Study Notes on US Attitudes Towards the ICC

Introduction

  • Author: Kelebogile Zvobgo, University of Southern California and College of William & Mary.

  • Objective: Examine shifting US public attitudes on the International Criminal Court (ICC).

  • Background: US’s role in establishing international criminal tribunals historically, followed by its hesitance to join the ICC despite public support.

Historical Context of International Criminal Justice

  • Initial Tribunals:

    • Established in 1945 by the Allies: Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals for war crimes.

    • Aimed to promote adherence to the Geneva Conventions.

  • Later Developments:

    • 1993 and 1994: Establishment of ICTY and ICTR for war crimes in the Balkans and Rwanda.

    • Jurisdiction extended to include all parties involved in conflicts, addressing previous criticisms of one-sided trials.

  • Rome Statute (1998):

    • Adopted by 120 states to create a permanent ICC.

    • Intended to end impunity for serious international crimes.

US Position on the ICC

  • US Nonmembership:

    • Not joining the ICC noted as a failure by many observers since it is the successor of tribunals that the US helped establish.

    • Although the US offers logistical and financial support, it is reluctant to formally commit.

  • Scholar Perspectives:

    • US prefers to maintain control over international bodies, leading to reluctance to join the ICC.

    • Nonmembership viewed as detrimental to international governance.

Public Opinion Dynamics

  • US Public vs. Government Policy:

    • Divergence between public opinion and government foreign policy noted, with public attitudes potentially influencing policy changes.

    • Reports indicate rising awareness and support for the ICC among Americans (e.g., 45% awareness in 2018).

  • Importance of Framing:

    • Different issue frames can significantly influence public attitudes towards the ICC (e.g., human rights vs. national interests).

Theoretical Framework

  • Human Rights Frames:

    • Historical US leadership and moral obligation to support human rights-based initiatives.

    • Hypothesis (H1): Exposure to human rights frames will increase support for US ICC membership.

  • National Interest Frames:

    • Emphasize US sovereignty and ability to prosecute international crimes domestically.

    • Hypothesis (H2): Exposure to national interest frames will decrease support for US ICC membership.

  • Competing Frames:

    • Engage in contrasting perspectives to motivate deliberation among the public. Hypotheses regarding varying effects when exposed to both frames (H3, H4)

    • Investigate whether competing arguments will lead to a neutralizing effect or moderate opinions.

Research Design

  • Method:

    • Online survey with a sample of 1,020 US adults, randomly assigned to five treatment groups.

  • Conditions:

    • Human rights and national interest frames presented, along with a control and competitive condition.

  • Survey Questions: Participants asked about their support for US ICC membership.

  • Additional Indicators:

    • Behavioral indicators (willingness to donate to ICC Trust Fund and contact senators).

Experimental Results

  • Support Trends:

    • Human rights treatment led to 64.6% approval; national interest treatment led to 41.9% approval.

    • Control group: 55.9% approval.

  • Dynamic of Competing Frames:

    • Competitive treatment yielded 47.6% approval but indicated a slight decrease compared to the human rights frame alone.

  • General Findings:

    • Participants' beliefs about the effectiveness and impartiality of international organizations influence their support significantly.

  • Demographics Influencing Results:

    • Democrats showed the highest support for joining the ICC, participants under age 40 were more favorable, while Republicans displayed lesser support.

Implications and Discussion

  • Policy Effects:

    • Understanding framing effects critical for influencing public opinion towards supporting the ICC.

    • Public mobilization could potentially lead to a shift in government policy favoring ICC membership.

  • Limitations Acknowledged:

    • Potential biases in treatment perceptions and participant familiarity with international organizations.

Conclusion

  • Findings provide insights into the US public’s evolving attitudes on the ICC, highlighting the crucial role of human rights discourse and framing in shaping these attitudes.

  • Future research suggested to refine understanding of public engagement with international judicial institutions, enhancing potential policy impacts regarding ICC membership.