Student Spotlight – Jade Faircloth
Meet UCLA undergraduate researcher Jade Faircloth!
Jade is majoring in Global Studies and minoring in Public Affairs. She is part of the UCLA/Keck Humanistic Inquiry Research Awards program. Her project is “A TWAIL Perspective on Article 98(2), U.S. Immunity Deals, and Colonial Hierarchies in International Criminal Justice.”
How did you first get interested in your research project?
In summer 2024, I studied abroad in The Hague, where I took courses on human rights, visited the International Criminal Court (ICC), and had my first real exposure to international law. This experience ultimately led me to write my final paper for the course on the selectivity of global justice, examining how states in the Global North and Global South responded differently to the ICC’s arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Omar al-Bashir. Through this work, I became deeply interested in how eurocentrism and racism are embedded in the foundations of the ICC.
Drawing on Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), I am exploring how the United States’ use of Article 98(2) of the Rome Statute, through bilateral immunity agreements, exposes the limits of the ICC’s claimed universality and helps reproduce colonial hierarchies in international criminal justice. My research analyzes how the Bush administration reinterpreted Article 98(2) and utilized aid conditionality to secure immunity for U.S. nationals, using military and economic assistance as leverage and asserting U.S. exceptionalism and hegemony. In contrast, I show how many Global South states, although resistant to these agreements, faced profound structural constraints: their economic dependence and vulnerable positions in the global system limited their ability to refuse U.S. pressure, resulting in uneven sovereignty and constrained agency. This project has solidified my interest in a career in international law and human rights, where I hope to continue this line of critical, TWAIL-informed research.
What has been the most exciting aspect of your research so far?
The most exciting part of this project has been engaging deeply with TWAIL and uncovering the political calculations behind the Bush administration’s approach to bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs). It has been especially interesting to see how BIAs and the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA) were framed as national security measures within the broader “war on terror” after 9/11, even though the underlying efforts to limit U.S. exposure to the ICC began under the Clinton administration. I also find it fascinating to trace how this security framing intersected with Bush’s re-election incentives and how U.S. domestic politics shaped its hostile posture toward the ICC. At the same time, my research has highlighted how profoundly U.S. policy decisions influence the ICC’s reputation and perceived legitimacy, particularly when U.S. policy simultaneously undermines and selectively cooperates with the Court. It has also been compelling to connect these dynamics to contemporary debates about accountability within the U.S. government and the uneven enforcement of international criminal law today. Seeing how the legal architecture built in the early 2000s continues to shape present-day struggles over impunity, hegemony, and international justice has reinforced my interest in TWAIL-informed research.
What has surprised you about your research or the research process?
I was struck by how relevant my research feels to the present moment. I originally assumed that focusing on early 2000s U.S. policy toward the ICC, especially under George W. Bush, would be somewhat dated, but the isolationist rhetoric and anti-ICC discourse from that era still echo in today’s administration, even if in a somewhat less overt form. What surprised me most is how consistently the United States continues to adopt a skeptical, and often adversarial, stance toward the Court, and how willing it is to challenge or sidestep international norms when its own interests might be implicated. Rather than feeling historical, my project has helped me see how the legal and political frameworks built in the early years of the ICC continue to shape U.S. policy and global debates about accountability today.
What is one piece of advice you have for other UCLA students thinking about doing research?
One piece of advice I have is not to give up when you feel stuck, and to actively seek help when you hit a dead end. When I first started my project, my advisor rejected my first two proposals and pushed me to dig deeper, which ultimately led me to a much stronger research question. There were several moments when I felt completely stuck, but reaching out to others helped me see my topic from new angles. Because my project involved complex legal concepts and terminology, I contacted a UCLA Law professor who specializes in the ICC, as well as the UCLA Law Librarian. Their guidance was invaluable and made my literature review and source gathering much more manageable.
What effect do you hope your research has in your field, at UCLA, in your community, or in the world?
I hope my project highlights the structural inequalities that have been historically built into the global system and the enormous power that Western states continue to exercise. International law has largely been created by Western powers, for Western powers, and it operates through hierarchies that mirror older colonial relationships. I think a crucial starting point is recognizing the need to expand the agency of Global South states within international institutions and to acknowledge that any meaningful reimagining of international criminal law must confront the colonial logics embedded in its foundations. I also hope my research encourages students and other readers to think critically about the historical erosion and failures of global institutions, and to see how those dynamics are directly connected to the crises and legitimacy debates we face today.