Justice Cooperatives: Explaining State Attitudes Toward the ICC

Abstract

Almost fourteen years after the International Criminal Court (ICC) opened its doors, the record of state cooperation with the latter is mixed at best. Legal obligations to provide assistance notwithstanding, state attitudes toward the Court seem to better predict whether – and to what extent – state authorities will support ICC investigations and comply with its rulings. But why do certain countries entertain friendly and collaborative relations with the ICC whereas others display hostility towards it? This project posits state leaders' perceptions of potential ICC indictment best explain variation in state behavior. The academic payoff of undertaking this project is a better understanding of how do state attitudes form and to what extent can external actors change them. The observation of state behavior across cases and over time shows that, once state attitudes form, ICC-state relations either remain constant or worsen. Absent an external shock, improvement is unlikely. When the interplay between international law and domestic politics leads to hostile ICC-state relations, regime change provides a one-time opportunity to start anew. The theoretical framework is linked to empirical analysis through the comparative study of three country cases, namely Colombia, Guinea, and Côte d'Ivoire. Already at this preliminary stage, anecdotal evidence lends support to the hypothesis that an untimely intervention in state affairs by the Prosecutor's office (OTP) has the potential of jeopardizing ICC-state relations from the onset.

Keywords: International Criminal Court, ICC, International Law, Cooperation, Compliance, Colombia, Guinea, Côte d'Ivoire

JEL Classification: K10, K14, K33, N46, N47