efter ae — oats, ieeposinof a itn ty mat be did Ta i ‘hot hesortefcntinecsnage nso noms dscsed nthe ingots chptes rout sot in pat by many every people fps ecg ter une ator” with ear frges theluapacton reigne wil belimite, The International Criminal Court David Wippman Jn uly 1898 afer years prparatoey work and fve werk ofnknsive ‘goto, 12st voted in Romeo approve atety inte te. {sblshthe ist penmancntiterationl Crea Court (CC) than ‘Bec yous nies, eth a speed that spied even the eats prop nes the tty spate the sey actions needed to bring Ho fore The Uni Sian nly ithe slat, vole gun he tay ae coins sear fo Ways Bm the rw cour each ‘ren though alt ale the United tte’ cee lcs have ted ‘ho realy oa moving onan alcaton, ‘This outcome was Pot preordaina. The United Slates under Pes ent Clinton, was preispsed to support elt at erating er ations rina coat. Sacha cout was consent with te Citon ‘Attn overall tite ota aman rights tn ase ‘ily for human ight abuos an with US pp eth Yopos ‘Roads war crime tuna In 1994, aeration ta Cath, ‘inion OL) produced & deat stats forthe lateral Cou ho ‘ulmiation of yen of work undetasen a the sept the Used [atin Geer Asem The def statue whi need ape Sper ce for the United Natoes Seewiy Coun eed tg ‘nical commiteat fons the Clan Adela sap Pins the I projet, The ILC draft atte umecour comments and rts fon, states and nee-governmental ganas (NCOs) lke Tee Soe ae Spoon eaters ms ESnaees‘he ato tert! Ln nme an ces were rece in the def consolidated text thot formed the basi for the 1998 Rome negotiators, but which ft fpen afte inpetant ad contested ewes. As the negotiations i ‘Rombegan he United Sats had eon obi at i vews would ttont enough vote fo produce arenty the Unie Sates could sup- ‘oreo tly Bat wen the Rome ngtatons ended ae United Shae at compel wo vote against the ary, aed ony by China, Ing raed Libya, Qatar, and Yen? Tina be pele to explain this outcome Inge in trms of ta tinal ccm of ene pure of terial intros, long te fins of inentional ei anaes tration aw ae plies. Bat sich {sreaplamation would be nia an sever! portant respect Povey nteratoalaw and eg intsns suchas the Fare {fete by powel sate to further ths ollie purposes. n this ese the largest and moet powerfal tats tbe United States, China, Tnclin and fo sate exe Rai all opposed the ent dope in Rome. More inportanty the ene ener ofcretingtheICC doe ot fit annoy tin te elt femework, Stes wishing lo mime thei fed of action iezaly an nection ny eneal have ‘lr In inelting their condct rom any authori extra ‘vio a svensment ven such sssements cant be enforced in ‘eeomventnal ene a decion by respected intationa bural Tht stt'sation (eran by Matera ating accordance with ‘fc poly) legal or wore, rina eaten undermine i tematonel srl dometicsapportforthe acon ssue Prom isla pol ot uprising ta the Neremberg, Yogosav, and Kwanda Frbunale wre all mpoted on parla tats By ofber sates whose trmactons would ntbensjato stn, atthe ome trent poten subjects mations roel slates to scrtiny ae post cin prosteullon, An intrested analy an account for this Outcome, Exkonly in poe “Sly » mesiber!instaonat ara, which ses sates as tational store in pura fle means to reais ini and Clletveilerest cptores only part of what transpired at Rome: ‘Th sme extents Ue Rome tetas modvted by a desi to salve 2 Te fen te ae wud rn ae in estan hitswaeces soonest seasetetme 1 ‘Tie ttt rial Covet aleve action problems and to ee the fanscon cost iene ‘nestling ad hac tbl Bt the Rome tat was even ever ‘hoe fnsdarently by dese cn he part of many ptr i Ihe egolintonso develop al sabe ners of imate eat by ster and nonstate cers. A suggested by Chasen Reus Smet ‘ape, einai anal works best ans Where sees can Pa [bly be son to be lene, pvexiing materia nest doos not ‘ork wlln explaining the cretion ofsstations such asthe ICC that srecrveninsigrant ps by normative cs well satrap "Amore comple undertaing of whit ane Rome ees ontderation fhe eons for an ofthe varias nee, inctoding both states and NGOs In patil i eur cnsceation ‘lov actor’ ints and ete nrc ¥ proce positions ‘Gh prea ones esse Further t oue consideration of the inet of he going, which dove actors to ne th ostons Inveayscompaible with he verllererprie of ceating nqUNesse- ‘aly gal ston, "Tis chapcr attempts to expan the outcome in Rome by exam ‘ning te tpuments made by te Une Stites and oor coats fon he key contested ses, nd ch ole fl and pics in the formation nnd relation of those arguments I politics under ‘oe bony tenons 8ggeted Py Rts Sot purpsivean ‘entity conatstve fume aon ondaconarwellasthose based on ‘alia intr, thn outcome in omnes etre by pols {hiss nce sce international nw ether eos as ‘bay ules ora poses of dosing aking) door ot provide ear Sewer to the hey contested ese Whater confine ecu’ {hl rection to genocide war ries, an crimes agaist humanity {th eventual majority positon) rt inlade Schoo ams os trfiching ira igpckng and errors Whether to request) Coun sathoruaton forte ination of investigations and pros ‘Snwor to confer ht power natn on anndepenentprenestor "nto the individu stnte pit hehe o adopt a brad ore ‘Sonal schene oe nacon one ave allquetona of rsitton] design {hata not ussptbleto eatin rough sample aplication of pre ting egal principe But fincompsto both heosclly an desepively tsa that law di not conta te contested rast Rome ny E08 werent ented preety bear they wer viewed by the Rome depts ts limply at wally coiled by preting lve Moreover, een cyThe Pat of eration ne the contest iases ze not goin a vacusn- The pares dae Roma nepotitons understood tht they were craig a nal t+ ‘on™ scrininal court witha defined jurisdiction over spied eines sd with formal proceso th eaon and cord of ns ‘ons the indent and lo lige ofenders, and he sentencing Si nenceration of those conte. This flor took place again = Sn cul only make sree ythin~ the Inger contest of exig fermonal ean inion. Beate nerstonal a has Tanguage of uta, mucho the segs Sa Rome tock te {hem of egal argument. These segues were deploys suport ofthe intr ofthe parca actos rang the argue Du the of invoking and pursing egal aguenttion in tr hep ‘hap the ange of posses vives as permis ard the coer {he anal agerementnparculr and tne way, Moreover ese legal arguments mere aio shape by competing general conceptions ‘fat leg inetatone nd rales sul ok ike ane what ee ‘erntonal iw ar tions sald pay strane alas Ik ‘urn howe comping ganeral conceptions were shaped by the ao? neptns of herurests an her ides. Tints sene aw and pli wer neepaabe x Rome shaped ‘he otee, The forms argumentation though, were distin. Legal = funn ok the form ofan aboot wha itemstiona aw res Srahould requze as lngal syst Tey enabled ctor to pros ose tions through nominal disinterested nvocaon of coped peinipes ged toler contexts and inavance ofthe Rome negations By cent pola arguments oo he form of aims about wat woud ‘would not advance the intrest of particular actors. They didnot “tppea to previously ageed-opon pips. oth Kins of arguments Sees flen made simulans or xen aumento whether Ue court shoul ever jredicton ver tational of tats Ut di ot tify the ety cresting te cout sets led on expt 2p- ealito olicl uterus for example powefl tats paul he [it Sts, wil or support or acept court th jneition over non-prtymatinas and sometion equally explicappeals to what inate! aw doce or dose 08 pera or eample, wets cannat ind non party stats). ‘Tetons argument tere seen asciferent natn, with ay ingappicabiy dependent sue ad he determina fens law wit spel that ure, he sndpeint of he pstian, lege argument on Sose sues hel he potenti a east Wey ‘Th tron Comin! Cart ‘bedapotv. The US contention that the Rome teat could no bind on paty tates as ne sch argument Delegates tote Roe one “nc not caput to oxatene or ality ot lg rl edo {phe Utes Ste rather they deni the accuey ofthe US promise Site cour seers of uralcton oer np tons Weald ‘enous tobi on-pstytatetoreay obligato they had aces. ‘Spt. Imply, was general aceped thal he US promise wee vali the egal ule governing non-party stats would conto even if ‘Wnty in thi instant he preferences of most ates. BY conta, ‘uments abou the proper latorehipbeieen he court and = UN uy Counal were nce to be predominantly pio, with ro argument inherently ispostive and everything at ast potently open to bagiting ‘On sme ses, lagl arguments joined pot arguments posse ‘by persuasive but not centoling Fer example many delegates ged tha te dfinton a ines tobe inluded with he courts aria ton track exiting international la oe as pone, fo sone fly constr, and bei, vl eportn 9 mest gal ‘ystems In adon ny pstiant inthe negodatens favoured ‘cr opposed proposed utr on the bai of thai peneived ih purl conceptions the oleo eration Ine neato [gal insttutos in promoting «ptr vison of iteration se Thus an expansive ridin forthe cour has bee supped 5 acento an eect criminal cour and attacked a3 fs fe ‘al overeaching sana the Untew Stats has variously boo urged te suppor the proposed court a a mien bolster iteration a feral orto oppose as an nsion on sovereign dion making Inappropriate for asl priv steraina legal order Iva effet t ase he rl fa eaorahip betven Ia and polls inthe ICC negation this chap examines he mares viding the United Snes from he ge majority of tates hat wted optic ste a partiar tcp eames he argues ‘nade with pect to the cole of fe Sect Counel in fern ce fo Use court the scape ofthe courts jurado and the artim of emplemontany swell asthe Went and interests of tose naling theangumnts The chaplerskoctaminetheystmic argument Sac nd against US support forthe IC ‘This review ofthe Rome regains supports the view acute by Reus that pots driven by normative a wel a mata encere an ht nw ibaa product and onatatve ofthe