Item Details
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:375Hits:19929848Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

In Basket
  Journal Article   Journal Article
 

ID090917
Title ProperNew moral hazard? military intervention, peacekeeping and ratification of the International Criminal Court
LanguageENG
AuthorNeumayer, Eric
Publication2009.
Summary / Abstract (Note)The newly established International Criminal Court (ICC) promises justice to the victims of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Past offenders can be punished, while future potential offenders may be deterred by the prospect of punishment. Yet, justice is no substitute for intervention for the benefit of people at acute risk of being victimized. The Court may create a new moral hazard problem if the promise of ex post justice makes it easier for states to shy away from incurring the costs of intervention. This article indirectly tests for the relevance of this potential problem by estimating the determinants of ratification delay to the Rome Statute of the ICC. If the Court represents an excuse for inaction, then countries that are unwilling or unable to intervene in foreign conflicts should be among its prime supporters. Results show instead that countries that in the past have been more willing to intervene in foreign civil wars and more willing to contribute troops to multinational peacekeeping missions are more likely to have ratified the Statute (early on). This suggests that the Court is a complement to, not a substitute for intervention.
`In' analytical NoteJournal of Peace Research Vol. 46, No. 5; Sep 2009: p.659-670
Journal SourceJournal of Peace Research Vol. 46, No. 5; Sep 2009: p.659-670
Key WordsMilitary Intervention ;  Peacekeeping ;  International Criminal Court ;  Genocide ;  War Crimes