Democratic Legitimacy and the International Criminal Court: A Liberal Defence

In response to the criticism that the International CriminalCourt is undemocratic, this article outlines a liberal conceptionof institutional legitimacy and defends its appropriatenessas a moral foundation for the International Criminal Court.In contrast to a communitarian concept of democracy (which seesdemocracy as an expression of the general will), liberals seepolitical legitimacy as stemming from a respect for fundamentalhuman rights. Thus, as long as the International Criminal Courtrespects the right of the accused to a fair trial, then it isa legitimate institution.     

Statement of Ralph G. Steinhardt,Professor of Law,before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary,U.S. House of Representatives

Conclusion The Alvarez-Machain decision demonstrates that there is no simple division between international law, on the one hand, and domestic or constitutional law, on the other. It is a domestic matter that U.S. citizens are suddenly vulnerable to reciprocal exercises of power by foreign states. It is a domestic matter if the decision compromises the international cooperation on which the drug war depends. It will certainly be no consolation to those whose lives depend on winning that war that the case involved a single, relatively obscure treaty with a single foreign country. It is a constitutional matter if the Court will no longer exercise independent judgment in the interpretation of the supreme law of the land or will view as optional agreements the rest of the world considers comprehensive and binding.And as we reflect on the importance of treaties in such areas as trade or-especially after President Yeltsin's visit last week-arms reduction, it becomes clear that treaties-though international in origin-are usually domestic in their impact. The Supreme Court's disposition in Alvarez-Machain seems radically at odds with this nation's long-term, sophisticated self-interest in assuring the domestic sanctity of international agreements.This statement was presented in a slightly altered form to the Subcommittee on June 22, 1992. Professor Steinhardt is Associate Director of the International and Comparative Law Program at the National Law Center, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; B.A., Bowdoin College 1976; J.D., Harvard University 1980.Professor Steinhardt appeared with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California in its representation of Dr. Alvarez-Machain in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and in the Supreme Court of the United States.     

Has modernity killed objectivity?

Among his writings are Searching for Safety; Risk and Culture; Speaking Truth to Power;and The Beleaguered Presidency.