The ICC May Encourage Occupation

Abstract

The International Criminal Court (The ICC) exercises partial universal jurisdiction, which means that its jurisdiction lies between a completely universal jurisdiction and a purely state-consent-based jurisdiction. Whereas a completely universal jurisdiction gives the strongest legal incentive for not violating human rights, it is not clear that a partially universal jurisdiction is the second-best possibility; the shift from the traditional consent-based jurisdiction to partially universal jurisdiction at the ICC might weaken human-rights protection. First, it might encourage an occupying state to continue the occupation in order to prevent the emerging free state from becoming a party to the Rome Statute and, especially, from accepting its jurisdiction retroactively. Second, it may encourage the occupying state to initiate a civil war in the occupied state in order to discourage it from joining the ICC. Third, it may encourage the occupying state to promote a terrorist leadership for the occupied people in order to discourage them from joining the ICC. Later, we will discuss some possible solutions to those problems.

Keywords: International Law, The ICC, Commitment, Terror, Peace and War