Under Construction Journal Issue 6.1 UNDER CONSTRUCTION JOURNAL 6.1 | Page 98

contradicted by Jordan Sekulow who presents the submission and appearance (with Jay Sekulow) at the
appeal hearing as the continuation of the ECLJ crusade against the ICC 47 . Indeed, this piece concurs with
Heller’s assessment that ‘Sekulow’s appearance is nothing more than a publicity stunt designed to
undermine the ICC and raise money for his ultra-right causes’ 48 given that there is clear evidence of a
dedicated website on ECLJ with the pure purpose of raising money ‘to defend the interests of our military
from unfounded attacks at the supreme court level of the ICC’ 49 . Thus, this clearly emphasises the
fundamental partisan nature and self-interest that plagues this submission.
Even though this is the position of the ECLJ and the US, there is the underlying notion that this
jurisdiction is in place to ensure that atrocity crimes are never committed and that impunity should never
exist. Thus, it comes to the point that the ICC is the sum of its parts and should never be deterred by
criticism or hostility given its mandate to end impunity and prevent atrocity crimes. Although, the
deterrent value in this mandate is difficult to gather empirical evidence for 50 , the effect of having such a
Court is amplified in the rhetoric of the current US administration and the ECLJ submission. Ultimately,
this mandate ensures that the ICC continues on its progress to deliver justice to victims whose State,
whether unwilling or unable, cannot or will not investigate or prosecute perpetrators of alleged crimes.
Conclusion
To conclude, this piece finds the stronger argument lies with the FCPAHT submission in support of the AC
to authorise the OTP to open an investigation. The reasons for the position taken result from the reasoned
legal analysis regarding the powers of the OTP and the PTC and the subsequent broader analysis of the
aims of the ICC regarding ending impunity and preventing atrocity crimes. However, the more nuanced
purpose of contrasting two completely different submissions against each other was to emphasise the
47
“BREAKING: ACLJ Fights for US Soldiers Under Attack at International Criminal Court”, Jordan Sekulow, accessed
29 November 2019, https://aclj.org/us-military/breaking-aclj-fights-for-us-soldiers-under-attack-at-international-
criminal-court.
48
“Did ACLJ/ECLJ Lie to the Appeals Chamber?”, Kevin Jon Heller, accessed 29 November 2019,
http://opiniojuris.org/2019/11/06/did-aclj-eclj-lie-to-the-appeals-chamber/.
49
“Don’t Prosecute Our Soldiers - Defend Our Heroes”, ACLJ, accessed 29 November 2019, https://aclj.org/us-
military/dont-prosecute-our-soldiers-defend-our-heroes.
50
Tor Krever, “International Criminal Law: An Ideology Critique”, Leiden Journal of International Law 26, no. 3
(September 2013): 710.
89