Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Continental Divide and the Politics of Complex Sovereignty: Canada, the United States and the International Criminal Court

Adrian L. Jones
Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique
Vol. 39, No. 2 (Jun., 2006), pp. 227-248
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25165950
Page Count: 22
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($10.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Continental Divide and the Politics of Complex Sovereignty: Canada, the United States and the International Criminal Court
Preview not available

Abstract

As a recent instance of transnational cooperation and governance, encompassing a novel combination of international and supranational legal properties, the International Criminal Court provides an instructive forum for considering increasingly complex sovereignty. This paper considers why Canada and the United States have pursued such divergent policies toward the Court. I argue that these postures are informed by their subjective conceptions of state sovereignty, a reflection of varying interests, values and capacities. As such, this case study illuminates factors that may influence patterns and limitations of transnational cooperation by states. /// Comme exemple récent de coopération et de gouvernance transnationales, englobant une combinaison innovatrice de caractéristiques juridiques internationales et supranationales, la Cour pénale internationale constitue un forum instructif pour l'étude de la complexité croissante de la souveraineté. Cet article examine pourquoi le Canada et les États-Unis ont adopté des politiques aussi divergentes à l'égard de la Cour. J'avance que leurs positions sont fondées sur leurs notions subjectives de la souveraineté des États et qu'elles reflètent les divergences de leurs intérêts, de leurs valeurs et de leurs capacités. En définitive, cette étude de cas met en lumière les facteurs susceptibles d'influencer les modèles et les limites de la coopération transnationale entre les États.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[227]
    [227]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
228
    228
  • Thumbnail: Page 
[229]
    [229]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
230
    230
  • Thumbnail: Page 
231
    231
  • Thumbnail: Page 
232
    232
  • Thumbnail: Page 
233
    233
  • Thumbnail: Page 
234
    234
  • Thumbnail: Page 
235
    235
  • Thumbnail: Page 
236
    236
  • Thumbnail: Page 
237
    237
  • Thumbnail: Page 
238
    238
  • Thumbnail: Page 
239
    239
  • Thumbnail: Page 
240
    240
  • Thumbnail: Page 
241
    241
  • Thumbnail: Page 
242
    242
  • Thumbnail: Page 
243
    243
  • Thumbnail: Page 
244
    244
  • Thumbnail: Page 
245
    245
  • Thumbnail: Page 
246
    246
  • Thumbnail: Page 
247
    247
  • Thumbnail: Page 
248
    248