Welcome to this last module of our course. In this module, we'll directly focus on the three course themes that have structured our discussion in previous modules, law and politics, state consent, and global values. For each of these themes, the videos of this module will give you the opportunity to synthesize the knowledge that you have acquired over the course, and to compare the values, courts, and tribunals that have been analyzed. They will also offer you additional insights to further reflect on these three things, starting with law and politics in this video. As explained in our course, a first one made in the 19th and 20th centuries to settle interstate relations to an international rule of law, meaning to develop a system of law that will manage state behavior and control power structures. As we have seen, international courts and tribunals constitute the cornerstone of this system. Despite this crucial role and position, can we say that these courts and tribunals, especially in light of their design, operate independently from states and politics more generally? In the second module on the International Court of Justice, two issues discussed by Dr. Rose are relevant in this debate. First of all, she explained that the judges exercise their judicial function in their individual capacity. They do not represent the interests of their states, or of states more generally. This is true despite the fact that the system for appointing the judges at the ICJ has a political element, in the sense that they are elected by the two political bodies of the United Nations, the General Assembly and the Security Council. The second relevant issue relates to state consent. The fact that takes part in international disputes must consent to the jurisdiction of the court limits its ability to settle disputes, and more generally, to contribute to the legalization of interstate relations, at the same time as explained by Dr. Rose. The need for consent potentially enhances the compliance with the decisions of the international court of justice, which can not be enforced by an International Police Force that does not exist. Thus, it can be suggested that consent contributes the factor to arrange for things the legalization of interstate relations. With respect to arbitration which constitutes the focus on module three, it is worth distinguishing interstate arbitration from investor-state arbitration to discuss our theme here in politics. As to interstate arbitration, I explained that arbitration leaves states with significant control over the settlement of their disputes. Not only do they have to consent to arbitration, but they also have the opportunity to choose, for instance, the arbitrators and the law applicable to the settlement of the disputes. This control left to states does not mean that arbitration is captured by politics. Arbitration is and remains a legal means to settle interstate disputes. The institutions that play key roles in interstate arbitration, like the Permanent Court of Arbitration, are characterized by their neutrality. Furthermore, as with the ICJ, the control that states have over arbitration is key to entering state's compliance with arbitration awards. What's more, this control explains the equalling success of arbitration in the settlement of interstate disputes and its great potential to further enforcing the international rule of law. These remarks apply to a large extent to investor-state arbitration. The control at arbitration left to states and also to foreign investors over the settlement of the disputes explains why and how the politicization of investor-state disputes has become possible in the course of the 20th century. Indeed, as I explained in module three, the settlement of those disputes was initially ended with politics, both at the domestic and international levels which led, in some cases, to sharp tensions between the states. From this point of view, arbitration has played an important role in managing state behavior and in contributing to the legalization of the international society. Last but not least, law and politics constitutes a central theme in international criminal justice, which Professor Van Den Herik analyzed in module four. The functioning of International Criminal Courts and tribunals as well as the realization of their objectives can be hampered by the conduct and interests of states. This is especially true for the International Criminal Court, which is dependent on states' cooperation to execute its arrest warrants and for access to undertake its investigations. Furthermore, its jurisdiction is to a large extend dependent on states becoming parties to the Rome Statute. As explained by professor Van Den Herik, the reform of situations by the Security Council and of the United Nations can extend the ICC's jurisdiction and give it a good leverage. By the power of the Security Council to refer on different cases introduces a political element in an otherwise judicial system. Moreover, as illustrated by the critique of selectivity and a number of African cases at the court, there is a risk of arbitrariness, a risk that has also been denounced with respect to the establishment of ex post facto tribunals. In fact, the selectivity critique has altered International Criminal Courts since Nuremberg and Tokyo. Hence, as has become clear during this course, the design of International Criminal Courts and tribunals does not make them completely independent from politics. Nonetheless, it is remarkable that within a very short period of time, International Criminal Justice has managed to address the numerous interests and challenges that were in its path. To conclude, it is important to realize that we have come a long way since the first Hague Conference convened in 1899. The rule of law have emerged and developed on the international plane. State behavior and power structures are increasingly regulated by international law and by international courts and tribunals. However, you should not forget the state-based nature of the international society. This is likely to remain the case for a long period of time. Therefore, you should take this into account when you think and talk about the inference of states and politics on international courts and tribunals. I invite you to watch video two, in which Dr. Rose will discuss the second theme of our course, state consent. Thank you for watching.
