While regulatory governance can be theorized as a three-party game in which regulators use intermediaries to influence targets, I show how regulatory intermediaries can, through delegation and orchestration, engage their own “subintermediaries” to increase their capacity for fulfilling their regulatory mandates and their influence on regulators and targets. I elucidate how the International Criminal Court (ICC)—the key intermediary in the regulatory regime for international crimes—has used nongovernmental organizations’ (NGOs’) advocacy, expertise, and operational capacities to compensate for its limited capabilities. Through NGO intermediaries, the ICC has aimed to increase its ability to prosecute, punish, and thus regulate international crimes; amplify its influence on state regulators and potential perpetrators; and improve the regulation of international crimes overall.
AbbottKenneth W.1999. International relations theory, international law, and the regime governing atrocities in internal conflicts. American Journal of International Law93 (2): 361–79.
2.
AbbottKenneth W.GenschelPhilippSnidalDuncanZanglBernhard, eds. 2015. International organizations as orchestrators. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AbbottKenneth W.GenschelPhilippSnidalDuncanZanglBernhard. 2016. Two logics of indirect governance: Delegation and orchestration. British Journal of Political Science46 (4): 719–29.
4.
AbbottKenneth W.Levi-FaurDavidSnidalDuncan. 2017. Theorizing regulatory intermediaries: The RIT model. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
5.
BaylisElena. 2009. Outsourcing investigations. UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs14:121–47.
BoscoDavid. 2014. Rough justice: The International Criminal Court’s battle to fix the world, one prosecution at a time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
8.
ClancyDéirdre. 2015. “They told us we would be part of history”: Reflections on the civil society intermediary experience in the Great Lakes region. In Contested justice: The politics and practice of International Criminal Court interventions, eds. De VosChristianKendallSaraStahnCarsten, 219–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CoganJacob Katz. 2011. The regulatory turn in international law. Harvard International Law Journal52:321–72.
10.
CryerRobert. 2010. The objectives of international criminal law. In An introduction to international criminal law and procedure, eds. CryerRobertFrimanHakanRobinsonDarrylWilmshurstElizabeth, 22–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
DeitelhoffNicole. 2009. The discursive process of legalization: Charting islands of persuasion in the ICC case. International Organization63 (1): 33–65.
12.
De SilvaNicole. 2016. How international courts promote compliance: Strategies beyond adjudication. PhD diss., University of Oxford.
13.
EvensonElizabeth. 7August2015. The ICC: Too important to let fail. The Globe and Mail.
14.
FehlCaroline. 2004. Explaining the International Criminal Court: A “practice test” for rationalist and constructivist approaches. European Journal of International Relations10 (3): 357–94.
GlasiusMarlies. 2006. The International Criminal Court: A global civil society achievement. London: Routledge.
18.
HaddadHeidi Nichols. 2013. After the norm cascade: NGO mission expansion and the Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Global Governance19:187–206.
19.
HansenThomas Obel. 2013. Africa and the International Criminal Court. In Handbook of Africa’s international relations, ed. MurithiTim, 165–79. New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
HaslamEmilyEdmundsRod. 2012. Managing a new partnership: Professionalization, intermediaries, and the International Criminal Court. Criminal Law Forum12:871–903.
21.
HavingaTettyVerbruggenPaul. 2017. Understanding complex governance relationships in food safety regulation: The RIT model as a theoretical lens. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
22.
HawkinsDarren G.LakeDavid A.NielsonDaniel L.TierneyMichael J., eds. 2006. Delegation and agency in international organizations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HelferLaurence R.SlaughterAnne-Marie. 2005. Why states create international tribunals: A response to professors Posner and Yoo. California Law Review93 (3): 899–956.
International Criminal Court. 17March2014. Guidelines governing the relations between the Court and intermediaries for the organs and units of the Court and counsel working with intermediaries. Available from https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/lt/GRCI-Eng.pdf.
26.
International Criminal Court, Assembly of States Parties. 30October2013. Second report of the Court on the financial implications of the draft guidelines governing the relations between the Court and intermediaries, ICC-ASP/12/53, Twelfth Session, The Hague. Available from https://asp.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/ASP12/ICC-ASP-12-53-ENG.pdf.
27.
JoHyeranSimmonsBeth A.2016. Can the International Criminal Court deter atrocity?International Organization70 (3): 443–75.
28.
KelleyJudith. 2007. Who keeps international commitments and why? The International Criminal Court and bilateral nonsurrender agreements. American Political Science Review101 (3): 573–89.
29.
Koenig-ArchibugiMathiasMacdonaldKate. 2017. The role of beneficiaries in transnational regulatory processes. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
30.
LohneKjersti. 2017. Global civil society, the ICC, and legitimacy in international criminal justice. In The legitimacy of international criminal tribunals, eds. HayashiNobuoBaillietCecilia M., 449–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
SchefferDavid J.1996. International judicial intervention. Foreign Policy102:34–51.
32.
SikkinkKathryn. 2009. From state responsibility to individual criminal accountability: A new regulatory model for core human rights violations. In The politics of global regulation, eds. MattliWalterWoodsNgaire, 121–50. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
StruettMichael. 2008. The politics of constructing the International Criminal Court: NGOs, discourse, and agency. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
36.
UllrichLeila. 2016. Beyond the “global–local divide”: Local intermediaries, victims and the justice contestations of the International Criminal Court. Journal of International Criminal Justice14 (3): 543–68.
37.
van der WiltHarmen. 2011. Universal jurisdiction under attack: An assessment of African misgivings towards international criminal justice as administered by western states. Journal of International Criminal Justice9 (5): 1043–66.
38.
VinjamuriLeslie. 2010. Deterrence, democracy, and the pursuit of international justice. Ethics & International Affairs24 (2): 191–211.
39.
ZacklinRalph. 2004. The failings of ad hoc international tribunals. Journal of International Criminal Justice2 (2): 541–45.
