:

International criminal law encompasses rules and principles aimed at governing relations between states while ensuring accountability and fairness, ultimately to prevent gross violations of human rights (Posner & Sykes, 2013). The Rome Statute of 1998 (Rome Statute) identifies the most egregious crimes that international criminal law seeks to address, notably, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. However, international criminal laws existence may be argued to be illusionary, as its ability to prevent international crimes is hindered due to States having the ability to choose whether or not to abide by it. This is particularly evident because:

Argument 1: the Rome Statute allows and encourages domestic courts to try the crime first, as evidenced by the ICC being known as the court of last resort.

• Refer to Article 17; 20 of the Rome Statute [not limited to this].

Argument 2: Additionally, State sovereignty is not intended to be eradicated by international criminal law, despite any overlap. This provides states with a shield against the enforcement of international criminal law.

Argument 3: There is also in place, the principle of universal jurisdiction which is rarely exercised.

Argument 4: The UN can refer/defer cases to the ICC.

Argument 5: Dependence, compliance and enforceability of the ICC.

On the other hand:

Counterargument 1: The ICC can still intervene if a case has been heard in a domestic court;

• Refer to Article 20(3) of the Rome Statute [not limited to this].

Counterargument 2: ?

Counterargument 3?