Abstract
Abstract The preliminary examination of Colombia is widely regarded as a successful instance of positive complementarity. Under the watchful eye of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), Colombian authorities have implemented comprehensive reforms and negotiated peace with the country’s main rebellion. That said, how much credit can the International Criminal Court (ICC) claim for these outcomes? And how did ICC–state relations develop over time? Drawing on in-person interviews carried out during a research trip to Bogotá, this article conducts a within-case analysis of the situation of Colombia over fourteen years (2004–18), seeking to explore the motives underlying state compliance with ICC treaty obligations and trace the evolution of ICC–state relations throughout two consecutive administrations of opposite political color. Unsurprisingly, state elites and transitional justice experts push back against the idea that the OTP has held state authorities accountable to domestic and international legal obligations through its lasting monitoring and involvement in internal affairs. Besides, while participants in this study agree on the timeliness of ICC intervention, they are split on their assessments of the Court’s performance. Finally, interviewees tend to agree that, upon giving ‘green light’ to the finalized peace accords in early September 2016, the ICC has at best a marginal role in Colombia’s politics..
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
