This essay poses the question of whether grassroots organizations can provide an alternative center of authority to the state in inducing multinational corporations to incorporate human rights criteria in their investment and trade decisions. In examining the anti-apartheid movement and attempts to replicate it in the 1990s in the campaigns against corporate involvement in Burma and Nigeria, it presents a mixed picture. In each case, citizen pressures increased the costs and risks of "business as usual" with target states and induced (...) corporations either to undertake social obligations or to disengage beyond what was required by national regulations or market forces. At the same time, nonstate actors are limited by the fact that they can induce but, unlike the state, cannot command corporate behavior; their success is dependent upon state policies; and their most powerful weapon—municipal procurement power—has been predominantly a U.S. phenomenon. (shrink)

In the ‘Justice Cascade’, Kathryn Sikkink argues that “foreign prosecutions and international tribunals can be cost-effective alternatives to military intervention.” Yet, the successes of the Special Court for Sierra Leone—in prosecuting former Liberian President Charles Taylor and in imposing accountability on the leaders of all armed groups regardless of political alignment—were dependent on a commitment by Western powers and international and regional organizations to a military victory against the rebels in Sierra Leone and coercive regime change in Liberia. The lesson (...) that should be drawn from this case—which parallels that of other international tribunals set up during ongoing violence—is that the prospects for international criminal justice during civil wars are dependent on the political strategies adopted by outsiders to address the conflict and that taking criminal accountability seriously requires an interventionist rather than a consent-based approach to conflict resolution. (shrink)

Is it ethical for the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court to consider political factors, such as peace processes, in selecting situations to investigate or cases to prosecute? During the early years of the court, a number of documents and statements from the Office of the Prosecutor suggested that there were occasions when it was. Two OTP policy papers issued in 2003 recommended that the prosecutor assess “all circumstances prevailing in the country or region concerned, including the nature and stage (...) of the conflict and any intervention by the international community,” and whether prosecution might “exacerbate or otherwise destabilize a conflict situation.” In the same spirit, the ICC's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, referred to his decision-making as a “dialogue between many actors” with a “strategic dimension... [that] involves all stakeholders.” This language suggested a process of consultation and coordination with local and international actors involved in conflict resolution to adapt international criminal justice to on-the-ground political realities. (shrink)