In an increasingly globalized world, international organizations remain important to coordinate the need for global cooperation and collective action. In order to give adequate responses to a...Show moreIn an increasingly globalized world, international organizations remain important to coordinate the need for global cooperation and collective action. In order to give adequate responses to a plethora of wicked problems, international organizations need to be given more sovereignty and decision-making powers. This clashes directly with the need of national governments to retain their sovereignty. These clashes can lead to a decrease in legitimacy for the IO and give rise to nationalism, and in the most extreme cases to democratic backsliding. Democracy promoting IOs unintentionally help democratic backsliding in member states when they do not design proper democracy promoting tools and mechanisms. I mix process tracing and discourse analysis to look at the influence of democracy promoting mechanisms of IOs on member states who experience democratic backsliding. I demonstrate my case by looking at the application and results of the conditionality mechanism of the EU on Poland and Hungary. The conditionality mechanism focuses mainly on 1) constitution, 2) rule of law, 3) civil and minority rights, 4) the independence of the judiciary and the media, and 5) the separation of power within government. Of these, I focus on the effects of the conditionality mechanism on 4) the independence of the judiciary and the media. I find that the conditionality mechanism mainly influenced changes in the independence of the judiciary. This influence was also seen back in the resilience and recovery proposals from Hungary and Poland, where both countries pledged to pass legislation to increase the independence of the judiciary. Based on this I argue that the amount of democracy promoting mechanisms does not matter, as long as the impact of the mechanism is strong enough for democracy promotionShow less
Abstract In this study is analyzed whether the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Moreno-Ocampo (2003-2012) and Bensouda (2012-2021), consistently selected situations for...Show moreAbstract In this study is analyzed whether the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Moreno-Ocampo (2003-2012) and Bensouda (2012-2021), consistently selected situations for investigation and whether the appointment of Bensouda influenced decisions of the Court in favor of African situations. Although the ICC wants to serve all parties involved, there extends a severe chance for being influenced via the Prosecutor, especially while the Prosecutor enjoys much discretion to influence the situation selection via the gravity threshold reducing the legitimacy the ICC. Both Prosecutors have been criticized for being inconsistently selecting African situations. Although the second Prosecutor was an African official, her appointment did not lead to a decrease of criticisms. Therefore this study investigates whether both Prosecutors consistently applied the selection procedures for investigation and whether the appointment of Bensouda influenced the process in favor of African situations. This is done by evaluating how both Prosecutors handled with respect to the gravity threshold; the onliest component within selection on which the Prosecutor actually can insert its influence. Thus is concluded that both Prosecutors approached gravity differently. Whereas Moreno-Ocampo defined the gravity of a given situation in terms of the number of victims, Bensouda determined the gravity of a crime in terms of its scale, nature, manner of commission and impact. This study concludes that Moreno-Ocampo policies were really consistently pointing towards the gravest crimes, whereas Bensouda’s policies were less consistent. She selected some situations that were less serious in terms of gravity than situations rejected. Although Bensouda’s policies were less consistent in character, her policies don’t follow a pattern selecting in favor of African states. This study concludes by stating that Bensouda’s policies were less consistently focused on the gravest crimes of concern, while her qualitative formulation of gravity led much room to apply discretion, but that there is no reason to assume that her policies tended in favor of African situations.Show less
