Suchergebnisse

The question of whether the Bush administration's opposition to the Rome Statute is in the national interests is explored in the case of the opposition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) as an example of how a hegemon may undermine its own hegemonic status. Examination of the concept of hegemony discusses Cox's Gramscian derived definition in which one form of power exists in the active dominance & physical coercion asserts that adherence to the Gramscian conception of hegemony for the cooperative nature of liberal institutionalism appears to be the most conducive form of authority when trying to solidify one's interests. Dissection of the Rome Statute makes clear that the ICC embraces many of the liberties & freedoms of the American legal system. The failure of the US to recognize the similarity between the ICC jurisdiction & the current system of entry national justice indicates that US trepidation over the reach of the Rome Statute remains overstated. The failure to participate in such a strong liberal-legal institution clearly places the US at odds with the now fully functioning & relatively powerful institution that is of interest objectively accepted by a large number of its allies. The Bush administration appears to be working against its own position of hegemonic power by engaging in more coercive, unilateralist tactics, instead of assuming a leadership role in the perpetuation of the consensual base surrounding global liberal values. The author concludes that assuming a more comfortable position on the ICC would make great strides towards the retention & perpetuation of power. References. J. Harwell