The International Criminal Court represents the aspiration to live in a world where perpetrators of the gravest war crimes and atrocities are not immune from prosecution.[1]

The International Criminal Court is a deterrent and an important judicial institution in the prosecution and prevention of atrocity and war crimes, lifting the shroud of impunity to “influence the way nations, and especially their leaders, consider their choices”.[2]

However, in the world we live in, atrocity crimes and international war crimes will never be prevented completely, “but, as in domestic societies, we must work to deter crime where we can. And the International Criminal Court” is a vital institution and voice for the rule of law, justice, and “victims of atrocity crimes, conveying the simple message that humanity will no longer tolerate impunity for those who violate the fundamental norms of human conduct”.[3]

Not surprisingly, authoritarian leaders and governments have long attacked the integrity of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”), seeking to weaken the capacity of the international system of justice to constrain the behaviour of authoritarian powers.[4] 

The American Bar Association urges all national governments to observe, respect, and protect the independence of the International Criminal Court. Further … the ABA condemns threats by governments to the International Criminal Court and its officers and personnel in the performance of their duties.

– American Bar Association[5]

What is surprising is that the Trump administration – sparking concern in the U.S., its allies and partners, and across the international community – has taken the position that “the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority”, and implemented a unilateral Executive Order this year to enable sanctions to intimidate the International Criminal Court (from pursuing investigations) and criminalize cooperation with the Court.[6] This is a tragic mistake, providing cover to autocrats, authoritarians, and rogue states (intentionally or otherwise), undermining an important judicial institution, and needlessly impacting America’s reputation across the world.[7] As noted by General Wesley Clarke, a retired four-star general in the U.S. Army who served as NATO’s supreme allied commander (and author of ‘Winning Modern Wars’, ‘Waging Modern War’, and ‘A Time to Lead’):[8]

Attacks on the International Criminal Court and global rule of law leave countries, leaders and policymakers across the globe with two choices: accept the inevitability of a world in decline, or fight to restore and strengthen the world’s legal guardrails.

The rule of law is a fragile societal construct. Principled leadership is required at this time of polarization and fear, when institutional trust, social stability and fundamental democratic values and the rule of law are being undermined across the world.[9]

The assault that the [Trump administration] has launched on the international criminal court is not merely an attack on a valuable and necessary institution. … [It] is imposing sanctions not on those who commit atrocities, but on those who investigate such crimes. … The ICC is facing perhaps the biggest challenge of its … existence.

– Editorial, The Guardian[10]

Overview

Welcome to the 21^st century. Economic inequality and corruption is deepening, ‘big-money’ special interests are becoming increasingly more powerful and politically influential, democratic institutions are being undermined, racism and xenophobia is surging, and war crimes and atrocities across the world are being treated by some countries and political leaders with impunity.

The term ‘atrocity crimes’ refers to [four] legally defined international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes [and – since 2018 – crimes of aggression]. … Atrocity crimes are considered to be the most serious crimes against humankind.

– United Nations: Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes – A tool for prevention[11]

Societies today are facing increasing threats and pressures from authoritarian and populist political leaders and parties who traffic in, espouse and normalize extremist ideology and authoritarian positions that are contrary to established legal and political convention, in particular compliance with the rule of law and universally agreed rules of international law. It appears clear in today’s political environment that “what we need to be on guard for, in every” democratic “country, is not just the threat of intolerance” and racism and extremism and violence, “but also the sense of numbness and indifference that allows it to thrive” and infiltrate the mainstream of political and cultural discussion.[12] Around the world the rule of law is declining, from entrenched autocracies like Russia and China to even established democracies like the United States (now ranked outside of the top 20 democratic countries in the world, and well behind Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany).[13] The current illiberal tendencies currently on display in the U.S. and India, for example, “offer some insight into what a democracy in autocratic transition might look like. As the leaders of the world’s two largest democracies, their apparent shared disregard for norms, disdain for dissent (from the independent media and elsewhere), and dedication to strengthening their own executive power at the expense of state institutions designed to curb it” – in particular the rule of law and an independent and uncompromised judiciary[14]  – “have made them emblematic of the democratic deterioration that has been taking place in recent years”.[15]

Within this environment, the International Criminal Court – operating in a tsunami of international politics and a pressure cooker of authoritarian leaning political leaders looking to pursue their own narrow interests without regard to meaningful constraints imposed by the rule of law – “has recently been denounced by certain conservative politicians who argue that an international court represents a threat to their countries’ own courts. They ignore the fact that those who live within the law have no need to fear its reach. They ignore the fact that the ICC must defer to national courts when such courts are willing to try their own citizens for crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. They ignore the fact that not all courts are willing to do so”.[16]

I call upon all who believe in internationally recognized norms of human conduct to support the International Criminal Court and the system of international justice for which it stands. … I have carried the torch of working toward a more humane world under the rule of law my whole life. It’s high time to pass it on to the International Criminal Court—and the people who believe in what it stands for.

– Benjamin B. Ferencz, ‘Law, not war: A Nuremberg trial prosecutor on why we need the ICC’[17]

Sustaining the rule of law is, at the end of the day, a fundamental societal choice between creating a culture of lawfulness and justice for all citizens, even in bad times, or allowing authoritarian rule and power politics to prevail. Strengthening free and fair elections, a free press, independent prosecutors and judges, and trust in our institutions and leaders[18] are all critical to avoiding this state of affairs.[19]

The International Criminal Court is an independent, permanent court of last resort with jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the most serious criminal offences of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression, and war crimes.[20]

The ICC is a court of last resort, which anchors a system of justice for serious international crimes rooted in national courts. National authorities have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute atrocity crimes. The ICC only steps in when countries are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out national proceedings[21]:[22]

“The ICC was designed as a tribunal of last resort to be triggered only when countries proved unwilling, or unable, to try criminal cases in their own national courts. Unsurprisingly, the record of domestic prosecutions is not inspiring.”

In the spirit of the Nuremberg tribunals at the conclusion of the Second World War, the ICC – as the world’s first and only permanent international criminal court – is an essential component of the multilateral architecture upholding the rule of law. It embodies our collective commitment to fight impunity for international crimes,[23] generating facts, holding individuals and leaders accountable, and deterring future horrific conduct.

The fog of war – the uncertainty and confusion of battle – makes prosecution of war crimes difficult, at best. Dead civilians become collateral damage – the lamentable result of bad aim, poor training and faulty intelligence. But when the chain of command is complicit, it becomes all but impossible.

– ABA Journal[24]

Introduction

Across Western society there is a growing concern that the rule of law and our democratic values are declining, slowly giving way to a world in which populist and authoritarian leaning political leaders – tapping into social and economic insecurities, political polarization, and popular resentments – pursue their narrow interests without meaningful constraints.[25]

And the pursuit of international justice for perpetrators of atrocity and war crimes necessarily has political implications – in particular the weighing of the benefits of the rule of law and accountability against the costs of impunity (and political gain). The International Criminal Court, like other international bodies, require cooperation of countries across the world – and across the political spectrum – to make them function efficiently and, in some cases, at all. And the more closely ICC investigations and indictments follow on the heels of atrocities, the more likely they are to generate political challenges. If the political will is absent, the International Criminal Court and the rule of law for which it stands will founder.[26]

The current state of society demands a better understanding of atrocity and war crimes, the rule of law, and the legal solutions available.

The Nuremberg Trials after World War II and the United Nations-created ad hoc tribunals after the fall of Yugoslavia and the Rwandan massacre “established criminal trials as the international legal response after genocide and gross violations of human rights”.[27] The Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals were established in the wake of the Second World War in 1945, and the U.S. played a leading role in ensuring that atrocities and war crimes committed by the Nazis and Japanese military were addressed. In 1948, when the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted, the United Nations General Assembly recognised the need for a permanent international court to deal with the kinds of atrocities which had just been perpetrated. The idea of a system of international criminal justice re-emerged after the end of the Cold War in 1989[28]:[29]

“The legacy of the twentieth century is one of unsurpassed brutality. Within the span of one century, we have witnessed the genocide of Armenian civilians by the Turks in 1915; the murderous Japanese assault on Nanjing, China, in 1937; the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews in mid-century; the special horror of Josef Stalin’s crimes against his own people; apartheid in South Africa; the annihilation of millions of Cambodians by their fellow countryman, Pol Pot; the grotesque cruelties of Idi Amin in Uganda; vicious genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda; and the ongoing shame of Darfur, the Congo, and the other warring regions of the African continent. What, then, is the simple, powerful idea behind this great gathering? The International Criminal Court’s mandate is to prosecute the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the most serious offenses ever codified, making it a newborn with enough muscle to influence the way nations, and especially their leaders, consider their choices. It has been mandated to mount an assault on the age-old scourge of criminal impunity, on behalf of the peoples of the world.”

Justice is a key prerequisite for lasting peace. International justice can contribute to long‐term peace, stability and equitable development in post‐conflict societies. These elements are foundational for building a future free ​of violence. ​​

– International Criminal Court[30]

At the end of the twentieth century, two remarkable events took place. First was the end of the Cold War, which left the world at that time with the U.S. as the single economic and military superpower – which some political leaders and commentators across the political spectrum saw as a polarized, partisan and unequal society ripping apart its social fabric through its inherent refusal to address systemic causes – with growing influential centres’ created by a prosperous Pacific Rim, China as an emerging new superpower, and a stronger European Union. The second event was the birth of the International Criminal Court – the first permanent tribunal of its kind. The ICC was set up to prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. Its mandate is to confront impunity and demand accountability for the worst crimes known.[31]

Nearly two-thirds of the world’s countries created the ICC in the aftermath of genocides in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. They acted in the belief that a permanent court – more than the temporary international tribunals that came earlier to address crimes in individual countries or regions – would help bring an end to impunity for serious crimes. The ICC is the only global, permanent court with a mandate to prosecute those responsible for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. It acts as a backstop and a court of last resort when countries themselves fail to – or cannot – achieve justice for their citizens.[32]

On March 11, 2003, the new court was inaugurated into a world that was fast moving to one where powerful nations favour narrow interests over universal values, compete or cooperate in zero-sum games, and where authoritarian leaning political leaders (within even democratic nations) and authoritarian regimes threaten the international order and its system of alliances, norms, and institutions built up to ensure peace and prosperity over the last 75 years.[33] 

On the battlefield the rule of law is what separates a legitimate military operation from wanton criminal violence. The more the president intervenes in the military justice system, the harder it is for commanders to ensure that their troops remain on the right side of that sharp dividing line.

– ‘The Savage Injustice of Trump’s Military Pardons’, New York Times[34]

The International Criminal Court – A Primer

On July 17, 1998, in Rome, Italy, a conference of 160 States – representing all regions: Africa, the Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Western Europe and North America – established the first treaty-based permanent international criminal court.[35] The treaty adopted during that conference – known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – sets out a number of key elements, in particular the particular crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICC, the rules of procedure, and the mechanisms for States to cooperate with the ICC.[36]

The seat of the International Criminal Court is in The Hague in the Netherlands. The Rome Statute provides that the Court may sit elsewhere whenever the judges consider it desirable. The ICC is a permanent autonomous court, and not part of the UN or the International Court of Justice (which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations for the settlement of disputes between countries).[37]

The rule of law is fundamental to international peace and security and political stability. … Strengthening the rule of law involves respect for the norms of international law, including on the use of force, and recognition of the primary responsibility of States to protect their populations from genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes.

– United Nations and the Rule of Law[38]

The International Criminal Court is a permanent international court established to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most serious atrocity crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression:[39]

• The crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group – whether or not the country is in a state of war – by killing its members or by other means causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The acts may be committed by state officials or private individuals.
• Crimes against humanity are serious violations committed as part of a large-scale attack against any civilian population whether or not the country is in a state of war. The acts may be committed by state officials or private individuals, and against their own nationals or nationals of other states. The fifteen forms of crimes against humanity listed in the Rome Statute include offences such as murder, rape, imprisonment, enforced disappearances, enslavement (particularly of women and children), sexual slavery, torture, apartheid and deportation.
• War crimes are grave breaches of the Geneva conventions in the context of armed conflict that violate the rules of war, and include the killing or torture of persons such as civilians or prisoners of war; intentionally directing attacks against hospitals, historic monuments, or buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes; and the use of child soldiers.
• The crime of aggression (adopted into force on July 17, 2018) is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State. The act of aggression includes, among other things, invasion, military occupation, and annexation by the use of force, blockade of the ports or coasts, if it is considered being, by its character, gravity and scale, a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations. The perpetrator of the act of aggression is a person who is in a position to effectively exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State.

Atrocity crimes “target the victim’s humanity and common qualities that people across the world share”,[40] and are usually preceded by sustained exposure to and a routinization – the normalization – of hatred, expressed and acted upon.[41] This involves “processes of marginalizing or dehumanizing the identities of others (‘othering’) in order to justify” the “crimes”, [42] extrajudicial activity, and/or retribution by state sanctioned actors (i.e. military, law enforcement, immigration enforcement) and others (i.e. private citizens, extremists, self-styled militias, etc.).

The ICC is a judicial institution with an exclusively judicial mandate. It is not subject to political control. As an independent court, its decisions are based on legal criteria and rendered by impartial judges.

– International Criminal Court[43]

The International Criminal Court does not replace national criminal justice systems; rather, it complements them. The ICC can investigate and, where warranted, prosecute and try individuals only if the State concerned does not, cannot or is unwilling to genuinely do so. This might occur where proceedings are unduly delayed or are intended to shield individuals from their criminal responsibility. This is known as the principle of complementarity, under which priority is given to national systems. States always retain primary responsibility for trying the perpetrators of the most serious of crimes.[44]

When a State becomes a party to the Rome Statute, it agrees to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to the crimes enumerated in the Statute. The Court may exercise its jurisdiction in situations where the alleged perpetrator is a national of a State Party (a signatory country to the Rome Statute) or where the crime was committed in the territory of a State Party. Also, a State not party to the Rome Statute may decide to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC. These conditions do not apply when the UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, refers a situation to the Office of the Prosecutor.[45]

The ICC prosecutes individuals, not groups or States. Any individual who is alleged to have committed crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC may be brought before the ICC. In fact, the Office of the Prosecutor’s prosecutorial policy is to focus on those who, having regard to the evidence gathered, bear the greatest responsibility for the crimes, and does not take into account any official position that may be held by the alleged perpetrators:[46]

• No one is exempt from prosecution because of his or her current functions or because of the position he or she held at the time the crimes concerned were committed.
• Acting as a Head of State or Government, minister or parliamentarian does not exempt anyone from criminal responsibility before the ICC.
• In some circumstances, a person in a position of authority may even be held responsible for crimes committed by those acting under his or her command or orders.
• Likewise, amnesty cannot be used as a defence before the ICC. As such, it cannot bar the International Criminal Court from exercising its jurisdiction.

The ICC draws its legitimacy from the broad support for its establishment, with 123 member states. The US signed the Rome Statute, which created the body, but never ratified it.  

– The Guardian[47]

The Trump administration opposes the International Criminal Court:  issues pardons in war crimes cases, despite Pentagon, ABA, IBA opposition – contrary to American and Military Values and International Justice

The U.S. government is currently opposed to an international court that could hold U.S. military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice.[48] Recently the Trump administration has taken steps to undermine potential investigations into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, and to deter an investigation into alleged war crimes in Palestine:[49]

“Afghanistan is an ICC member country, meaning the ICC has a mandate over crimes committed there, regardless of the nationality of the person responsible for the crime. The court’s prosecutor could also probe those responsible for authorising, or failing to punish, the well-documented torture and other ill-treatment of detainees by US military and CIA personnel in connection with the conflict in Afghanistan. This has provoked the ire of the US, which has long failed to deal meaningfully with a legacy of torture by US personnel in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

The US is also seeking to deter an investigation in Palestine. The court’s prosecutor has concluded an investigation there is merited – one that would likely cover unlawful Israeli settlements in the West Bank and alleged war crimes by the Israeli military and Palestinian armed groups during the 2014 hostilities in Gaza.” 

[G]overnment can’t function effectively if the democratic process and the rule of law are viewed as expendable.

– Los Angeles Times[50]

As noted by the Brookings Institute, “under international law, where U.S. citizens commit crimes in countries that have ratified the Rome Statute, such as Afghanistan or Iraq, they may be prosecuted. The court’s jurisdiction over Americans in the Afghanistan case is based on the fact that those crimes occurred — in whole or in part — in Afghanistan, which ratified the Rome Statue back in February 2003”.[51] 

However, “the ICC was established as a court of secondary jurisdiction, leaving national governments as the primary actors to hold their soldiers and commanding officers responsible for war crimes. The court can only step in where national governments fail to undertake investigations and prosecutions themselves. As part of the ICC proceedings, the trial court assessed whether the U.S. had done so and found that ‘no national investigations have been conducted against those who may be most responsible’”.[52] To date, “the ICC’s need for U.S. political support and investigative assistance has meant that the court has given the U.S. the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, offering an added layer of protection against investigations of U.S. conduct”:[53]   

“While the U.S. and the ICC have long had a troubled past, the court has sought to retain as productive a working relationship with the U.S. as possible. That goal was understandable, given the see-saw nature of U.S. engagement with the ICC. Back in 2000, President Clinton signed the Rome Statute establishing the Court. During President Bush’s first term, the U.S. made clear that it would not formally join the court and actively sought to undermine its work by pressuring other countries to sign agreements barring them from sending Americans to be prosecuted or face aid cutoffs.

But, during President Bush’s second term, the U.S. and the ICC saw a rapprochement when the U.S. allowed the U.N. Security Council to give the court authority to prosecute the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Under President Obama, relations warmed still further as the U.S. engaged more closely with the court and even offered assistance with evidence collection. In 2010, State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh announced his intention to meet with the “prosecutor at the ICC to examine whether there are specific ways that the United States might be able to support the particular prosecutions that already underway in the Democratic Republic of Congo, [and] Sudan.” Some such evidence became part of the prosecutor’s investigatory files. While the U.S. never ratified the Rome Statute, the ICC knew it was better off with tacit support from and a good working relationship with the U.S. This is not to suggest that the Obama administration was trying to appease the ICC to avoid prosecution, but rather that the ICC, a politically savvy actor chooses its cases carefully and focused its attention elsewhere in part because it valued a good relationship with the U.S. and understood the Obama administration to be continuing the war in Afghanistan largely in compliance with international humanitarian law.

The ICC’s hopes for a productive working relationship with the U.S. quickly dimmed under the Trump administration. Speaking at the U.N. General Assembly, President Trump proclaimed: “As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority.” 

Most recently, in June 2020 the Trump administration utilized emergency powers – a unilateral process to act without Congress that lasts for one year unless renewed – to intimidate the Court (from pursuing investigations) and criminalize cooperation with the International Criminal Court’s investigation of U.S. activity in Afghanistan, effectively stonewalling the investigation.[54] President Trump’s Executive Order (E.O.) 13928 enabled sanctions against “officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members” working at the International Criminal Court, including potentially its judges[55]:[56]

“President Trump declared a national emergency [in June 2020] — but it wasn’t about the covid-19 pandemic or police brutality or nationwide protests. Rather, the subject of the emergency declaration was the International Criminal Court, the body investigating the United States for suspected war crimes in Afghanistan.

Trump announced that the ICC represents an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States’. The executive order pushes back by authorizing economic and diplomatic sanctions on ICC personnel working on the Afghanistan probe and anyone who helps them.

The Trump administration has consistently and directly opposed the ICC, in contrast to the more passive opposition or even ad hoc support from previous administrations. The goal, as amplified by other U.S. officials, is to undermine the court, not only by interfering with the Afghanistan investigation but also investigations that don’t directly affect the United States. …

The sanctions order applies to any foreign person who materially supports or is directly involved in ICC efforts to ‘investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute any United States personnel’. … [An] unusual aspect of this executive order is the implication that U.S. officials could target human rights advocates and nongovernmental organizations, since they regularly work with the ICC and affected communities on investigations.”

A majority of Americans agree it is important for the United States to participate in international organizations that support human rights and that hold individuals accountable for mass atrocities.

– Ipsos Poll on behalf of the American Bar Association[57]

It is “important to highlight that the Trump Administration’s uncompromisingly hostile attitude towards the Court does not reflect the attitudes of the U.S. populace as they have been expressed in a number of national polls”.[58] Unfortunately, according to the Pew Research Centre, an average of 64% of people across 34 countries do not believe that elected officials care what ordinary citizens think, and nearly 60% of American respondents – and 69% of Britons – were “not satisfied” with the way their democracy was working.[59]

Despite the majority of American’s supporting the International Criminal Court,[60] the Trump administration “is imposing sanctions not on those who commit atrocities, but on those who investigate such crimes”.[61] President Trump has repeatedly invoked federal emergency powers to pursue his narrow interests and more controversial political priorities. 

At this fragile moment in our country and globally, the U.S. government must find ways to address its stated concerns without alienating other countries that have supported international justice or signaling to those who may face the scrutiny of institutions like the ICC that intimidation is an acceptable means of avoiding accountability.

– Ambassador David Scheffer, ‘The Self-Defeating Executive Order Against the International Criminal Court’[62]

The actions are contrary to the Rule of Law, and undermine society’s common endeavor to fight impunity and to ensure accountability for mass atrocities and war crimes.[63] As noted by several legal observers, the Trump administration, if strictly concerned about an ICC jurisdictional incursion, could have simply ‘invoked its right to investigate alleged war crimes itself’ as this would bar ICC jurisdiction, as opposed to what appears to be a “shot across the bows” of the International Criminal Court and global rule of law, and a billets-doux directed to dictators and authoritarians around the globe (setting a dark precedent and dangerous leadership model for authoritarian and rogue states such as Russia, Syria, North Korea, Myanmar, etc.).[64]

Ultimately, “though Mr. Trump and his administration will not see it, this attack” against the ICC and global rule of law “may be more damaging to America’s reputation and authority than it will be to the court’s”.[65]

The Trump administration “does not” appear to “believe in generally applicable legal restraints on the force employed by armed agents of the state”, whether “military or civilian” law enforcement.  As a result, it appears that the Trump administration may be doing “with the U.S. military what he has done with the police and immigration enforcement”, forging “the institution into a partisan weapon for himself to wield against his enemies”.[66]

The Trump administration’s opposition to the very existence of the International Criminal Court undermines the global rule of law (and weakens the U.S. standing internationally by alienating its allies), but likely is not a surprise to many leaders around the world in light of his actions undermining the rule of law domestically (within the U.S. itself). It appears to be a continuation of his worldview and assault on the rule of law (at the expense of both domestic and international peace and security and political stability).[67] Democracy, the rule of law, and our institutions are stable and functional – until they are not.[68] There is a vast difference between a nation whose arrangements roughly serve all its citizens, and one whose institutions have been eroded from their democratic moorings, weakened “little by little”[69] over time into one that respects democracy, the rule of law, and judicial independence in name only.[70] For example:

• Although President Trump was talked out of authorizing torture by his advisers, the president’s support for violations of the laws of war has manifested itself in his decisions to intervene in the U.S. military justice system – in respect to war-crimes cases – on behalf of convicted or accused defendants. In four separate cases since the beginning of his presidency, and for the first time in the history of modern warfare, an American president has aided members of the U.S. military accused or convicted of war crimes before the U.S. military justice system (i.e. desecrating corpses, deliberately injuring and killing civilians, engaging in premeditated murder), against the advice of his own military leadership.[71]
• Violations of the laws of war are among the most serious crimes members of the military can commit. A president pardoning or commuting the sentences of those convicted of war crimes, or halting judicial proceedings before they are completed, rightfully raises questions as to the respect for, and adherence to, the rule of law and laws of armed conflict.[72]
• As well, issuing pardons, countermanding demotions, or otherwise interfering with the legal processes for investigating and punishing such crimes makes it more difficult for military commanders to maintain control of their subordinates. Many former U.S. officials have warned that Trump’s war-crime pardons undermine “good order and discipline” and that all service members “are subject to the rule of law like any other government official” (including wielding force per the law and comporting themselves honourably on and off the battlefield).[73]
• Such pardons by a U.S. president undermines the military organizational culture and military justice system – normalizing deviance[74] and creating a sub-culture rendering “the law-abiding majority of American service members disloyal for following rules that others were loyal enough to break. Under this twisted moral framework, it is the service members who turned in and testified against their comrades for violating the laws of war who showed insufficient patriotism”.[75] The pardons may be seen as providing members of the military “the perceived authority to act illegally and unethically” and holding back “whistleblowers from coming forward to report that behaviour”.[76] The pardons accomplish three unfortunate goals: (1) sabotage the U.S. military justice system,[77] (2) effectively advise the Pentagon and military justice system not to prosecute American soldiers who commit atrocities in other countries,[78] and (3) “send a disturbing signal to” autocrats and authoritarians and their “military forces all around the world”.[79] This is bad for the rule of law, the U.S. military, and broader civilian society within the US and across the world: “absolving people who commit war crimes does great harm to society” and “the men and women who served honorably”.[80]
• The U.S. military in investigating the allegations, and initiating and completing criminal proceedings, had been in compliance with US military justice and international law.  President Trump’s pardons for the accused war criminals – used to simply void the otherwise proper process of law, justice and fairness – is contrary to the rule of law and international law.[81]
• The Trump administration’s policies and authoritarian behaviour – through pardons, abdication of oversight, harsh rhetoric and racist views, relentless disinformation campaigns and politics of demonization, support for extrajudicial retribution (including incitement of armed militias, embracing white nationalists, and celebration of violence against journalists), and executive orders – may be viewed as negative examples of leadership that have undermined the rule of law, and encouraged domestic violent policing and international war crimes.[82] 
• The Trump administration’s aggressive posture towards allies (read NATO and the G7), and its attacks on multilateral organizations (i.e. threatening ICC judges, refusing to nominate appellate judges to the WTO, withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council), have plunged the rule of law, the transatlantic community, and the international order into a profound crisis.[83]
• As noted by Freedom House (founded in 1941 by Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie), “no president in living memory has shown less respect for [democracy’s] tenets, norms, and principles. [President] Trump has assailed essential institutions and traditions including the separation of powers, a free press, an independent judiciary, the impartial delivery of justice, safeguards against corruption, and most disturbingly, the legitimacy of elections”. The president has “urged the Department of Justice to prosecute his political opponents and critics. He has used his pardon power to reward political and ideological allies and encourage targets of criminal investigations to refuse cooperation with the government”. As the current “president casts doubt on the importance of basic democratic values”, judicial independence and the rule of law within America itself (his own society) – across the world allies and rivals “see Trump and the political culture that created him heralding the decline of American democracy”, to the point that that for many world leaders it is no longer surprising to see international institutions and the global rule of law similarly treated by the Trump administration.[84]
• The “reality is that other countries pay close attention to the conduct of the world’s oldest functioning democracy. The continuing deterioration of U.S. democracy will hasten the ongoing decline in global democracy” and rule of law, and continue to damage the “international order”.[85]

Absent evidence of innocence or injustice the wholesale pardon of US service members accused of war crimes signals our troops and allies that we don’t take the Law of Armed Conflict seriously. Bad message. Bad precedent. Abdication of moral responsibility. 

– General Marty Dempsy (retired)[86]

The most deadly countries in the world are not necessarily at war – they are highly unequal, highly polarized democracies like the U.S. facing a cocktail of political, criminal and state sanctioned violence. Trust in the government is at a near-historic low of 17%. And in this environment institutional guardrails – the rule of law and the institutions that secure it[87] – are eroding. Politicians who see a path to power by enabling violence pose the greatest danger. When opportunistic politicians get a foothold, they break institutional guardrails with astonishing speed – they accelerate political polarization, stack the courts with politically favourable judges (motivated by ideology, politics and/or preferred policy outcomes rather than the rule of law), gin up violent sentiment, and legitimize domestic extremists/white nationalists and war criminals (normalization of deviation)[88]:[89]

“A country’s final line of defense is a professional, non-political security service that refuses to use force against civilians. Even if the tinder has been laid and an institution-destroying politician sends sparks flying, the conflagration rarely catches until state violence is turned on peaceful opposition.

The United States has one of the world’s most professional militaries. But [it] also ha[s] 18,000 local police forces and myriad state and federal security agencies with different norms and levels of professionalization. Since the beginning of his presidency, Trump has … [used] incendiary language and pardons for lawbreaking, he has encouraged violence against civilians.”

At its core, the issue is … the United States’ insistence that its nationals – and those of its close ally—be treated as above the law.  As such, it is the Order itself – a desperate measure designed to ensure impunity for acts of torture and other violations of international law—that poses the true threat, both to US standing in the world, and to the rule of law globally.

 – Professor Jennifer Trahan and Professor Megan Fairie[90]

President Trump’s Executive Order against the International Criminal Court in June 2020 sparked international concern, leading to an unprecedented number of public statements and responses from governments, diplomats, jurists, bar associations (including the International Bar Association and the American Bar Association), and members of civil society across the United States and the international community:[91] 

“Amnesty International and others have pointed out that the E.O. is so vague and broadly worded that it might reach anyone providing any assistance at all to the Court, including expert (and perhaps even percipient) witnesses, national human rights researchers, defense counsel, state parties (who are under cooperation obligations), student interns, and even ordinary venders. At the time the E.O. was issued, no one was designated and so it operated as a warning shot. …

The global community reacted to this threat escalation with opprobrium, generating an unprecedented number of public statements and responses. A number of states and multilateral political bodies immediately weighed in, dispending with the customary diplomatic niceties to express their acute concern about the devolving U.S. stance toward the Court. Remarkably, this included ten members of the U.N. Security Council who are also ICC member states, including two permanent members: France and the United Kingdom. In their joint statement, the Council members reconfirmed their “unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution” and reiterated their “commitment to uphold the principles and values enshrined in the Rome Statute and to preserve its integrity, undeterred by any threats against the Court, its officials, and those cooperating with it.” A number of the United States’ allies and partners also weighed in separately — including the European Union, France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom — expressing support for the Court and urging the United States to withdraw the E.O. These states noted that the threat of sanctions was an attack on the Court, all ICC states parties, the independence of the judiciary, and multilateralism itself.

A group of 175 legal scholars, jurists, and lawyers similarly pressed the Trump administration to rescind the E.O. Acknowledging that the signatories represented ‘a diversity of views toward the Court’, they could all agree that seeking to sanction war crimes investigators and international judges is ‘wrong in principle, contrary to American values, and prejudicial to U.S. national security’. Among the signatories was the remarkable Ben Ferencz, the last surviving Nuremberg prosecutor, a staunch advocate for U.S. support for contemporary international justice efforts in keeping with its post-World War II legacy, and an all-around national treasure. Ferencz joined a letter penned by former Ambassadors-at-Large for War Crimes Issues/Global Criminal Justice – who served in Republican and Democratic administrations – and other former international prosecutors that expressed dismay at the issuance of the E.O. So too did U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, who stated: ‘This announcement is predictable from a President whose idea of justice is to encourage the police to abuse prisoners, pardon his friends, and override the Pentagon in cases of military justice’. …

One of the most powerful — and perhaps surprising — voices to emerge in opposition to the E.O. was that of General Clark, the retired four-star general who (among other impressive posts) served as NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe from 1997-2000. General Clark argued that the Trump administration’s approach to the ICC neither scores short-term political points nor advances the United States’ long-term interests. He wrote, ‘[g]reat nations are willing to face the truth, accept accountability, and admit their mistakes’. He insisted that the United States should be willing to subject itself to scrutiny, even if it is ‘uncomfortable’ to do so. ‘And when Americans’ actions are scrutinized’, he argued, ‘the U.S. government should have the confidence to react in a way that preserves the benefits of these institutions, protects U.S. personnel, and does justice to American values’. …

Not surprisingly, elements of the Court itself reacted with disbelief, regret, and anger to the issuance of the E.O. Judge O-Gon Kwon, President of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), immediately issued a statement decrying the ‘unprecedented’ measures; pledging ‘to preserve [the Court’s] integrity undeterred by any measures and threats against the Court and its officials, staff and their families’; and announcing the convening of an extraordinary meeting of the ASP Bureau. More than half of the ICC member countries joined a further statement in support of the Court and the preservation of ‘an international rules-based order’. The President of the Court, Chile Eboe-Osuji decried Pompeo’s ‘bullying tactic’ in an op-ed in The New York Times and elsewhere. The Prosecutor indicated her intention to continue her work ‘without fear or favor’. …

Many human rights and faith-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have called upon states to rally in support of the Court in the face of ‘virulent threats’ and an all-out assault by the Trump administration. Dozens of human rights organizations signed an open letter arguing: ‘the U.S. government must find ways to address its stated concerns without alienating other countries that have supported international justice or signaling to those who may face the scrutiny of institutions like the ICC that intimidation is an acceptable means of avoiding accountability’. …

The ABA adopted a formal policy at its 2020 Annual Meeting ‘urg[ing] all national governments to observe, respect, and protect the independence of the International Criminal Court’; and ‘condemn[ing] threats by governments to the International Criminal Court and its officers and personnel in the performance of their duties’. 

A statement by the International Bar Association was equally hard hitting: ‘The IBA is appalled by the United States Government’s continued campaign to intimidate ICC staff. … The unprecedented punitive application of sanctions on a legitimate judicial institution is a shameful move to undermine the Court’s authority and to obstruct its investigations’.

President Donald Trump’s June 11 executive order on the International Criminal Court (ICC) appears to be more an exercise in scaremongering and political theater than a good-faith response to what Trump has labeled a ‘national emergency’. … Nothing good will come of the ICC E.O. [Executive Order] … As with so many Trump administration decisions, America’s reputation will needlessly suffer, and with it, an important foreign policy tool will grow less effective.

– Rob Berschinski, ‘Trump’s ICC EO Will Undercut All U.S. Sanctions Programs’, Just Security[92]

The European Union has called the sanctions unacceptable – being detrimental to efforts to secure international justice for war crimes – and has urged the Trump administration to reconsider.[93] Sixty-seven independent countries (including the UK, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) endorsed the following statement in support of the International Criminal Court following the Trump Administration’s Executive Order of June 11, 2020:[94]

“As States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), we reconfirm our unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution. In line with the 11 June press release of the President of the Assembly of States Parties, we reiterate our commitment to uphold and defend the principles and values enshrined in the Rome Statute and to preserve its integrity undeterred by any measures or threats against the Court, its officials and those cooperating with it.

We remain committed to an international rules-based order. The ICC is an integral part of this order and a central institution in the fight against impunity and the pursuit of justice, which are essential components of sustainable peace, security and reconciliation. We will therefore continue to respect our cooperation obligations under the Rome Statute and we call on all States to ensure full cooperation with the Court for it to carry out its important mandate of ensuring justice for the victims of the most serious crimes of international concern.

We recall that the ICC is a court of last resort, which anchors a system of justice for serious international crimes rooted in national courts. National authorities have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute Rome Statute crimes. The ICC only steps in when States are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out national proceedings.

The ICC, as the world’s first and only permanent international criminal court, is an essential component of the multilateral architecture upholding the rule-of-law. It embodies our collective commitment to fight impunity for international crimes. By giving our full support to the ICC and promoting its universal reach, we defend the progress we have made together towards an international rules-based order, of which international justice is an indispensable pillar.”

How can you have conversations with global leaders about obeying the rule of law with other countries when your own government is admitting it will break international law?

– CNN[95]

Canada values the important role played by the ICC in investigating and prosecuting the most serious international crimes.  Canada showed it’s further concern with respect to the Trump Administration’s recent sanctions against officials of the ICC in September when it stated as follows:[96]

“On September 2, 2020, the United States imposed financial sanctions against Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor of the ICC, and Phakiso Mochochoko, Head of the Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Cooperation Division in the Office of the Prosecutor. Other unidentified persons were added to the U.S. visa restriction list.

Canada is disappointed by the US announcement and is worried about personnel of the International Criminal Court being targeted for the important work that they do.

Canada values the important role played by the ICC in investigating and prosecuting the most serious international crimes.

Canada will continue to respect the independence of both the judges of the court and of the Prosecutor of the ICC and her office.”

Multilateralism is under fire precisely when we need it most. In this “dangerous and uncertain time, Canada should” consider increasing “its co-operation with its closest friends and allies, even as it reaches out to new partners around the world”. Canada’s relationship with its North American neighbours will always be paramount, but in “recalibrating its international engagement, Canada” should consider “deepening its foreign policy collaboration with the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand” in light of their “shared geopolitical interests and democratic values”. All four countries are committed to, and benefit from, an international order where might does not make right, where democracy, human rights, gender equality and principles of inclusion and tolerance are upheld, and where rules and norms of behaviour govern diplomacy:[97]

“None of this implies that Canada should overlook other important partners. On the contrary, now is the time to deepen relations with Indo-Pacific democracies like Japan, South Korea and India, and ASEAN members like Singapore and Vietnam. Canada should also reinvigorate the Commonwealth and the Francophonie, and redouble its commitments to NATO and its longstanding European allies.”

In this vein, stressing the importance of promoting the rule of law, Germany’s Foreign Minister has also indicated that they “want to shape (the future global order) so that it is based on rules and international cooperation, not on the law of the strong. That is why” Germany has stated that it has “intensified cooperation with those countries that share” their “democratic and liberal values”.[98] The only way forward is collective, common-sense action for the common good – that is how trust is rebuilt, that is how the rule of law is respected and maintained.

[T]hough Mr. Trump and his administration will not see it, this attack [on the ICC] may be more damaging to America’s reputation and authority than it will be to the court’s.

– Editorial, ‘US sanctions are an appalling attempt to thwart an ICC investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan’, The Guardian[99]

Conclusion

The complex political, social and economic transformation of modern society has brought the world challenges and opportunities “which require a collective response which must be guided by the rule of law, as it is the foundation of friendly and equitable relations between states and the base of fair societies”.[100] The rule of law is “fundamental to international peace and security and political stability”.[101]

And once lost, justice and a peaceful society is difficult to reinstate.[102]

By supporting the [International Criminal] Court, the countries that have joined the Rome Statute system have taken a stand against those who, in the past, would have had no one to answer to after committing widespread, systematic international crimes. The ICC calls on all countries to join the fight against impunity, so that perpetrators of such crimes are punished, and to help prevent future occurrences of these crimes.

– International Criminal Court[103]

Unfortunately, there is a growing body of evidence depicting stress cracks in the rule of law[104] – with one commentator suggesting “the rule of law” is “like a suspension bridge, still upright, but with cables snapping one by one”.[105] 

And across Western society, whether in the U.S. or the EU or elsewhere, “having a major political party that is willing to embrace” authoritarianism and “lawlessness in order to stay in power is perhaps the biggest threat to democracy” and the rule of law “that we face today”.[106] When addressing the rule of law and democracy nexus, a fundamental distinction has to be drawn between ‘rule by law’ – whereby law is an instrument of government and the government and the powerful are considered above the law – and ‘rule of law’ – which requires that everyone in society is bound by and accountable to the law, including the government (and its leaders), institutions (i.e. military, law enforcement) and the financial and influential elite. Rule by law describes the situation where you have laws and those laws are intended to govern, but the rule of law is absent:[107]

“Nazi Germany serves as a good example from history (as ever). Many laws were made, promulgated, and then administered by a judiciary. There is no doubt that the law existed and that it governed. However, no one could dispute that there was a clear absence of the rule of law. …

The point at which you set out on a course of action placing you above the law, or advocate a belief that it is acceptable to break the law (something no citizen can unilaterally do and hope to escape punishment), is the point at which [a nation’s political party and leadership have now] abandoned the rule of law as a guiding principle.”

In many cases a ‘dual state’ in which a nation continues to operate under the formal, democratic legal apparatus – but with legal impunity for the ruling party (its leaders and its supporters) – destroys the rule of law even while retaining laws, judges, and other formal trappings of a working system.[108] Open condemnation or contempt for the law – including support for extrajudicial retribution – by a political party or leader “sends a signal about whom the law constrains and whom it protects. The fashioning of a more equal society means sending a different message: The rule of law must bind everyone, just as it protects everyone”. [109]

One need only “open your newspaper” to read about countries – societies in formerly strong democratic nations – where the rule of law and the justice system look to be faltering. A frightening example is the “consensus among comparative politics scholars that the” U.S. Republican Party is currently “one of the most anti-democratic political parties in the developed world. It is one of a handful of once-centrist parties that has, in recent years, taken a turn toward the extreme” (resembling more extreme right-wing parties like Viktor Orbán’s in Hungary and Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s in Turkey “that have actively worked to dismantle democracy in their own countries”).[110]  Equality before the law, justice for all, fails in an unequal society and where judicial independence and the rule of law is eroded “little by little, by small, seemingly innocuous changes”[111] by the political leadership:[112]

“Democracy no longer ends with a bang, but with a whimper: the slow, steady weakening of critical institutions and the gradual erosion of long-standing political norms.”

I’ll Never Question 1938 In Germany Again. … When I talk to Republican politicians, I hear Franz von Papen [the German chancellor who downplayed the threat and rise of Adolf Hitler and his political party].

– Stuart Stevens, former Republican Strategist[113]

A country’s military is a professional force designed to employ the measured and disciplined application of force on behalf of a nation.[114] Unfortunately, history has repeatedly encountered dark hours when politics – illegal use of force, abuse of power, unwarranted interference and so on – subdues the rule of law,[115] and in worst-case scenarios (such as the two world wars) the international system crumbled.

We appear to be headed down this type of dark path once again as the Trump administration has made the International Criminal Court its latest target in undermining the global rule of law – using sanctions and “tools usually reserved for human rights violators, not those seeking to hold them to account in fair trials”[116]:[117]

“The ICC? Really? Threatening the national security of a world superpower? This is a Court that has no police force of its own; is located far away in The Hague; has no territorial jurisdiction over the United States as the state has not joined the ICC’s founding Treaty. This is simply a Court of last resort, which steps in if no State is able or willing to prosecute those accused of committing the most heinous crimes known to humankind under laws that the United States accepts and used itself to prosecute the Nazis at Nuremberg. Yes, the Court has on its docket the investigation of crimes in Afghanistan and the possibility of investigating crimes in Palestine that implicate important U.S. interests, but there are many more reasonable measures the administration could have adopted to advance those interests than declaring that they constitute a ‘national emergency’ and that the Institution authorizing them and persons conducting them should be punished for their ‘transgressions’.

The press conference announcing the [Executive] order was full of hyperbole, scaremongering, and bluster, and has provoked an overwhelmingly negative reaction from several U.S. war crimes ambassadors, the American Bar Association, the International Bar Association, academics and a number of NGOs. As former war crimes ambassadors Clint Williamson, David Scheffer and Stephen Rapp have noted, the [Executive Order] is largely ‘self-defeating’,” and threatens US standing and leadership in the world.”

The stakes could not be higher in today’s difficult international landscape. We are once again in a period of less-effective international rule of law where a contempt for law and proper process and the gaming of the judicial system may bring short-term political gains – but at the cost of complicated wider problems.[118]  The Trump administration is squandering the trust that the U.S. has built with the world over the years (as the leader and champion of democracy) as it repudiates the rules-based international system: “If the administration can deem the ICC a threat to national security, it” can “use the same tactic on every international institution with which it has a difference of view and any person or entity with whom it disagrees”.[119]

In the face of the growing belligerence and repudiation of the rule of law by the Trump administration both at home (i.e. police violence toward its racialized communities) and abroad (i.e. pardoned military atrocities in other countries), it has become increasingly clear that as U.S. leadership fades and “the world becomes more lawless” – think Russia’s annexation of Crimea and alleged atrocity crimes in the Ukraine, or China discarding treaty pledges to uphold the rule of law in Hong Kong and alleged abuses against the Uighur communities within their borders – “the International Criminal Court must be strengthened”.[120]

Convening fellow democracies with the United States “at the head of the table” — as Biden suggests — might help reassert American global leadership post-Trump and create greater leverage to defuse crises and solve problems. But the unipolar moment, with America as the sole indispensable power, is over. … Trump’s overall approach to foreign relations is clearly an aberration. But our allies now question whether America remains as committed to democratic values and is fit to lead.

– Aaron David Miller and Richard Sololsky[121]

Respect for the rule of law is the vital separation between democracy and authoritarianism. The maintenance, development and promotion of the rule of law is of fundamental importance for a just society, and the difference between good and bad government. As noted by Tom Bingham in his celebrated book The Rule of Law, “in a world divided by differences of nationality, race, colour, religion and wealth the rule of law is one of the greatest unifying factors, perhaps the greatest… It remains an ideal, but an ideal worth striving for, in the interests of good government and peace, at home and in the world at large”.[122]

The rule of law is often used as shorthand for the existence of good governance,[123] and a long tradition of support for the international rule of law has served the U.S. well abroad. And the world.

A unified response by like-minded nations must take affirmative steps to reclaim the mantle of global leadership, supporting the International Criminal Court and working cooperatively to meet the most challenging regional and global problems and security tensions. Public officials, policymakers, business leaders, the legal profession, academics, an independent media, and citizens all “have fundamentally important roles to play in maintaining and protecting judicial independence and the rule of law, speaking up when officials – including Presidents, Prime Ministers, and their Attorney Generals (who are supposed to be the guardians of the public interest and rule of law) – ‘violate constitutional norms’, undermine judicial independence, and subvert public policy and the rule of law”.[124]

Perhaps more than ever we need leaders of conviction and courage to step out of their comfort zone to make bold statements and set bold objectives and model a bold way forward – protecting the International Criminal Court and rule of law, and inspiring a shared vision for our institutions and system of justice. Showing the flag, if you will, for civilization and law, reassuring and building trust that there are still boundaries that will be defended.

Eric Sigurdson

Endnotes:

---

[1] Benjamin Ferencz, Law, not war: A Nuremberg trial prosecutor on why we need the ICC, Maclean’s, November 8, 2018; Facing Political Attacks, Limited Budget, International Criminal Court Needs Strong Backing to Ensure Justice for Atrocity Crimes, President Tells General Assembly, United Nations (un.org), October 29, 2018.

[2] Erna Paris, The Sun Climbs Slow: The International Criminal Court and the Struggle for Justice, Vintage Canada, 2009; David Bosco, The International Criminal Court and Crime Prevention: Byproduct or Conscious Goal?, Michigan State Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, Issue 2, 2011; Stefano Marinelli, The Approach to Deterrence in the Practice of the International Criminal Court, International Law Blog, April 6, 2017.

[3] Benjamin Ferencz, Law, not war: A Nuremberg trial prosecutor on why we need the ICC, Maclean’s, November 8, 2018; Facing Political Attacks, Limited Budget, International Criminal Court Needs Strong Backing to Ensure Justice for Atrocity Crimes, President Tells General Assembly, United Nations (un.org), October 29, 2018.

[4] Nasredeen Abdulbari, Attacks on the International Criminal Court are Attacks on War Crimes Victims, Harvard Human Rights Journal, March 4, 2019.

[5] ABA Adopts Policy Condemning Threats Against the ICC and Its Officers, ABA-ICC.org, August 3, 2020. Also see, Beth Van Schaack, The Int’l Criminal Court Executive Order: Global Reactions Compiled, Just Security (justsecurity.org), September 1, 2020; ABA Policy on the ICC, ABA-ICC.org.

[6] William Burke-White, The Trump administration misplayed the International Criminal Court and Americans may now face justice for crimes in Afghanistan, Brookings.edu, March 11, 2020. Also see, Editorial, The Guardian view on Trump and the international criminal court: an attack on human rights – US sanctions are an appalling attempt to thwart an ICC investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, Guardian, June 21, 2020; Beth Van Schaack, The Int’l Criminal Court Executive Order: Global Reactions Compiled, Just Security (justsecurity.org), September 1, 2020; Paul Rosenzweig and Vishnu Kannan, Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform, Lawfare, September 7, 2020; Andrew Boyle, Trump’s Latest Abuse of Emergency Powers Highlights a Dangerous Law in Need of Change, Brennan Center (brennancenter.org), June 24, 2020; Anthony Deutsch, Human rights lawyers sue Trump administration over ICC sanctions, Globe and Mail, October 1, 2020.

[7] Beth Van Schaack, The Int’l Criminal Court Executive Order: Global Reactions Compiled, Just Security (justsecurity.org), September 1, 2020 (“As with so many Trump administration decisions, America’s reputation will needlessly suffer, and with it, an important foreign policy tool will grow less effective”); Editorial, The Guardian view on Trump and the international criminal court: an attack on human rights – US sanctions are an appalling attempt to thwart an ICC investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, Guardian, June 21, 2020 (“But in the end, though Mr. Trump and his administration will not see it, this attack may be more damaging to America’s reputation and authority than it will be to the court’s”). Also see generally: Kevin Drew, U.S. Suffers Greatest Global Decline in Trust: Since 2016, the U.S. has experienced the greatest drop in global confidence, while Canada continues to be seen as the most trusted, U.S. News, January 15, 2020; Colum Lynch, It’s Not Just Trump. The World Worries America is Broken, Foreign Policy, June 18, 2020; Rob Berschinski, Trump’s ICC EO Will Undercut All U.S. Sanctions Programs – Is That Why Treasury Isn’t Conspicuously on Board?, Just Security, June 16, 2020; Global perception of US falls to two-decade low, BBC News, September 15, 2020; Richard Wike, Janell Fetterolf, and Mara Mordecai, U.S. Image Plummets Internationally as Most Say Country Has Handled Coronavirus Badly: Ratings for Trump remain poor, Pew Research Center, September 15, 2020; Simon Tisdall, US’s global reputation hits rock-bottom over Trump’s coronavirus response: International relations expert warns policy failure could do lasting damage as president insults allies and undermines alliances, The Guardian, April 12, 2020; Daniel Korschun, Boryana Dimitrova, and Yoto Yotov, America’s worsening global reputation could put billions in US exports at risk, The Conversation, May 24, 2017; Pew Survey: US Global Image ‘Tarnished’ During Trump Presidency, VOA, September 15, 2020; Chile Eboe-Osuji, The US and the ICC, Third Lantos Annual Rule of Law Lecture, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, November 14, 2019; Markos Kounalkis, America’s greatest strength puts its weaknesses on display around the world, Miami Herald, June 4, 2020.

[8] Wesley K. Clark, The United States Has Nothing to Fear From the ICC, Foreign Policy, July 2, 2020. Also see, General Wesley K. Clark, Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire, Public Affairs, 2003; General Wesley K. Clark, Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future Conflict, Public Affairs, 2002; Wesley K. Clark, A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor and Country, Macmillan Audio, 2007.

[9] Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social inequality in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, April 26, 2020.

[10] Editorial, The Guardian view on Trump and the international criminal court: an attack on human rights – US sanctions are an appalling attempt to thwart an ICC investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, Guardian, June 21, 2020.

[11] Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes – A tool for prevention, United Nations (un.org), 2014. Note: Crimes of Aggression were added in 2018. See, Anna Khalfaoui, Mass Atrocities: Definition and Relationship with Development, Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, February 18, 2020 (“Mass atrocities consist of extreme violence inflicted on a large scale or in a deliberate manner, particularly on civilians and non-combatants, by State or non-State actors. Mass atrocities encompass the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression”.); Assembly activates Court’s jurisdiction over crime of aggression, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int), December 15, 2017; The Crime of Aggression: From 17 July 2018, the International Criminal Court will be able to prosecute leaders responsible for waging aggressive war – with conditions, Coalition for the International Criminal Court (coalitionforthicc.org); Carsten Stahn, International Crimes, Cambridge.org, December 2018; Alex Whiting, Crime of Aggression Activated at the ICC: Does it Matter?, Just Security, December 19, 2017:

“The International Criminal Court’s Assembly of States Parties agreed late last week that the ICC can now prosecute crimes of aggression, making it the fourth crime (after war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide) to fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. The decision will become effective on July 17, 2018.”

[12] Doug Saunders, How was a neo-Nazi threat ignored for years? Because it looked so familiar, Globe and Mail, August 6, 2020. Also see, Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social injustice in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, March 26, 2020; Harriet Grant, Home secretary’s ‘dangerous’ rhetoric ‘putting lawyers at risk’, The Guardian, October 6, 2020.

[13] Ted Piccone, The rule of law is under duress everywhere, Brookings, March 17, 2020; WJP Rule of Law Index 2020, World Justice Project, 2020 (U.S. now ranked 21^st in world); Debra Cassens Weiss, US falls out of top 20 in Rule of Law Index, while global declines continue, ABA Journal, March 12, 2020; The Rule of Law is Declining Globally, Canada is Not Entirely Without Room for Improvement, Slaw, April 9, 2019; Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social injustice in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, March 26, 2020.

[14] Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social injustice in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, March 26, 2020:

“In today’s hyper-partisan and polarized times there appears to be an expectation that political parties and leaders, “when given the opportunity”, will “try to stack the court with politically favourable judges”.  Such conduct may arise from a President, a Prime Minister, or the strategy of a political party within a Senate or a legislature wishing to avoid checks on their power and vested interests. Across democratic jurisdictions there is a continuum of tactics (from personal attacks to ignoring or bypassing the courts to increasingly politicized judicial appointment processes) aimed at undermining judicial independence – motivated by ideology, politics and/or preferred policy outcomes rather than the rule of law.

Given such motivation – and resistance to democratic and societal norms – hyper-partisan governments and political parties may push for judicial appointments on the basis of clientelist and political ties and ideological predisposition, rather than the required “apolitical” factors of professional competence, legal qualifications, experience, character,  and “representational effectiveness”.  In this “partisan era of judicial politics” the process becomes quite transactional – with no sense of stewardship for their country and citizens, no obligation to the future.

The partisanship behind judicial nominations reflects the increasing polarization of some nation’s politics and culture. As political parties lose moderate members, their standards for judges become more rigidly ideological, increasingly threatening the legitimacy of the judiciary and the courts, and pushing even their nation’s highest courts in a politically and ideologically defined direction, raising the prospect of increasing polarization and partisanship within the Courts themselves.”

[15] Yasmeen Serhan, The Trump-Modi Playbook, The Atlantic, February 25, 2020; Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social injustice in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, March 26, 2020. Also see, Trudy Rubin, Trump’s India trip: Leaders of world’s two most important democracies trash rule of law, Philadelphia Inquirer, February 26, 2020; Rana Ayyub, Narendra Modi Looks the Other Way as New Delhi Burns, Time, February 28, 2020.

[16] Benjamin Ferencz, Law, not war: A Nuremberg trial prosecutor on why we need the ICC, Maclean’s, November 8, 2018; Erna Paris, International Criminal Court: A fight that Canada must lead, Globe and Mail, November 8, 2016.

[17] Benjamin Ferencz, Law, not war: A Nuremberg trial prosecutor on why we need the ICC, Maclean’s, November 8, 2018.

[18] For example, see: 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer: Executive Summary, Edelman.com, January 19, 2020; 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer, Edelman.com, January 19, 2020; 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer: Global Report, Edelman.com, 2019; 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer: Executive Summary, Edelman.com, 2019; Angel Burria (OECD Secretary-General), 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer, OECD.org, January 30, 2019; Marc Montgomery, International survey indicates trust  in key institutions declining, Radio Canada International, February 25, 2020; The Global State of Democracy: Exploring Democracy’s Resilience, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (idea.int), November 2017; Richard Edelman, A crisis of trust: A warning to both business and government, Economist (theworldin.com), 2016; Uri Friedman, Trust Is Collapsing in America, The Atlantic, January 21, 2018.

[19] Ted Piccone, The rule of law is under duress everywhere, Brookings, March 17, 2020.

[20] Canada and the International Criminal Court, Government of Canada (International.gc.ca); Erna Paris, The Sun Climbs Slow: The International Criminal Court and the Struggle for Justice, Vintage Canada, 2009.

[21] Joint Statement in Support of the International Criminal Court, Government of Canada (international.gc.ca).

[22] Erna Paris, International Criminal Court: A fight that Canada must lead, Globe and Mail, November 8, 2016.

[23] Joint Statement in Support of the International Criminal Court, Government of Canada (international.gc.ca).

[24] Allen Pusey, Sept. 5, 1969: Murder charges in My Lai massacre, ABA Journal, August 1, 2020.

[25] Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social injustice in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, March 26, 2020. Also see, Arch Puddington and Tyler Roylance, Freedom in the World 2017: Populists and Autocrats: The Dual Threat to Global Democracy, Freedom House, 2018; The Decline of Democracy and the Rule of Law: How to Preserve the Rule of Law and Judicial Independence?, Remarks of the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, September 28, 2017.

[26] Nick Donovan (editor), The Enforcement of International Criminal Law, Aegis Trust, 2009.

[27] Martha Minow, Do Alternative Justice Mechanisms Deserve Recognition in International Criminal Law?: Truth Commissions, Amnesties, and Complementarity at the International Criminal Court, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, Winter 2019.

[28] Understanding the International Criminal Court, International Criminal Court, Public Information and Documentation Section, 2018. Also see generally, About, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int); How 1989 brought an end to the Cold War, BBC News, December 27, 2009.

[29] Erna Paris, The Sun Climbs Slow: The International Criminal Court and the Struggle for Justice, Vintage Canada, 2009.

[30] About: Towards stability and lasting peace, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int).

[31] Erna Paris, The Sun Climbs Slow: The International Criminal Court and the Struggle for Justice, Vintage Canada, 2009; Phillipe Le Corre, China’s Rise as a Geoeconomic Influencer: Four European Case Studies, Carnegie Endowment (for International Peace), October 15, 2018; Celia Belin and Ted Reinert, The eclipse of the European Union’s global influence, Brookings, April 8, 2019.Note: Crimes of Aggression were added in 2018 – See, Anna Khalfaoui, Mass Atrocities: Definition and Relationship with Development, Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, February 18, 2020 (“Mass atrocities consist of extreme violence inflicted on a large scale or in a deliberate manner, particularly on civilians and non-combatants, by State or non-State actors. Mass atrocities encompass the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression”.); Assembly activates Court’s jurisdiction over crime of aggression, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int), December 15, 2017; The Crime of Aggression: From 17 July 2018, the International Criminal Court will be able to prosecute leaders responsible for waging aggressive ward – with conditions, Coalition for the International Criminal Court (coalitionforthicc.org); Carsten Stahn, International Crimes, Cambridge.org, December 2018; Alex Whiting, Crime of Aggression Activated at the ICC: Does it Matter?, Just Security, December 19, 2017:

“The International Criminal Court’s Assembly of States Parties agreed late last week that the ICC can now prosecute crimes of aggression, making it the fourth crime (after war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide) to fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. The decision will become effective on July 17, 2018.”

[32] Elizabeth Evenson, Donald Trump’s Attack on the ICC Shows His Contempt for the Global Rule of Law, Human Rights Watch, July 6, 2020.

[33] Erna Paris, The Sun Climbs Slow: The International Criminal Court and the Struggle for Justice, Vintage Canada, 2009; Celia Belin and Ted Reinert, The eclipse of the European Union’s global influence, Brookings, April 8, 2019; Michael Abramowitz, The Struggle Comes Home” Attacks on Democracy in the United States, Freedom House, 2019. Also see, Paul Sonne, Threat from nuclear weapons and missiles has grown since Trump entered office, Washington Post, October 12, 2020; Eric Brewer, Toward a More Proliferated World? The Geopolitical Forces that Will Shape the Spread of Nuclear Weapons, Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 20, 2020.

[34] Thomas Edsall, The Savage Injustice of Trump’s Military Pardons, New York Times, December 4, 2019.

[35] Understanding the International Criminal Court, International Criminal Court, Public Information and Documentation Section, 2018. Also see generally, About, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int).

[36] Understanding the International Criminal Court, International Criminal Court, Public Information and Documentation Section, 2018; About: How the Court Works, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int); About the ICC, The ABA’s ICC Project (aba-icc.org).

[37] Understanding the International Criminal Court, International Criminal Court, Public Information and Documentation Section, 2018; About: How the Court Works, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int); About the ICC, The ABA’s ICC Project (aba-icc.org).

[38] What is the Rule of Law, United Nations and the Rule of Law, United Nations (un.org).

[39] How the Court Works: The crimes, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int); Understanding the International Criminal Court, International Criminal Court, Public Information and Documentation Section, 2018; About the ICC, The ABA’s ICC Project (aba-icc.org); Assembly activates Court’s jurisdiction over crime of aggression, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int), December 15, 2017; The Crime of Aggression: From 17 July 2018, the International Criminal Court will be able to prosecute leaders responsible for waging aggressive ward – with conditions, Coalition for the International Criminal Court (coalitionforthicc.org); War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity: War Crimes Program, Department of Justice, Government of Canada (justice.gc.ca); Alex Whiting, Crime of Aggression Activated at the ICC: Does it Matter?, Just Security, December 19, 2017:

“The International Criminal Court’s Assembly of States Parties agreed late last week that the ICC can now prosecute crimes of aggression, making it the fourth crime (after war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide) to fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. The decision will become effective on July 17, 2018.”

[40] Carsten Stahn, International Crimes, Cambridge.org, December 2018. Also see, Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes – A tool for prevention, United Nations (un.org), 2014; Clint Curle, Us vs. Them: The process of othering, Canadian Museum for Human Rights (humanrights.ca); Ann Strimov Durbin, Racism, Violence and the Roots of Mass Atrocities, Jewish World Watch, June 10, 2020; Anthonie Holslag, The Process of Othering from the ‘Social Imaginaire’ to Physical Acts: An Anthropological Approach, Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, Vol. 9, Issue 1, 2015; Nathan Kalmoe, Yes, Political Rhetoric Can Incite Violence, Politico Magazine (politico.com), October 30, 2018; Pamela Paresky, Human Beings Are Not Insects, Vermin, Parasites, or Garbage, Psychology Today, September 1, 2019.

[41] See for example, Agnes Callamard, The prevention of atrocity crimes and social media: challenges and opportunities, Columbia University, Global Freedom of Expression (globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu), December 10, 2018. Also see, Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes – A tool for prevention, United Nations (un.org); E.D. Richter, Dror Kris Markus, and Casey Tait, Incitement, genocide, genocidal terror, and the upstream role of indoctrination: can epidemiologic models predict and prevent?, Public Health Reviews, Vol. 39, 2018; Aliza Luft, Dehumanization and the Normalization of Violence: It’s Not What You Think, Social Science Research Council: Items, May 21, 2019.

[42] Carsten Stahn, International Crimes, Cambridge.org, December 2018. Also see, Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes – A tool for prevention, United Nations (un.org), 2014; Clint Curle, Us vs. Them: The process of othering, Canadian Museum for Human Rights (humanrights.ca); Ann Strimov Durbin, Racism, Violence and the Roots of Mass Atrocities, Jewish World Watch, June 10, 2020; Anthonie Holslag, The Process of Othering from the ‘Social Imaginaire’ to Physical Acts: An Anthropological Approach, Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, Vol. 9, Issue 1, 2015; Nathan Kalmoe, Yes, Political Rhetoric Can Incite Violence, Politico Magazine (politico.com), October 30, 2018; Pamela Paresky, Human Beings Are Not Insects, Vermin, Parasites, or Garbage, Psychology Today, September 1, 2019.

[43] Understanding the International Criminal Court, International Criminal Court, Public Information and Documentation Section, 2018. Also see, About: How the Court Works, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int).

[44] Understanding the International Criminal Court, International Criminal Court, Public Information and Documentation Section, 2018; About: How the Court Works, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int); About the ICC, The ABA’s ICC Project (aba-icc.org).

[45] Understanding the International Criminal Court, International Criminal Court, Public Information and Documentation Section, 2018; About: How the Court Works, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int); About the ICC, The ABA’s ICC Project (aba-icc.org).

[46] Understanding the International Criminal Court, International Criminal Court, Public Information and Documentation Section, 2018. Also see generally, About: How the Court Works, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int).

[47] Editorial, The Guardian view on Trump and the international criminal court: an attack on human rights – US sanctions are an appalling attempt to thwart an ICC investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, Guardian, June 21, 2020.

[48] US Opposition to the International Criminal Court, Global Policy Forum (globalpolicyforum.org).

[49] Elizabeth Evenson, Donald Trump’s attack on the ICC shows his contempt for the global rule of law, EuroNews (euronews.com), March 7, 2020.

[50] Nicholas Goldberg, Too many Americans believe a ‘coup’ or ‘force’ may be needed to protect their way of life, Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2020.

[51] William Burke-White, The Trump administration misplayed the International Criminal Court and Americans may now face justice for crimes in Afghanistan, Brookings.edu, March 11, 2020.

[52] William Burke-White, The Trump administration misplayed the International Criminal Court and Americans may now face justice for crimes in Afghanistan, Brookings.edu, March 11, 2020.

[53] William Burke-White, The Trump administration misplayed the International Criminal Court and Americans may now face justice for crimes in Afghanistan, Brookings.edu, March 11, 2020. Also see, The United States and the International Criminal Court, Human Rights Watch (hrw.org); About the ICC, The ABA’s ICC Project (aba-icc.org); Editorial, The Guardian view on Trump and the international criminal court: an attack on human rights – US sanctions are an appalling attempt to thwart an ICC investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, Guardian, June 21, 2020. Note: The U.S. was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the establishment of the International Criminal Court, but upon the final vote agreed to sign the treaty (President Clinton administration). However – in an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver – in 2002 the U.S. signature on the treaty was effectively withdrawn (President Bush administration).

[54] Paul Rosenzweig and Vishnu Kannan, Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform, Lawfare, September 7, 2020; Andrew Boyle, Trump’s Latest Abuse of Emergency Powers Highlights a Dangerous Law in Need of Change, Brennan Center (brennancenter.org), June 24, 2020.

[55] Beth Van Schaack, The Int’l Criminal Court Executive Order: Global Reactions Compiled, Just Security (justsecurity.org), September 1, 2020.

[56] Kelebogile Zvobgo and Stephen Chaudoin, Despite U.S. sanctions, the International Criminal Court will keep investigating alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, Washington Post, June 16, 2020.

[57] Number of Americans Who Support the ICC Grows, IPSOs Poll on Behalf of the American Bar Association, Ipsos.com, April 2018.

[58] Beth Van Schaack, ICC Prosecutor Symposium: Advice for the Incoming ICC Prosecutor – Engage the U.S. Public Directly, OpinioJuris.org, April 15, 2020. Also see, Number of Americans Who Support the ICC Grows, IPSOs Poll on Behalf of the American Bar Association, Ipsos.com, April 2018; July 2017 Ipsos Poll Results, International Criminal Justice Today.org; Kelebogile Zvobgo, Human Rights versus National Interests: Shifting US Public Attitudes on the International Criminal Court, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 63, Issue 4, December 2019; Kelebogile Zvobgo, The Trump administration opposes the International Criminal Court. Do Americans agree?, Washington Post, April 28, 2019; Kelebogile Zvobgo and Stephen Chaudoin, Despite U.S. sanctions, the International Criminal Court will keep investigating alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, Washington Post, June 16, 2020.

[59] Richard Wike and Shannon Schumacher, Democratic Rights Popular Globally but Commitment to Them Not Always Strong: Satisfaction with democracy, Pew Research Center, February 27, 2020. Also see, Richard Wike and Shannon Schumacher, Democratic Rights Popular Globally but Commitment to Them Not Always Strong: Most say elected officials are out of touch, Pew Research Center, February 27, 2020.

[60] Number of Americans Who Support the ICC Grows, IPSOs Poll on Behalf of the American Bar Association, Ipsos.com, April 2018; July 2017 Ipsos Poll Results, International Criminal Justice Today.org; Beth Van Schaack, ICC Prosecutor Symposium: Advice for the Incoming ICC Prosecutor – Engage the U.S. Public Directly, OpinioJuris.org, April 15, 2020; Erna Paris, It’s not the International Criminal Court that’s dangerous – it’s John Bolton, Globe and Mail, September 13, 2018. Also see, Kelebogile Zvobgo, Human Rights versus National Interests: Shifting US Public Attitudes on the International Criminal Court, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 63, Issue 4, December 2019; Kelebogile Zvobgo, The Trump administration opposes the International Criminal Court. Do Americans agree?, Washington Post, April 28, 2019; Kelebogile Zvobgo and Stephen Chaudoin, Despite U.S. sanctions, the International Criminal Court will keep investigating alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, Washington Post, June 16, 2020.

[61] Editorial, The Guardian view on Trump and the international criminal court: an attack on human rights – US sanctions are an appalling attempt to thwart an ICC investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, Guardian, June 21, 2020.

[62] Ambassador David Scheffer, The Self-Defeating Executive Order Against the International Criminal Court, Just Security (justsecurity.org), June 12,2020.

[63] See generally: Matt Naham, 174 Lawyers and Legal Scholars Condemn Trump Admin Sanctions on International Criminal Court: ‘Contrary to American Values’, Law and Crime, June 29, 2020; Ellen Nakashima and Carol Morello, Lawyers urge Trump to rescind sanctions and travel bans for International Criminal Court, Washington Post, June 29, 2020; UN dismayed over US sanctions on top International Criminal Court officials, UN News, September 2, 2020; ABA President Judy Perry Martinez statement Re: U.S. sanctions of International Criminal Court personnel, American Bar Association (americanbar.org), June 12, 2020; IBA condemns US President’s Executive Order authorising sanctions against International Criminal Court personnel, International Bar Association (ibanet.org), June 12, 2020.

[64] See generally: Matt Naham, 174 Lawyers and Legal Scholars Condemn Trump Admin Sanctions on International Criminal Court: ‘Contrary to American Values’, Law and Crime, June 29, 2020; Ellen Nakashima and Carol Morello, Lawyers urge Trump to rescind sanctions and travel bans for International Criminal Court, Washington Post, June 29, 2020; UN dismayed over US sanctions on top International Criminal Court officials, UN News, September 2, 2020; ABA President Judy Perry Martinez statement Re: U.S. sanctions of International Criminal Court personnel, American Bar Association (americanbar.org), June 12, 2020; IBA condemns US President’s Executive Order authorising sanctions against International Criminal Court personnel, International Bar Association (ibanet.org), June 12, 2020; Ambassador David Scheffer, The Self-Defeating Executive Order Against the International Criminal Court, Just Security (justsecurity.org), June 12,2020; Russia Is Now a Rogue State. We Must Treat It Like One, Time, March 15, 2018; Todd Buchwald, David Michael Crane, Benjamin Ferencz, Stephen Rapp, Ambassador David Scheffer and Clint Williamson, Former Officials Challenge Pompeo’s Threats to the International Criminal Court, Just Security (justsecurity.org), March 18, 2020; Beth Van Schaack, The Int’l Criminal Court Executive Order: Global Reactions Compiled, Just Security (justsecurity.org), September 1, 2020.

[65] Editorial, The Guardian view on Trump and the international criminal court: an attack on human rights, Guardian, June 21, 2020. Also see, Beth Van Schaack, The Int’l Criminal Court Executive Order: Global Reactions Compiled, Just Security (justsecurity.org), September 1, 2020.

[66] Adam Serwer, The War-Crimes President: When violence is directed at those Trump’s supporters hate and fear, they see such excesses not as crimes but as virtues, The Atlantic, November 27, 2019; Ian Millhiser, The Fraternal Order of Police’s attack on impeachment reads like it was written by Sean Hannity: America’s largest police union doesn’t seem to understand what ‘due process’ is, Vox, November 1, 2019; Eric Sigurdson, The Impunity Pandemic: Police ‘Use of Force’, the Justice System, and Systemic Racism – an examination of inequality, discrimination, and declining trust in societal institutions and the rule of law, Sigurdson Post, August 30, 2020;

[67] Jeffery Toobin, Ending Trump’s Assault on the Rule of Law, New Yorker, September 28, 2020; Paul Rosenzweig and Vishnu Kannan, Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform, Lawfare, September 7, 2020; Paul Rosenzweig, Trump’s Defiance of the Rule of Law, Atlantic, June 3, 2019; Richard Painter, Trump loves the rule of law. As long as it targets his enemies, Washington Post, May 28, 2020; Michael Fuchs, An Open Door to Anarchy: President Trump is a threat to America’s rule of law and its national security, U.S. News, August 31, 2017; Will Hutton, America’s Interest in a Global Rule of Law: Will Trump destroy the global order that the U.S. has led?, American Prospect, Winter 2017; Beth Van Schaack, The Int’l Criminal Court Executive Order: Global Reactions Compiled, Just Security (justsecurity.org), September 1, 2020; Editorial, The Guardian view on Trump and the international criminal court: an attack on human rights – US sanctions are an appalling attempt to thwart an ICC investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, Guardian, June 21, 2020; Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social injustice in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, March 26, 2020; Eric Sigurdson, The Impunity Pandemic: Police ‘Use of Force’, the Justice System, and Systemic Racism – an examination of inequality, discrimination, and declining trust in societal institutions and the rule of law, Sigurdson Post, August 30, 2020. Also see, Paul Rosenberg, Republicans, a history: How did the party of ‘law and order’ become the party of crooks and crime?: Fundamentalism and authoritarianism pushed the Republicans from low-grade mendacity into a threat to democracy, Salon, November 24, 2019; Robert Kagen, The Strongmen strike back, Washington Post, March 14, 2019; George Packer, Republicans Are Suddenly Afraid of Democracy, The Atlantic, October 9, 2020; Zach Beauchamp, The Republican Party is an authoritarian outlier: Comparted to center-right parties in developed democracies, the GOP is dangerously far from normal, Vox, September 22, 2020; Zacharay Wolf, A GOP senator has gone public against democracy, CNN, October 9, 2020.

[68] David Moscrop, Can democracy survive the coronavirus?, Maclean’s, April 1, 2020.

[69] The Decline of Democracy and the Rule of Law: How to Preserve the Rule of Law and Judicial Independence, Remarks of the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, Supreme Court of Canada (scc-csc.ca), September 28, 2017.

[70] Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social injustice in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, March 26, 2020.

[71] Adam Serwer, The War-Crimes President: When violence is directed at those Trump’s supporters hate and fear, they see such excesses not as crimes but as virtues, The Atlantic, November 27, 2019; Dave Phillips, Trump Clears Three Service Members in War Crimes Cases, New York Times, November 15, 2019. Also see, Ellen Ioanes, Military leaders are worried that Trump pardoning troops accused of war crimes will impair the justice system and undermine bases, Business Insider, November 15, 2019; Kori Schake, Trump’s War-Crime Pardons Undermine the Military, Defense One, November 17, 2019; Dan Lamothe, Trump issues pardons in war crimes cases, despite Pentagon opposition to the move, Washington Post, November 16, 2019; Jeff McCausland, Trump’s new pardons beg the question: Is the American military just a ‘killing machine’?, NBC News, November 19, 2019; Donald Trump falls out with the military establishment he once wooed, Economist, November 28, 2019.

[72] David Lapan, President Trump is Damaging Our Military: War Crimes Cases are the Latest Example, Just Security, November 18, 2019.

[73] Adam Serwer, The War-Crimes President: When violence is directed at those Trump’s supporters hate and fear, they see such excesses not as crimes but as virtues, The Atlantic, November 27, 2019.

[74] See generally: Eric Sigurdson, The Impunity Pandemic: Police ‘Use of Force’, the Justice System, and Systemic Racism – an examination of inequality, discrimination, and declining trust in societal institutions and the rule of law, Sigurdson Post, August 30, 2020; Eric Sigurdson, Corporate Misconduct and the Normalization of Deviance: leadership, corporate culture and the pathway to organizational integrity, Sigurdson Post, March 31, 2018.

[75] Adam Serwer, The War-Crimes President: When violence is directed at those Trump’s supporters hate and fear, they see such excesses not as crimes but as virtues, The Atlantic, November 27, 2019.

[76] Ellen Ioanes, Military leaders are worried that Trump pardoning troops accused of war crimes will impair the justice system and undermine bases, Business Insider, November 15, 2019.

[77] Noor Zafar, Trump’s War Pardons Are Sabotaging the Military Justice System, ACLU.org, December 13, 2019.

[78] Neil Macdonald, No need to worry about war crimes, Trump has soldiers’ backs, CBC, November 19, 2019.

[79] US pardons for accused war criminals, contrary to international law: UN rights office, UN News (news.un.org), November 19, 2019.

[80] Editorial Board, The Moral Injury of Pardoning War Crimes, New York Times, November 22, 2019.

[81] US pardons for accused war criminals, contrary to international law: UN rights office, UN News (news.un.org), November 19, 2019.

[82] Sean Collins, Trump’s policies have enabled violence against black Americans, Vox, May 30, 2020; Jamelle Bouie, Trump is Using His Pardon Power to Reward Violence and Cruelty: His vision of how to act ‘tough’ extends from war crimes to police brutality and doesn’t stop there, New York Times, May 23, 2019; Alexandra Schmitt, President Trump’s Alarming Human Rights Agenda at Home and Abroad, American Progress, December 10, 2019. Also see, Adam Serwer, Trump Gave Police Permission to Be Brutal, The Atlantic, June 3, 2020; Daniel Politi, Trump Endorses Extrajudicial Executions: Killing of Antifa Suspect Was ‘Retribution’, Slate, September 13, 2020; Peter Wade, Trump Calls for ‘Retribution’, Not Justice, in Portland Shooting, Rolling Stone, September 13, 2020; Jake Johnson, ‘There Has to Be Retribution’: Trump Openly Endorses Extrajudicial Killings of Suspects by Law Enforcement, Common Dreams, September 13, 2020; Inae Oh, Trump Defends Police Shooting of Portland Man as ‘Retribution’, Mother Jones, September 13, 2020; Aaron Rupar, ‘There has to be retribution’: Trump’s chilling comments about extrajudicial killings, briefly explained, Vox, September 14, 2020; ‘Politics of demonization’ breeding division and fear, Amnesty.org, February 22, 2017; Helio Fred Garcia, How to understand Donald Trump’s incendiary language – and how to combat it, Salon, June 22, 2020; Tom Porter, Trump gloated over an MSNBC anchor being shot by a rubber bullet at an anti-racism protest, calling it a ‘beautiful sight’, Business Insider, September 20, 2020; Jonathan Chait, Trump Says Reporters Covering Protests Deserve to Be Attacked, New York Magazine, September 22, 2020; John Haltiwanger, Historians and election experts warn Trump is behaving like Mussolini and despots that the US usually condemns, Business Insider, September 25, 2020; Kathleen Ronayne and Michael Kunzelman, Trump to far-right extremists: ‘Stand back and stand by’, Washington Post, September 30, 2020; James Rainey and Melissa Gomez, Asked to condemn supremacists, Trump tells Proud Boys hate group to ‘stand by’, Los Angeles Times, September 29, 2020. Also see, Julian Borger, Trump consults Bush torture lawyer on how to skirt law and rule by decree, The Guardian, July 20, 2020 (“legal memo … stated: ‘Necessity or self-defense may justify interrogation methods that might violate’ the criminal prohibition on torture”); Mary Papenfuss, Critics Blast Trump’s ‘Good Genes’ Rally Call As a Chilling Echo of Hitler’s Eugenics, Huffington Post, September 21, 2020; Sophie Bjork-James, The biggest threats to American democracy? White nationalists and politicians who embrace them, Los Angeles Times, October 10, 2020.

[83] Celia Belin and Ted Reinert, The eclipse of the European Union’s global influence, Brookings, April 8, 2019; Mira Rapp-Hooper, Saving America’s Alliances: The United States Still Needs the System That Put It on Top, Foreign Affairs, March-April 2020; Doug Stokes, Trump, American hegemony and the future of the liberal international order, International Affairs, Vol. 94, Issue 1, 2018; Terrence Mullan, The Corrosion of World Order in the Age of Donald Trump, Council of Foreign Relations, February 13, 2020; Will Hutton, America’s Interest in a Global Rule of Law: Will Trump destroy the global order that the U.S. has led?, American Prospect, Winter 2017.

[84] Michael Abramowitz, The Struggle Comes Home” Attacks on Democracy in the United States, Freedom House, 2019. Also see, Nahal Toosi, Human Rights groups turn their sights on Trump’s America: Increasingly, the United States is being treated like a fragile state in need of help, Politico, July 1, 2020; Steven Erlanger, Trump-Biden Debate Prompts Shock, Despair and, in China, Glee, New York Times, September 30, 2020.

[85] Michael Abramowitz, The Struggle Comes Home” Attacks on Democracy in the United States, Freedom House, 2019. Also see, Nahal Toosi, Human Rights groups turn their sights on Trump’s America: Increasingly, the United States is being treated like a fragile state in need of help, Politico, July 1, 2020.

[86] Jeff McCausland, Trump’s new pardons beg the question: Is the American military just a ‘killing machine’?, NBC News, November 19, 2019.

[87] See generally, Eric Sigurdson, The Impunity Pandemic: Police ‘Use of Force’, the Justice System, and Systemic Racism – an examination of inequality, discrimination, and declining trust in societal institutions and the rule of law, Sigurdson Post, August 30, 2020.

[88] See generally: Nick Donovan (editor), The Enforcement of International Criminal Law, Aegis Trust, 2009; Sophie Bjork-James, The biggest threats to American democracy? White nationalists and politicians who embrace them, Los Angeles Times, October 10, 2020; Eric Sigurdson, The Impunity Pandemic: Police ‘Use of Force’, the Justice System, and Systemic Racism – an examination of inequality, discrimination, and declining trust in societal institutions and the rule of law, Sigurdson Post, August 30, 2020; Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social injustice in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, March 26, 2020.

[89] Rachel Kleinfeld, The U.S. shows all the signs of a country spiraling toward political violence, Washington Post, September 11, 2020.

[90] Jennifer Trahan and Megan Fairlie, The International Criminal Court is Hardly a Threat to US National Security, OpinioJuris.org, June 15, 2020.

[91] Beth Van Schaack, The Int’l Criminal Court Executive Order: Global Reactions Compiled, Just Security (justsecurity.org), September 1, 2020.

[92] Rob Berschinski, Trump’s ICC EO Will Undercut All U.S. Sanctions Programs – Is That Why Treasury Isn’t Conspicuously on Board?, Just Security, June 16, 2020.

[93] Editorial, The Guardian view on Trump and the international criminal court: an attack on human rights – US sanctions are an appalling attempt to thwart an ICC investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, Guardian, June 21, 2020; Anthony Deutsch, Human rights lawyers sue Trump administration over ICC sanctions, Globe and Mail, October 1, 2020.

[94] Joint Statement in Support of the International Criminal Court, Government of Canada (international.gc.ca).

[95] Luke McGee, Boris Johnson’s government is threatening to breach international law. It could backfire spectacularly, CNN, September 9, 2020. Also see, Jonathan Goldsmith, There is no choice over the rule of law, The Law Society Gazette, September 14, 2020; Philip Stephens, Post-Brexit UK must respect the rule of law, Financial Times, September 10, 2020; Daniel Boffey and Lisa O’Carroll, Brexit: Boris Johnson has undermined trust in UK government, says EU, The Guardian, September 9, 2020; Britain threatens to flout international law, Economist, September 9, 2020; David Allen Green, It is legality not policy that pushes a government lawyer to quit: Jonathan Jones resigns, as attorney-general plans non-compliance over Brexit deal, Financial Times, September 8, 2020; Law Society statement on suggestion that UK Govt may breach Int law, Law Society of Northern Ireland, September 14, 2020.

[96] Canada concerned by U.S. sanctions imposed on International Criminal Court officials, Global Affairs Canada (Canada.ca), September 4, 2020.

[97] Graeme Thompson, Two cheers for CANZUK – an increasingly important alliance in an uncertain world, National Post, September 30, 2020. Also see, Ben Judah, Facing Trump, Putin, and Xi, London Needs Old Allies for New Ideas, Foreign Policy, June 30, 2020; James Skinner, John Bender, and Dr. Nigel Greenwood, The Future of Canada’s Foreign Policy, Canzuk International (canzukinternational.com), 2020; Katernia Ang, ‘CANZUK’ alliance idea makes waves with Indo-Pacific in flux, Nikkei Asia (asia.nikkei.com), September 4, 2020.

[98] Germany breaks ranks with China, shifts to adopting Indo-Pacific strategy, Times of India, September 14, 2020.

[99] Editorial, The Guardian view on Trump and the international criminal court: an attack on human rights – US sanctions are an appalling attempt to thwart an ICC investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan, Guardian, June 21, 2020.

[100] What is the Rule of Law, United Nations and the Rule of Law, United Nations (un.org).

[101] What is the Rule of Law, United Nations and the Rule of Law, United Nations (un.org).

[102] The Challenges We Face, Remarks of the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, scc-csc.ca, March 8, 2007. Also see, Nick Cohen, One law for the rich, no law for the poor, The Guardian, March 11, 2012. Also see, Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social injustice in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, March 26, 2020.

[103] About: The fight against impunity continues, International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int).

[104] Mark Cohen, The All-Out Assault on the Rule of Law, Forbes, February 20, 2017; Sharon Thiruchelvam, Protecting the rule of law from populist threats, Raconteur, February 7, 2018.

[105] Jonathan Chait, The Rule of Law is Crumbling further each day Under Trump, New York Magazine, June 11, 2018.

[106] Nancy LeTourneau, After Trump, How Do We Save Democracy, Washington Monthly, September 14, 2020. Also see: Paul Rosenberg, Republicans, a history: How did the party of ‘law and order’ become the party of crooks and crime?: Fundamentalism and authoritarianism pushed the Republicans from low-grade mendacity into a threat to democracy, Salon, November 24, 2019; Robert Kagen, The Strongmen strike back, Washington Post, March 14, 2019; George Packer, Republicans Are Suddenly Afraid of Democracy, The Atlantic, October 9, 2020; Zach Beauchamp, The Republican Party is an authoritarian outlier: Comparted to center-right parties in developed democracies, the GOP is dangerously far from normal, Vox, September 22, 2020; Zacharay Wolf, A GOP senator has gone public against democracy, CNN, October 9, 2020; David Atkins, To Save Democracy, Democrats Must Hold Trump Officials Accountable, Washington Monthly, September 12, 2020; Jonathan Chait, Lock Him Up? For the Republic to survive Trump’s presidency, he must be tried for his crimes. Even if that sparks a constitutional crisis of its own, New York Magazine, September 14, 2020; Robert Reich, Trump’s lawless thuggery is corrupting justice in America, The Guardian, January 5, 2020; Joe Hagan, ‘I’ll Never Question 1938 In Germany Again’: An Ex-Republican Strategist Surveys the Wreckage of Trump’s GOP, Vanity Fair, September 10, 2020.

[107] James Harper, Yes, Boris is breaching the rule of law. Here’s why, The Spectator (spectator.co.uk), September 14, 2020. Also see, Rule of Law and Democracy: Addressing the Gap Between Policies and Practices, UN Chronicle.un.org, Vol. XLIX, No. 4, December 2012; Matthew Spalding, Rule of Law: The Great Foundation of Our Constitution, First Principles (firstprinciplesjournal.com), August 11, 2010; Rule of Law Index 2017-2018, World Justice Project, worldjusticeproject.org, 2018 (page 11); The Role of the UN in Promoting the Rule of Law: Challenges and New Approaches, UN Chronicle, December 2012; Michael Enright (host), The Sunday Edition: What does ‘the rule of law’ really mean? (interview of law professor David Dyzenhaus), CBC Radio, May 31, 2019; Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social injustice in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, March 26, 2020.

[108] See generally, Jonathan Chait, Lock Him Up? For the Republic to survive Trump’s presidency, he must be tried for his crimes. Even if that sparks a constitutional crisis of its own, New York Magazine, September 14, 2020; Ernst Fraenkel, The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd, Reprint Edition 2010 (originally published 1941).

[109] Jonathan Chait, Lock Him Up? For the Republic to survive Trump’s presidency, he must be tried for his crimes. Even if that sparks a constitutional crisis of its own, New York Magazine, September 14, 2020.

[110] Zach Beauchamp, The Republican Party is an authoritarian outlier: Comparted to center-right parties in developed democracies, the GOP is dangerously far from normal, Vox, September 22, 2020. Also see, Paul Rosenberg, Republicans, a history: How did the party of ‘law and order’ become the party of crooks and crime?: Fundamentalism and authoritarianism pushed the Republicans from low-grade mendacity into a threat to democracy, Salon, November 24, 2019; Robert Kagen, The Strongmen strike back, Washington Post, March 14, 2019; George Packer, Republicans Are Suddenly Afraid of Democracy, The Atlantic, October 9, 2020; Zacharay Wolf, A GOP senator has gone public against democracy, CNN, October 9, 2020.

[111] The Decline of Democracy and the Rule of Law: How to Preserve the Rule of Law and Judicial Independence?, Remarks of the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, September 28, 2017.

[112] Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die, Penguin Random House, January 2018; Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Wobbly Is Our Democracy?, New York Times, January 27, 2018.

[113] Joe Hagan, ‘I’ll Never Question 1938 In Germany Again’: An Ex-Republican Strategist Surveys the Wreckage of Trump’s GOP, Vanity Fair, September 10, 2020. Also see, The Rise of Adolf Hitler, The History Place (historyplace.com), 1996; Lutz Lichtenberger, Two German historians have co-written the story of how Hitler came to power, yet in the form of a contemporary political thriller. It’s a disturbing and entirely intoxicating read, The German Times, March 2019; Why the Nazis achieved power, BBC.co.uk; John Haltiwanger, Historians and election experts warn Trump is behaving like Mussolini and despots that the US usually condemns, Business Insider, September 25, 2020.

[114] Jeff McCausland, Trump’s new pardons beg the question: Is the American military just a ‘killing machine’?, NBC News, November 19, 2019.

[115] Xu Xiaobing, How the US, under Trump, has led the charge to weaken international rule of law, South China Morning Post, June 30, 2020.

[116] Elizabeth Evenson, Donald Trump’s Attack on the ICC Shows His Contempt for the Global Rule of Law, Human Rights Watch, July 6, 2020.

[117] Leila Sadat, First They Came For Me and My Colleagues: The U.S. Attack on the International Criminal Court, Just Security, June 29, 2020. Also see, Ambassador Clint Williamson, Trump Administration’s Actions towards ICC Damage U.S. Global Standing, International Rule of Law and Security Program, at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University (asucollegeof law.com), June 12, 2020; ABA President Judy Perry Martinez statement Re: U.S. sanctions of International Criminal Court personnel, American Bar Association (americanbar.org), June 12, 2020; IBA condemns US President’s Executive Order authorising sanctions against International Criminal Court personnel, International Bar Association (ibanet.org), June 12, 2020; Jennifer Trahan and Megan Fairlie, The International Criminal Court is Hardly a Threat to US National Security, OpinioJuris.org, June 15, 2020; Ambassador David Scheffer, The Self-Defeating Executive Order Against the International Criminal Court, Just Security (justsecurity.org), June 12,2020; Opening Statement before the International Military Tribunal, Robert H. Jackson Center (roberthjackson.org) (On November 21, 1945, in the Palace of Justice at Nuremberg, Germany, Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, made his opening statement to the International Military Tribunal. “May it please Your Honors …”).

[118] David Allen Green, It is legality not policy that pushes a government lawyer to quit: Jonathan Jones resigns, as attorney-general plans non-compliance over Brexit deal, Financial Times, September 8, 2020. Also see, Paul Sonne, Threat from nuclear weapons and missiles has grown since Trump entered office, Washington Post, October 12, 2020; Eric Brewer, Toward a More Proliferated World? The Geopolitical Forces that Will Shape the Spread of Nuclear Weapons, Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 20, 2020.

[119] Leila Sadat, First They Came For Me and My Colleagues: The U.S. Attack on the International Criminal Court, Just Security, June 29, 2020. Also see, Ambassador Clint Williamson, Trump Administration’s Actions towards ICC Damage U.S. Global Standing, International Rule of Law and Security Program, at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University (asucollegeof law.com), June 12, 2020; ABA President Judy Perry Martinez statement Re: U.S. sanctions of International Criminal Court personnel, American Bar Association (americanbar.org), June 12, 2020; IBA condemns US President’s Executive Order authorising sanctions against International Criminal Court personnel, International Bar Association (ibanet.org), June 12, 2020; Jennifer Trahan and Megan Fairlie, The International Criminal Court is Hardly a Threat to US National Security, OpinioJuris.org, June 15, 2020; Ambassador David Scheffer, The Self-Defeating Executive Order Against the International Criminal Court, Just Security (justsecurity.org), June 12,2020; Opening Statement before the International Military Tribunal, Robert H. Jackson Center (roberthjackson.org) (On November 21, 1945, in the Palace of Justice at Nuremberg, Germany, Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, made his opening statement to the International Military Tribunal. “May it please Your Honors …”).

[120] Erna Paris, International Criminal Court: A fight that Canada must lead, Globe and Mail, November 8, 2016; Ambassador David Scheffer, The Self-Defeating Executive Order Against the International Criminal Court, Just Security (justsecurity.org), June 12,2020. Also see, Steven Pifer, Crimea: Six Years after illegal annexation, Brookings, March 17, 2020; Nithin Coca, The Long Shadow of Xinjiang: Anger Grows in Muslim Countries at China’s Treatment of the Uighurs, Foreign Affairs, September 10, 2020; Jen Kirby, Concentration camps and forced labor: China’s repression of the Uighurs, explained, Vox, July 28, 2020; Editorial Board, China’s Xi is doubling down on genocide, Washington Post, September 29, 2020; Kate Cronin-Furman, China Has Chosen Cultural Genocide in Xinjiang – For Now, Foreign Policy, September 19, 2018.

[121] Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky, An ‘alliance of democracies’ sounds good. It won’t solve the world’s problems, Washington Post, August 13, 2020. Also see, Thomas Colson, A Joe Biden presidency would repair most of the damage Trump has done to America’s historic alliance with Europe, Business Insider, October 10, 2020.

[122] Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law, Penguin Books, 2010.

[123] Anthony Valcke, The Rule of Law: Its Origin and Meanings (A Short Guide for Practitioners), in Encyclopaedia of Global Science Issues, ME Sharp Publishing, 2012.

[124] Eric Sigurdson, The Decline of the Rule of Law: Experiencing the Unimaginable in Western Society – the impact of economic and social inequality in the 21^st century, Sigurdson Post, April 26, 2020.