International relations, hegemony and the ICC

Abstract: The relationship between power, law and consent is a key feature of the Western debate on criminal law. On the one side, defining the legitimate ways of exercising the punitive power has been a critical question since the Enlightenment thought onwards and especially as part of the rule of law doctrine. On the other side, the role played by public punishment in shaping consent and its communicative potential have been crucial questions for critical, as well as non-critical approaches to criminal law in contemporary thought.
These questions gain in strength and radicalism when it comes to international criminal law (ICL). In this case the filter of the state is not present anymore to mediate between power, law and consent, and the power to punish individuals is directly exercised by international institutions.
This means, on the one hand, that traditional justifications of the power to punish and which are elaborated on in the domestic sphere are not useful anymore in legitimating international punishment. International criminal norms are not framed by an international democratically elected parliament, and their exercise is not controlled by the complex system of checks and balances typical of the rule of law. On the other hand, having not being created by a sovereign, international criminal law cannot be conceived as an instrument to build or consolidate consent around the sovereign. A double-sided dilemma therefore arises: traditional explanations are no longer apt to answer the question whether ICL is legitimate, while ICL itself can no longer be considered an instrument to build consent around the traditional power exercising it, namely the state.
Although I consider both sides of the dilemma equally interesting and stimulating, I focus in the article on one side of it: the ability to build consent of the ICL
institutions, and in particular the International Criminal Court (ICC). In other words,
instead of asking whether the consent around the ICC is broad enough for the Court to be considered legitimate, I shall ask whether the ICC is able to build consent around the world order it embodies. The concept of hegemony, I will argue, is a useful heuristic tool to apprehend the relationship between power, law and consent as to the ICC. This does not mean, however, that the existence of a hegemonic function of the ICC can be easily affirmed.
In the paper, I first clear the meaning of “hegemony” I will refer to, as it has been developed by neo-gramscian and post-colonial thinkers. I then focus on contemporary international criminal tribunals in order to contextualise the concept of hegemony relating to them. Finally, I ask whether international criminal tribunals are effective in producing consent

Object Details

• Location: Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt am Main
• Extent: Online-Ressource
• Language: Englisch
• Notes: IUSE (Istituto Universitario di Studi Europei) Working Papers Series Diplomacy and Security in Europe, DOI: 2239-7345

Classification and Topics

• Classification: Recht
• Keyword: Internationale Strafgerichtsbarkeit ; Hegemonie ; Rechtsphilosophie ; Politische Philosophie ; Völkerstrafrecht ; Internationale Politik ; Eurozentrismus

Contributors, Places and Time

• Event: Veröffentlichung
• (where): Freiburg
• (who): Universität
• (when): 2020
• Creator: Orrù, Elisa

Further information

• DOI: 10.6094/UNIFR/154968
• URN: urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-freidok-1549680
• Rights: Der Zugriff auf das Objekt ist unbeschränkt möglich.
• Last update: 25.03.2025, 1:43 PM CET