IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v63y2009i01p33-65_09.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case

Author

Listed:
  • Deitelhoff, Nicole

Abstract

For many political observers the successful creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) came as a surprise, as major powers, in particular the United States, had opposed the plans for the ICC. Moreover, the institutional design of the ICC entails enormous sovereignty costs for states but only uncertain benefits. An analysis of the negotiations suggests that the court's successful creation can be attributed to persuasion and discourse within negotiations, that is, a shift in states' interests. The article develops a theoretical model of institutional change that defines the conditions under which persuasion and discourse can affect collective decision making. In particular, this study attempts to show that if (traditionally) weaker actors alter normative and institutional settings of negotiations they can further the chance of persuasion and discourse.

Suggested Citation

  • Deitelhoff, Nicole, 2009. "The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(1), pages 33-65, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:63:y:2009:i:01:p:33-65_09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S002081830909002X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guri Rosén, 2015. "EU Confidential: The European Parliament's Involvement in EU Security and Defence Policy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 383-398, March.
    2. Andreas Kruck & Bernhard Zangl, 2020. "The Adjustment of International Institutions to Global Power Shifts: A Framework for Analysis," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(S3), pages 5-16, October.
    3. Stephen, Matthew D., 2015. "‘Can you pass the salt?’ The legitimacy of international institutions and indirect speech," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 21(4), pages 768-792.
    4. Zürn, Michael & Heupel, Monika, 2017. "Human Rights Protection in International Organizations: An Introduction," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 1-39.
    5. Patrick Haack & Michael D. Pfarrer & Andreas Georg Scherer, 2014. "Legitimacy-as-Feeling: How Affect Leads to Vertical Legitimacy Spillovers in Transnational Governance," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 634-666, June.
    6. Diana Panke, 2017. "Speech is silver, silence is golden? Examining state activity in international negotiations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 121-146, March.
    7. repec:bla:glopol:v:8:y:2017:i::p:62-74 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. James D. Morrow & Kevin L. Cope, 2021. "The limits of information revelation in multilateral negotiations: A theory of treatymaking," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(4), pages 399-429, October.
    9. Thomas Dörfler & Mirko Heinzel, 2023. "Greening global governance: INGO secretariats and environmental mainstreaming of IOs, 1950 to 2017," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 117-143, January.
    10. Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian & Zangl, Bernhard, 2015. "Which post-Westphalia? International organizations between constitutionalism and authoritarianism," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 21(3), pages 568-594.
    11. Luis Aue & Florian Börgel, 2023. "From “Bangtan Boys” to “International Relations Professor”: Mapping Self‐Identifications in the UN’s Twitter Public," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(3), pages 120-133.
    12. Börzel, Tanja A. & Zürn, Michael, 2021. "Contestations of the Liberal International Order: From Liberal Multilateralism to Postnational Liberalism," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 75(2), pages 282-305.
    13. Cupać, Jelena, 2020. "Orders, purposes, and tasks: How do states act in international security organizations?," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2020-104, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    14. Hanrieder, Tine, 2017. "The public valuation of religion in global health governance: spiritual health and the faith factor," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 23(1), pages 81-99.
    15. Holzscheiter, Anna, 2017. "Was vom arguing übrigblieb… Der Nachhall der kommunikativen Wende in den Internationalen Beziehungen," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 143-159.
    16. Klaus H. Goetz & Ronny Patz & Theresa Squatrito, 2017. "Resourcing Global Justice: The Resource Management Design of International Courts," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(s5), pages 62-74, August.
    17. Diana Panke & Gurur Polat & Franziska Hohlstein, 2021. "Satisfied or not? Exploring the interplay of individual, country and international organization characteristics for negotiation success," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 403-429, April.
    18. Marianne Riddervold, 2016. "(Not) in the Hands of the Member States: How the European Commission Influences EU Security and Defence Policies," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 353-369, March.
    19. Nicole De Silva, 2017. "Intermediary Complexity in Regulatory Governance," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 170-188, March.
    20. Wolfe, Robert, 2010. "Endogenous Learning and Consensual Understanding in Multilateral Negotiations: Arguing and Bargaining in the WTO," Working Papers 90885, Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:63:y:2009:i:01:p:33-65_09. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.