Conclusion

Plato1 Incongruities in Interpretations In the preceding chapters I analyzed the formation process of the International Criminal Court from three different analytical perspectives. As a result, my readers have gained: 1) an understanding of the ICC formation process; and 2) an understanding of the implications of this institution for the issues of authority, governance, and shifting world order interpretations. Let me now summarize the interpretations given in this text and how they interrelate and conflict. The different perspectives this text employed resulted in different interpretations of why the ICC formed, who were the major actors involved, and how these actors’ interests developed. In many ways, this was the primary purpose of this project-to analyze the formation of the Rome Statute using three different perspectives of international relations. If successful, one could break down and analyze the knowledge that was ascertained from these three perspectives in order to gain a fuller understanding of the process. One would accomplish this goal not by attempting to initiate a parsimonious theory of regime formation, but by using diverse interpretations as a foundation for understanding. Primary Units of Analysis If we look at the conclusions from each perspective, it is obvious that incongruities exist. Let us begin by looking at the primary units of analysis for each perspective. The narrowest perspective, at least in terms of actors involved, is neoliberal institutionalism. From this perspective the only actors who have a profound impact on the formation of the ICC are states.2 Therefore, when analyzing the

1 Plato, The Republic, second edition (London: Penguin Books, 1987), 319.