| Popis: |
Over the years, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has received criticism for exercising its territorial jurisdiction over non-state parties’ nationals. Non-state parties claim that the Court is illegitimate and that its jurisdictional claim over their nationals violates the principle of consent in public international law. This thesis aims to develop interdisciplinary research into international relations and international law by asking the question of how the alleged legitimacy deficit of the ICC can be alleviated. The interdisciplinary methodology is approached through supplementing the legal dogmatic method with international relations theory. In turn, the analysis is carried out in two sections, one dedicated to legal analysis and the other to the international relations theory constructivism. The main finding of legal analysis is that the ICC’s jurisdictional claim over non-state parties is in most cases fully in line with the principle of consent. The analysis finds that the main solution to the legitimacy deficit is that the Court should make an effort to employ its secondary and tertiary sources of law in its interpretation. Both the legal analysis and constructivist theory point to the ICC needing to be more persuasive. The ICC and its allies should create new understandings about it through norm transformation. This norm transformation will take the form of legal persuasion as well as diplomatic and political pressure. In regard to the interdisciplinary research agenda, this inquiry demonstrates that interdisciplinary researchers can tap into the legal discipline and its methodology by embracing legal formalism. Such use of the legal discipline will also allow for constructivists to learn from legal scholars about persuasion and norm systematisation. |
