Document Type

Article

Journal Title

ASIL Insights

Volume

25

First Page

1

Publication Date

5-4-2021

Abstract

While academics and non-governmental organizations frequently challenge United States policy toward the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in articles and conference rooms, they rarely do so in courtrooms. Following the Trump administration’s issuance of Executive Order 13928, authorizing the imposition of sanctions on those who cooperate with I.C.C. efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute U.S. personnel or allies, or who materially assist in these efforts, however, four international law professors and the Open Society Justice Initiative decided to recur to the courts. Their October 2020 complaint, filed in federal court in New York, challenged the legality of the order and its implementing regulations on a number of different grounds. In a blogpost explaining their decision to sue, Professors Diane Marie Amann, Margaret deGuzman, Gabor Rona, and Milena Sterio wrote that the Executive Order undermined Nuremberg’s legacy of holding to account those who commit international crimes and caused them to fear that their constitutionally protected work, such as advising the I.C.C. Prosecutor on Afghanistan or other matters and commenting on the U.S.-I.C.C. relationship more generally, was at risk. This Insight explains and analyzes this litigation, and situates it in the broader context of U.S. policy toward the I.C.C., including the Biden administration’s recent revocation of the Executive Order on April 1, 2021

Comments

This article, first published as an ASIL Insight, is reprinted with permission from the American Society of International Law, www.asil.org. © American Society of International Law. 

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS