International Criminal Law: An Ideology Critique
![handle is hein.journals/lejint26 and id is 728 raw text is:
LeidenJournal ofInternational Law (2013), 26, pp. 701-723
Q Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International LaW 2013 doi:I0.1017/S0922 156513000307
International Criminal Law: An Ideology
Critique
TOR KREVER*
Abstract
The article engages in an ideology critique of international criminal-law texts and discourse,
drawing on a theoretical framework developed by critical legal studies scholars in order to
interrogate, in a different jurisprudential context, the assumptions undergirding contemporary
international criminal-law (ICL) scholarship. It argues that the triumphalism surrounding ICL
and its adequacy to deal with conflict and violence ignores the factors and forces - including
specific international legal interventions in countries' political economies - that shape or even
help establish the environment from which such conflict and violence emanate. In uncritically
celebrating ICL and equating it with a pacific international rule of law, ICL scholarship risks
shaping passive acquiescence in the status quo and discouraging more throughgoing efforts
to address the systemic forces underlying instances of violence, including political-economic
forces shaped by international legal institutions.
Key words
international criminal law; international tribunals; criminal justice; ideology; rule of law
I. INTRODUCTION
One finds today in international legal scholarship, as well as in popular discourse
about international law, an enchantment with criminal law and a growing faith
in international criminal trials as the most suitable response and remedy to the
major forms of violence and destruction that continue to plague the modern era.
The language of international criminal law (ICL) is now a staple not only of legal
commentary but also of political discourse. During both the lead-up to and aftermath
of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by a US-led 'Coalition of the Willing', much
popular opposition to the war was framed in the language of legal argument and
specifically the language of ICL: the war was the work of criminals and, as such,
George Bush and Tony Blair should be tried in The Hague. Human rights activists
similarly invoke international prosecutions as the appropriate response to atrocities
in the Balkans and Sierra Leone or, today, in Sudan, Libya, and Syria. Indeed, many
international-law scholars now herald international criminal trials as the means to
* PhD Candidate in Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science [T.K.Kreverplse.ac.uk].
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Institute for Global Law and Policy, Harvard Law School,
and the Historical Materialism Conference, SOAS, London. I am grateful to Teresa Almeida Cravo, Rob
Knox, Sarah Nouwen, Christine Schwdbel, Alex Anievas, Ben Winks, Rick Krever, Hani Sayed, Riaz Tayob,
Reecia Orzeck, John Reynolds, conference participants, and two anonymous reviewers, all of whom provided
insightful comments and criticisms, not all of which I have been able to incorporate. Any errors, as the usual
caveat has it, remain my own.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/lejint26&div=50&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
International Criminal Law: An Ideology Critique
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most