Complementing the ICC Efforts to Curb the Impunity of International Crimes in Africa

Author(s):  
Pacifique Manirakiza

A matter raised consistently by eminent personalities asked to report on atrocities in Africa, such as former South African President Thabo Mbeki, is the utilization of traditional justice mechanisms known to Africans. Their use has been limited to Gacaca courts in Rwanda, set up in haste and subject to much criticism. However, there exist several types and models of traditional justice mechanisms at the African level. The contribution of these sui generis mechanisms towards accountability for heinous crimes is largely unaddressed in academic literature. This chapter intends to fill this gap by exploring their potential contribution towards accountability for heinous crimes, alongside the International Criminal Court (ICC). In short, the chapter explores how community-based judicial mechanisms and the ICC, two types of accountability mechanisms with different methodologies and approaches, can work side by side to eradicate impunity regarding, and also to prevent, mass atrocities on the African continent.

1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (325) ◽  
pp. 671-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Claude Roberge

After years of relentless effort and five weeks of intense and difficult negotiations, the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted and opened for signature in Rome on 17 July 1998. This historic event represents a major step forward in the battle against impunity and towards better respect for international humanitarian law. For too long it has been possible to commit atrocities with total impunity, a situation which has given perpetrators carte blanche to continue such practices. The system of repression established by international law clearly has its shortcomings, and the time has come to adopt new rules and set up new institutions to ensure the effective prosecution of international crimes. A criminal court, whether at the national or international level, does not put a stop to crime, but it may serve as a deterrent and, consequently, may help reduce the number of victims. The results achieved in Rome should thus be welcomed, in the hope that the new Court will be able to discharge its mandate to the full.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-61
Author(s):  
Jeremy Sarkin

This article examines the issue of state cooperation with the International Criminal Court (icc), and why it is vitally needed to achieve the institution’s mandate, including that of human rights protection. The article examines why state cooperation with the icc is so important and what issues undermine it, including disputes with the African Union, but many other issues as well. It surveys what the icc has done to promote cooperation and what steps ought to be taken to try and enhance state cooperation in the future. This is timely as the icc has set up a review process in 2020 to deal with a range of problems including state non-cooperation. The article therefore examines the practices and procedures of the Court, matters concerning its judges and staff, issues around the appointment of a new prosecutor, as well as and judicial appointments, as well as its jurisprudence. The article examines the issues that ought to be addressed, as well as how a variety of actors could better assist the Court, including the Security Council, the wider United Nations system, and the methodology for doing so. The article also reviews what defensive strategies can be taken up to defend the Court, including against aggressive anti-icc actors, such as the United States of America, who are ramping up their attacks on the Court and its personnel.


Author(s):  
Wilmshurst Elizabeth

This chapter concerns the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the ad hoc Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, as well as other courts with international elements. It begins with a discussion of the ICC, and then addresses more briefly the residual mechanism set up to deal with the remaining work of the two ad hoc Tribunals and finally, even more briefly, other courts with international elements. The ICC in particular was borne out of the success of the ad hoc Tribunals, although other courts with international elements have since been created. All these courts and tribunals share the characteristic that they have jurisdiction over individuals, not States, and their purpose is to investigate and prosecute for various international crimes. Of these courts and tribunals, the ICC is the only one with a substantial continuing caseload and is the only permanent international criminal court.


Author(s):  
Станислав Тимошков ◽  
Stanislav Timoshkov

This research article examines the activities of the international community for inclusion in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court a number of amendments, concerning the fixation of the definition of the crime of aggression and the establishment of the Court’s jurisdiction over the international wrongful act. In a view of disputes between the states in the adoption of the Rome Statute concerning the definition of this international crime, set up a special working group whose objective was the development of a project for amendments in the Statute. After a long work at the international conference in the Ugandan capital – Kampala, the Member States of the Rome Statute were considered the amendments to be made to the Statute of the International Criminal Court for its greater efficiency. In considering these amendments were also taken into account the fact that not all states ratified the Rome Statute, respectively, for their adoption it was necessary to consider the national interests of these states. Despite the fact that the introduction of the amendments regarding the crime of aggression was deferred for a certain period, their adoption will strengthen the system of international justice. However, the article notes that it is important to consider the national interests of the states exercising the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the crime of aggression. This aspect concerns the extradition of persons accused of committing serious international crimes, especially the crime of aggression. In a view of the fact that, in accordance with the constitutions of most States, including the Russian Federation, not allowing the extradition of its citizens to the international judicial authorities, as a result, there is a conflict between the provisions of the Rome Statute and national law of several states. Thus, to prevent the crime of aggression and the development of liability rules for it, it is necessary to maintain joint action between states and international judicial organs.


Author(s):  
Olympia Bekou

This chapter provides a comparative overview of how states from the African continent have sought to implement action against the crimes contained in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It first explores the importance of national implementing legislation for the effective functioning of the ICC and then focuses on some key aspects of the domestic incorporation of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. In doing so, emphasis is placed on those states that follow the wording of the Statute, but also on those that go beyond the text of the various articles in the ICC Statute. Regarding the latter, whether an expansive approach is desirable is also discussed. In addition, the chapter explores those national provisions that are narrower than the Statute and briefly discusses what the implications might be for domestic investigations and prosecutions in respect of core international crimes.


Author(s):  
Jean-Batiste Bukuru ◽  
Aleksandr Solntsev

The authors study the legitimacy of the establishment and work of the International Criminal Court (ICC) from the perspective of African countries. They point out that African countries initially supported the idea of creating the ICC and actively participated in its establishment and development. However, after the Court initiated investigations regarding the current President of Sudan Omar Al-Bashir and other African leaders (current President of Kenia Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, its Vice-President William Samoei Ruto, former Head of the Great Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Muammar Gaddafi, the ex-President of Cote d’Ivoire Laurent Gbagbo, and others), the ICC began to lose its legitimacy in the eyes of most African leaders, who started to perceive it as a political instrument of Western countries. As a result, the African Union in its Resolutions (13 (XIII), 987 (XXIX), 952 (XXVIII) and others) called on African countries to stop cooperating with the ICC concerning warrants for the arrest of current officials and, finally, to totally withdraw from the Rome Statute of the ICC of 1998 because it believed that the Court is selective in its persecution of Africans only. Following this, three African countries (Burundi, the South African Republic and Gambia) announced in 2016 that they intend to withdraw from the Rome Statute. However, the South African Republic and Gambia did not do this due to internal political situation and pressure from the Western countries, and only Burundi withdrew from the 1998 Rome Statute on October 27, 2017. Besides, the African Union initiated the establishment of the International Criminal Chamber within its regional court — the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (Malabo Protocol of 2014); the authors believe it to be the reaction of the African countries to the activities of the ICC. Based on their research, the authors suggest reforming the International Criminal Court to ensure its independence and impartiality in fighting international crimes and impunity, as well as developing regional criminal justice in Africa.


2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (861) ◽  
pp. 111-131
Author(s):  
Jamie A. Williamson

Whilst the African continent has been beset with many of the modern- day conflicts, and with them violations of international humanitarian law, through the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court, African states have demonstrated their intent to hold accountable the perpetrators of the gravest international crimes. By the end of 2005, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda celebrated its eleventh year, the Special Court for Sierra Leone will have completed its fourth year and the International Criminal Court will be more than three and a half years old. As the present review of their activities shows, the delivery of justice through international jurisdictions is a complex and often time-consuming process.


Author(s):  
Kjersti Lohne

Kjersti Lohne describes the impact of non-governmental organizations at the International Criminal Court (ICC), in particular discussing the relative lack of regard for defendants’ rights, and especially highlighting the difficulties encountered by those acquitted. After the Coalition for the International Criminal Court contributed to the establishment of the ICC itself in the fight against impunity for international crimes, that Coalition has continued a victim-oriented approach, arguably at the expense of defendants’ rights. The ICC’s focus on victims, ‘truth’, and ‘memory’ may challenge the legitimacy of the Court in the longer run.


Author(s):  
Luke Moffett ◽  
Clara Sandoval

Abstract More than 20 years on from the signing of the Rome Statute, delivering victim-centred justice through reparations has been fraught with legal and practical challenges. The Court’s jurisprudence on reparations only began to emerge from 2012 and struggles to find purchase on implementation on the ground. In its first few cases of Lubanga, Katanga, and Al Mahdi the eligibility and forms of reparations have been limited to certain victims, subject to years of litigation, and faced difficulties in delivery due to ongoing insecurity. This is perhaps felt most acutely in the Bemba case, where more than 5,000 victims of murder, rape and pillage were waiting for redress, and the defendant was not indigent, but where he was later acquitted on appeal, thereby extinguishing reparation proceedings. This article critically appraises the jurisprudence and practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on reparations. It looks at competing principles and rationales for reparations at the Court in light of comparative practice in international human rights law and transitional justice processes to consider what is needed to ensure that the ICC is able to deliver on its reparations mandate. An underpinning argument is that reparations at the ICC cannot be seen in isolation from other reparation practices in the states where the Court operates. Reparative complementarity for victims of international crimes is essential to maximize the positive impact that the fulfilment of this right can have on victims and not to sacrifice the legitimacy of the Court, nor quixotically strive for the impossible.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document