Humanitarian Emergencies and the International Criminal Court (ICC): Toward a Cooperative Arrangement between the ICC and UN Security Council STEVEN C. ROACH University of South Florida This article analyzes the role of humanitarian intervention in bringing together the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Security Council. It argues that a framework for cooperation between the ICC and Security Council is needed to facilitate a coordinated response to humanitarian emergencies. One of the concepts explored is a mutual legitimacy push, or how the ICC and Security Council can lend effective assistance to one another when responding to humanitarian emergen- cies. Such a push will not only serve to enhance a response to human- itarian disasters but also close the ‘‘critical gap’’ between the moral legitimacy of international humanitarian action and the legality of the UN Charter. The article concludes that a cooperative relationship will not politicize the ICC, and that the ICC and the Security Council, can, through institutional re-engineering, achieve mutual political benefits. Keywords: international criminal accountability, legitimacy, humani- tarian intervention, state sovereignty In recent years, the UN Security Council has shown a mixed willingness to respond to humanitarian emergencies. In the spring of 2000, for instance, the UN Security Council took the unprecedented initiative to intervene militarily to stop the mas- sacre of East Timorese in East Timor (Traub 2000). By contrast, it has demon- strated a relatively lackluster willingness to take action against the Sudanese government to prevent further ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region, where an estimated 70,000 civilians have been killed and millions have been driven from their homes (Straus 2005:123). More than anything, the Darfur crisis has raised the question as to whether the international community can respond effectively to humanitarian emergencies. Scholars have addressed this question in a number of ways. Some have argued that U.S. national security should be seen as a plausible means of leveraging sup- port for humanitarian intervention within the UN (Knight 2002; Farer 2003). Still others argue that the heavy reluctance to intervene on humanitarian grounds re- quires the revision of the outdated rules of the Charter, such as non-intervention and the sovereign equality of states (Domrosch 2000; Chimni 2002; Wheeler 2002; Falk 2004; Smith 2002). What is needed, they claim, is a new set of procedures and Author’s note: I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and helpful sug- gestions. r 2005 International Studies Association. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK International Studies Perspectives (2005) 6, 431–446.