American Foreign Policy Ideology and the International Rule of Law Book contents
- American Foreign Policy Ideology and the International Rule of Law
- American Foreign Policy Ideology and the International Rule of Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Tables
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Ideology in American International Law Policy
- Part II Contesting Global Legal Power through the ICC
- 4 Clinton Administration, 1992–2000
- 5 Bush 43 Administration, 2000–2004
- 6 Bush 43 Administration, 2004–2008
- 7 Obama Administration, 2008–2016
- Conclusion Between Power and Transcendent Values
- Index
7 - Obama Administration, 2008–2016
from Part II - Contesting Global Legal Power through the ICC
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 December 2019
- American Foreign Policy Ideology and the International Rule of Law
- American Foreign Policy Ideology and the International Rule of Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Tables
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Ideology in American International Law Policy
- Part II Contesting Global Legal Power through the ICC
- 4 Clinton Administration, 1992–2000
- 5 Bush 43 Administration, 2000–2004
- 6 Bush 43 Administration, 2004–2008
- 7 Obama Administration, 2008–2016
- Conclusion Between Power and Transcendent Values
- Index
Summary
Chapter 7 concludes analysis of the ICC with the Obama administration (2008–2016), in which there was a conspicuous ‘reset’ of ICC policy to positive engagement. The United States attended annual meetings for the first time and contributed substantively to negotiations establishing the crime of aggression. There was no formal ‘re-signing’ of the ICC treaty; however, the aggression definition agreed by other states was rejected and the United States continued to deny any prospect of becoming a member of the court. Here, US policy is shown to reflect an amalgam of ideologies but predominantly that of liberalism in both its internationalist and its nationalist form. The consequence was that US re-engagement was always distinct from the legalist position and thus highlighted incompatible legal ideals even as all parties pledged fidelity to the international rule of law.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- American Foreign Policy Ideology and the International Rule of LawContesting Power through the International Criminal Court, pp. 220 - 258Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020