Maria Varaki
The role of the International Criminal Court as a vehicle of moral
cosmopolitanism revisited.
Based on a common denominator in the theory of cosmopolitanism and as it has
been developed through the ages from Diogenes the Cynic, every human being is
a citizen of the world (cosmopolitis), everybody shares the same moral values
and has obligations towards the other citizens of the world under a global
system of governance. In the modern times cosmopolitanism “the offspring of
that great philosophical nation, Germany” became the “child of three generations
defeated war”. In the post-modern phase, the liberal cosmopolitan vision could
be substantiated in what Ruti Teitel calls “humanity’s law”, the new international
legalism, which results from “[t]he dramatic expansion of humanitarian law's
reach through its merger with international human rights law”.
Yet, despite this moral unity, the theory of cosmopolitanism suffered from
institutional fragmentation, until the creation of the International Criminal Court
which appeared to be the institution, that would host the moral foundation of
cosmopolitanism. In that sense it has be argued that the Court serves four
cosmopolitan projects, those of control, order, governance and citizenship. Thus,
it contributes to the strengthening of state control, to the enforcement of
“juridical pacifism” by criminalizing aggression, to promoting the rule of law and
democratization and finally to establishing a “global citizenship” transcending
the traditional borders of state sovereignty.
Within this context, the current proposal aims to unveil the limits of the
cosmopolitan role of the Court, applying a twofold approach. First, by
challenging the normative foundation of mora libel cosmopolitanism highlighting
the indetermimacy of the “justice” word. Second, by highlighting the multitiered
nature of the Court not only as a judicial institution but also as a political body.