The United States has traditionally been a great promoter of international justice – forging the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals after World War II and leading the way in creating tribunals to address genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda after the Cold War. Yet the US views the International Criminal Court – the culmination of the tribunal-building process – as a dire threat. The US voted against its establishment, passed legislation threatening to invade The Hague, and tried to destroy the ICC with economic sanctions. Delving into the uneasy relationship between the world's superpower and one of its most prominent international institutions, Above the Law explains how the desire to shield American soldiers from unwanted ICC scrutiny is the ultimate source of tension. Offering a sophisticated analysis of the ICC's track record that shows how American fears are overblown, Daniel Krcmaric argues that a more cooperative US policy toward the ICC would benefit both sides.

‘Above the Law is a compelling and deeply researched account of why the US has been such a robust supporter of global justice initiatives, except for one: the International Criminal Court. The book is a sophisticated, highly readable, and sober analysis of one of the most important policy tensions in US foreign policy – America's simultaneous championing of international justice, and its resistance to supranational legal accountability.'

Thomas Gift - Associate Professor and Director of the Centre on US Politics, University College London

‘Above the Law is thorough and insightful. Daniel Krcmaric offers the most complete examination of why successive US administrations have feared the ICC yet sometimes assisted investigations. Debunking the claim of ICC anti-US bias, Krcmaric offers provocative ideas for the future of the US-ICC relationship.'

Judith Kelley - Terry Sanford Professor of Public Policy and Political Science, Duke University

‘This timely text - emerging at a time when President Trump's sanctions have brought the US-ICC relationship to a new nadir - utilizes international relations theory and statistical analyses of the ICC's entire track record to convincingly demonstrate that the fears of some US policymakers that ICC actors are biased against the United States are manifestly unfounded. This proof that the ICC is not the existential threat some would portray it to be should open the way for a more cooperative, productive, and strategic relationship based upon a shared commitment to seek justice for victims of the worst crimes known to humankind.’

Beth Van Schaack - Distinguished Fellow, Center for Human Rights & International Justice, Stanford University, and former United States Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice