THE ARTS This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public CHILD POLICY service of the RAND Corporation. CIVIL JUSTICE EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL SECURITY The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research POPULATION AND AGING organization providing objective analysis and effective PUBLIC SAFETY solutions that address the challenges facing the public SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and private sectors around the world. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore Pardee RAND Graduate School View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the Pardee RAND Graduate School (PRGS) dissertation series. PRGS dissertations are produced by graduate fellows of the Pardee RAND Graduate School, the world’s leading producer of Ph.D.’s in policy analysis. The dissertation has been supervised, reviewed, and approved by the graduate fellow’s faculty committee. From the Outside In Shaping the International Criminal Court Brian Rosen This document was submitted as a dissertation in May 2006 in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. The faculty committee that supervised and approved the dissertation consisted of Bart E. Bennett (Chair), Linda J. Demaine, and Robert J. Lempert. PARDEE RAND GRADUATE SCHOOL The Pardee RAND Graduate School dissertation series reproduces dissertations that have been approved by the student’s dissertation committee. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2007 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] - iii - PREFACE The nascent International Criminal Court (“ICC”) was created with a noble goal: punish those who commit the world’s worst crimes and deter their future commission. The ICC’s reach, however, extends beyond merely punishing war criminals. It is empowered to find uses of force illegal, to exact punishment on not just illegal but also disfavored uses of force, to declare specific types of weapons or methods of war illegal, and, perhaps, to restrain U.S. military action. It short, it maintains the ability to insert itself into the field most elemental of national power: decisions about whether and how to wage war. The present study will recommend policy alternatives to military and domestic planning organizations to shape the International Criminal Court (ICC) so that it (1) may prosecute figures who have committed egregious international crimes while (2) being restrained from wrongly overstepping its purpose and authority by improperly intervening in national sovereignty or policy. Specifically, the study will assess current U.S. policy regarding the ICC, discuss the circumstances under which that policy will be ineffectual, discuss policy alternatives, and test the relative effectiveness of other, perhaps more robust, policies against the current U.S. policy. The empirical testing will focus on the extent to which risk to U.S. nationals can be reduced by attempting to influence the process by which judges are elected to the court. More broadly, the study will be an example of applying quantitative analysis to new and evolving areas of national security concern. The research reported here was sponsored by and conducted within the Strategy and Doctrine Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE and within the RAND Arroyo Center. RAND Project AIR FORCE RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF), a division of the RAND Corporation, is the U.S. Air Force's federally funded research and development center for studies and analyses. PAF provides the Air Force with independent analyses of policy alternatives affecting the development, employment, combat readiness, and support of current and future aerospace forces. Research is conducted in four programs: Aerospace Force - iv - Development; Manpower, Personnel, and Training; Resource Management; and Strategy and Doctrine. Additional information about PAF is available on our Web site at http://www.rand.org/paf. RAND Arroyo Center RAND Arroyo Center, part of the RAND Corporation, is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the United States Army. - v - CONTENTS Preface................................................................................................................................iii RAND Project AIR FORCE ..................................................................................iii RAND Arroyo Center............................................................................................ iv Figures..............................................................................................................................xiii Tables.............................................................................................................................. xvii Acknowledgments............................................................................................................ xix Chapter One: Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 I. Objectives ................................................................................................................. 1 II. Motivation and Background..................................................................................... 1 Chapter Two: The International Criminal Court ............................................................... 7 I. Another Step in the Increasing Judicialization of International Affairs ................... 7 A. The Growth of International Courts.................................................................... 7 B. A New International Criminal Court .................................................................. 9 C. Hopes, Fears, and Potential Effects .................................................................. 10 1. The Dual Concerns ....................................................................................... 11 D. U.S. Presidents’ Treatment ............................................................................... 15 II. How the Court Initiates a Case ............................................................................... 16 A. The Three Triggers and the Power of the Prosecutor ....................................... 16 B. Shifting Power to Judges................................................................................... 17 III. The ICC’s Reach: Requirements of Jurisdiction ................................................... 18 A. Personal Jurisdiction—Who the Court May Try .............................................. 19 1. Personal Jurisdiction Based on Territory...................................................... 20 2. Personal Jurisdiction Based on Nationality .................................................. 22 3. Security Council Referral ............................................................................. 22 4. Summing up Personal Jurisdiction................................................................ 22 B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction—What the Court May Try.................................... 23 1. Genocide ....................................................................................................... 23 2. Crimes Against Humanity............................................................................. 23 3. War Crimes ................................................................................................... 24 4. Aggression .................................................................................................... 24 - vi - C. The Effect of Complementarity: What it Means to be “Unwilling or Unable Genuinely . .” .................................................................................................. 26 1. Unwillingness ............................................................................................... 27 2. Inability........................................................................................................