Ken Rodman is the William R. Cotter Distinguished Teaching Professor of Government at Colby College, where he has taught since 1989. Ken was the first Director of Colby’s interdisciplinary International (now Global) Studies Program and the Oak Institute for the Study of International Human Rights. He is the author of two books – Sanctity versus Sovereignty: The United States and the Nationalization of Natural Resources in the Third World (Columbia University Press, 1988) and Sanctions Beyond Borders: Multinational Corporations and Economic Statecraft (Rowman
International Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. Hugh Lafollette, 2019
Updated version of 2013 encyclopedia entry on International Criminal Justice, focusing on the dut... more Updated version of 2013 encyclopedia entry on International Criminal Justice, focusing on the duty to prosecute, realist critiques, the peace versus justice debate, universalism versus cultural relativism, and neocolonial interpretations, with a focus on the African backlash against the ICC.
One of the arguments for international prosecution of criminal violence regardless of political c... more One of the arguments for international prosecution of criminal violence regardless of political context is the presumed normative pull of global justice, which can stigmatize targeted leaders to both international and domestic audiences, leading to their marginalization. However, the examples most closely associated with this argument — Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić (arrest warrants issued in 1995), Slobodan Milošević (arrest warrant unsealed in 1999) and Charles Taylor (arrest warrant unsealed in 2003) — are false positives since they were empowered by a political commitment by powerful states to remove those actors from power. In contrast, when powerful third parties prefer to engage regimes whose leaders are subjected to criminal scrutiny — either because of shared interests or a diplomatic approach to conflict management — the stigmatizing impact of criminalization is limited, as demonstrated by the failure of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to prosecute commanders of the Rwandan Patriotic Front and the problems the International Criminal Court has encountered in its Darfur and Kenyan investigations. The findings point to the realist limits of the shaming function of international criminal tribunals, whose ability to sideline abusive leaders is dependent on parallel political strategies to achieve the same ends.
International criminal justice is a field of international law that calls for the prosecution of ... more International criminal justice is a field of international law that calls for the prosecution of the planners and organizers of the gravest war crimes and human rights abuses. It is part of a growing body of international law that seeks to place the individual at its center—both as perpetrator, to be held accountable, and as victim, with a right to redress. In so doing, it challenges the more sovereignty-centered international law established at the birth of the modern state system in 17th-century Europe, in which only states have rights and responsibilities and national leaders are shielded from international accountability through the principle of noninterference, which exempts a state’s treatment of its own citizens from international law, and by conferring personal immunity to heads of state and diplomats and functional immunity to public officials. The first major challenges to that system were the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo after the Second World War, both of which focused on individual rather than state responsibility for violations of international law, and did so regardless of traditional immunities associated with official position. They also established a new crime in international law—crimes against humanity—which pierced the principle of noninterference by holding individuals accountable for egregious acts of persecution and murder within their own territory, even if those acts are consistent with domestic law. While the Cold War impeded progress in international criminal justice, its end witnessed four developments that built on the promise of Nuremberg. First, the UN Security Council authorized two ad hoc tribunals to prosecute international crimes committed during the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide. Second, the UN negotiated the creation of hybrid courts with mixed panels of national and international judges, initially in Sierra Leone, Cambodia, and East Timor. Third, several states, primarily in Europe, enacted universal jurisdiction laws empowering magistrates to investigate and prosecute international crimes even if there was no connection to that country’s nationals or territory. Finally, the world’s first permanent International Criminal Court became operational as of 1 July 2002, roughly four years after the negotiation of its founding Rome Statute. As international criminal justice has become a more prominent feature of international law and of policy debates surrounding responses to political violence, it has also become the subject of multidisciplinary scholarship involving political and other social sciences, law, and ethics. To its strongest proponents in the academic and activist communities, this development represents a growing acceptance of a universal duty to prosecute certain core international crimes, the long-term consequence of which will be to end the culture of impunity in which state and rebel leaders believe they will never be held accountable for using whatever means they deem necessary, no matter how atrocious, to achieve their objectives. To its critics, this view overstates the power of legal norms to transform politics and understates the tradeoffs between international prosecution and other interests and values, such as promoting national security or mediating peace agreements.
The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) establish... more The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) established a number of precedents in international criminal law, as detailed by Darryl Robinson and Gillian MacNeil.[1] They also set the template for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other tribunals as to how politics can both empower and constrain international prosecution and determine its potential contribution to peace. The lesson of the ICTY is that international criminal law can assist peace processes in an ongoing way if powerful states and international institutions complement it with coercive political strategies to weaken regimes or militias led by criminal spoilers to the point where their cooperation is not needed to negotiate and maintain a peace settlement. The lesson of the ICTR is that the impact of international criminal law on consolidating peace is dependent upon the political agenda of the state on whose territory the crimes occurred and whose cooperation is needed for effective prosecution. Therefore, the contribution of prosecution to peace depends on whether the law is embedded in national and international political commitments that go beyond compliance with formal legal obligations and over which a tribunal has limited influence.
In the ‘Justice Cascade’, Kathryn Sikkink argues that “foreign prosecutions and international tri... more In the ‘Justice Cascade’, Kathryn Sikkink argues that “foreign prosecutions and international tribunals can be cost-effective alternatives to military intervention.” Yet, the successes of the Special Court for Sierra Leone—in prosecuting former Liberian President Charles Taylor and in imposing accountability on the leaders of all armed groups regardless of political alignment—were dependent on a commitment by Western powers and international and regional organizations to a military victory against the rebels in Sierra Leone and coercive regime change in Liberia. The lesson that should be drawn from this case—which parallels that of other international tribunals set up during ongoing violence—is that the prospects for international criminal justice during civil wars are dependent on the political strategies adopted by outsiders to address the conflict and that taking criminal accountability seriously requires an interventionist rather than a consent-based approach to conflict resolution.
International criminal justice is a field of international law that calls for the trial and punis... more International criminal justice is a field of international law that calls for the trial and punishment of those individuals who bear the greatest responsibility for the most serious war crimes and human rights abuses. Its increasing prominence in international tribunals and national courts since the 1990s has prompted ethical debates over whether there is a universal duty to prosecute international crimes or whether that duty needs to be weighed and balanced against the potentially adverse consequences of insisting on trials for other interests and values.Keywords:law;legal and political;politics;crimes against humanity;foreign policy;genocide;realism;reconciliationlaw;legal and political;politics;crimes against humanity;foreign policy;genocide;realism;reconciliation
... American MNCs. THE ANTI-APARTHEID MOVEMENT: SANCTIONS WITHOUT STATES One of the implications ... more ... American MNCs. THE ANTI-APARTHEID MOVEMENT: SANCTIONS WITHOUT STATES One of the implications of the discussion above is that nonstate eco-nomic actors (MNCs) have achieved a degree of independence that 8 ...
... Helms-Burton and the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act 171 7 "Think Globally, Sanction Lo... more ... Helms-Burton and the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act 171 7 "Think Globally, Sanction Locally": Disinvestment Campaigns ... to support or re-ward its friends or thwart or punish its enemies ... national identity, MNCs can ignore national boundaries and pursue their global interests without ...
International Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. Hugh Lafollette, 2019
Updated version of 2013 encyclopedia entry on International Criminal Justice, focusing on the dut... more Updated version of 2013 encyclopedia entry on International Criminal Justice, focusing on the duty to prosecute, realist critiques, the peace versus justice debate, universalism versus cultural relativism, and neocolonial interpretations, with a focus on the African backlash against the ICC.
One of the arguments for international prosecution of criminal violence regardless of political c... more One of the arguments for international prosecution of criminal violence regardless of political context is the presumed normative pull of global justice, which can stigmatize targeted leaders to both international and domestic audiences, leading to their marginalization. However, the examples most closely associated with this argument — Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić (arrest warrants issued in 1995), Slobodan Milošević (arrest warrant unsealed in 1999) and Charles Taylor (arrest warrant unsealed in 2003) — are false positives since they were empowered by a political commitment by powerful states to remove those actors from power. In contrast, when powerful third parties prefer to engage regimes whose leaders are subjected to criminal scrutiny — either because of shared interests or a diplomatic approach to conflict management — the stigmatizing impact of criminalization is limited, as demonstrated by the failure of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to prosecute commanders of the Rwandan Patriotic Front and the problems the International Criminal Court has encountered in its Darfur and Kenyan investigations. The findings point to the realist limits of the shaming function of international criminal tribunals, whose ability to sideline abusive leaders is dependent on parallel political strategies to achieve the same ends.
International criminal justice is a field of international law that calls for the prosecution of ... more International criminal justice is a field of international law that calls for the prosecution of the planners and organizers of the gravest war crimes and human rights abuses. It is part of a growing body of international law that seeks to place the individual at its center—both as perpetrator, to be held accountable, and as victim, with a right to redress. In so doing, it challenges the more sovereignty-centered international law established at the birth of the modern state system in 17th-century Europe, in which only states have rights and responsibilities and national leaders are shielded from international accountability through the principle of noninterference, which exempts a state’s treatment of its own citizens from international law, and by conferring personal immunity to heads of state and diplomats and functional immunity to public officials. The first major challenges to that system were the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo after the Second World War, both of which focused on individual rather than state responsibility for violations of international law, and did so regardless of traditional immunities associated with official position. They also established a new crime in international law—crimes against humanity—which pierced the principle of noninterference by holding individuals accountable for egregious acts of persecution and murder within their own territory, even if those acts are consistent with domestic law. While the Cold War impeded progress in international criminal justice, its end witnessed four developments that built on the promise of Nuremberg. First, the UN Security Council authorized two ad hoc tribunals to prosecute international crimes committed during the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide. Second, the UN negotiated the creation of hybrid courts with mixed panels of national and international judges, initially in Sierra Leone, Cambodia, and East Timor. Third, several states, primarily in Europe, enacted universal jurisdiction laws empowering magistrates to investigate and prosecute international crimes even if there was no connection to that country’s nationals or territory. Finally, the world’s first permanent International Criminal Court became operational as of 1 July 2002, roughly four years after the negotiation of its founding Rome Statute. As international criminal justice has become a more prominent feature of international law and of policy debates surrounding responses to political violence, it has also become the subject of multidisciplinary scholarship involving political and other social sciences, law, and ethics. To its strongest proponents in the academic and activist communities, this development represents a growing acceptance of a universal duty to prosecute certain core international crimes, the long-term consequence of which will be to end the culture of impunity in which state and rebel leaders believe they will never be held accountable for using whatever means they deem necessary, no matter how atrocious, to achieve their objectives. To its critics, this view overstates the power of legal norms to transform politics and understates the tradeoffs between international prosecution and other interests and values, such as promoting national security or mediating peace agreements.
The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) establish... more The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) established a number of precedents in international criminal law, as detailed by Darryl Robinson and Gillian MacNeil.[1] They also set the template for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other tribunals as to how politics can both empower and constrain international prosecution and determine its potential contribution to peace. The lesson of the ICTY is that international criminal law can assist peace processes in an ongoing way if powerful states and international institutions complement it with coercive political strategies to weaken regimes or militias led by criminal spoilers to the point where their cooperation is not needed to negotiate and maintain a peace settlement. The lesson of the ICTR is that the impact of international criminal law on consolidating peace is dependent upon the political agenda of the state on whose territory the crimes occurred and whose cooperation is needed for effective prosecution. Therefore, the contribution of prosecution to peace depends on whether the law is embedded in national and international political commitments that go beyond compliance with formal legal obligations and over which a tribunal has limited influence.
In the ‘Justice Cascade’, Kathryn Sikkink argues that “foreign prosecutions and international tri... more In the ‘Justice Cascade’, Kathryn Sikkink argues that “foreign prosecutions and international tribunals can be cost-effective alternatives to military intervention.” Yet, the successes of the Special Court for Sierra Leone—in prosecuting former Liberian President Charles Taylor and in imposing accountability on the leaders of all armed groups regardless of political alignment—were dependent on a commitment by Western powers and international and regional organizations to a military victory against the rebels in Sierra Leone and coercive regime change in Liberia. The lesson that should be drawn from this case—which parallels that of other international tribunals set up during ongoing violence—is that the prospects for international criminal justice during civil wars are dependent on the political strategies adopted by outsiders to address the conflict and that taking criminal accountability seriously requires an interventionist rather than a consent-based approach to conflict resolution.
International criminal justice is a field of international law that calls for the trial and punis... more International criminal justice is a field of international law that calls for the trial and punishment of those individuals who bear the greatest responsibility for the most serious war crimes and human rights abuses. Its increasing prominence in international tribunals and national courts since the 1990s has prompted ethical debates over whether there is a universal duty to prosecute international crimes or whether that duty needs to be weighed and balanced against the potentially adverse consequences of insisting on trials for other interests and values.Keywords:law;legal and political;politics;crimes against humanity;foreign policy;genocide;realism;reconciliationlaw;legal and political;politics;crimes against humanity;foreign policy;genocide;realism;reconciliation
... American MNCs. THE ANTI-APARTHEID MOVEMENT: SANCTIONS WITHOUT STATES One of the implications ... more ... American MNCs. THE ANTI-APARTHEID MOVEMENT: SANCTIONS WITHOUT STATES One of the implications of the discussion above is that nonstate eco-nomic actors (MNCs) have achieved a degree of independence that 8 ...
... Helms-Burton and the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act 171 7 "Think Globally, Sanction Lo... more ... Helms-Burton and the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act 171 7 "Think Globally, Sanction Locally": Disinvestment Campaigns ... to support or re-ward its friends or thwart or punish its enemies ... national identity, MNCs can ignore national boundaries and pursue their global interests without ...
Paper presented at the “Political Violence, Self-Determination and Global Law” Workshop at the 23... more Paper presented at the “Political Violence, Self-Determination and Global Law” Workshop at the 23rd IVR World Congress of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland, 1-6 August 2007.
Human rights advocates have called for ICC investigations in situations like Syria and North Kore... more Human rights advocates have called for ICC investigations in situations like Syria and North Korea regardless of the political strategies adopted by the international community toward those regimes. Part of the rationale for this advocacy is the presumed normative pull of international justice, which can stigmatize those targeted to both international and domestic audiences, leading to their marginalization and eventual loss of power. However, the indictments most closely associated with this argument – Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić (
Uploads
Papers by Kenneth Rodman