Conclusion

Author(s):  
Charles Chernor Jalloh ◽  
Ilias Bantekas

Africa has been at the forefront of contemporary global efforts towards ensuring greater accountability for international crimes. This work analyses the relationship and tensions between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Africa. It traces the origins of the confrontation between African governments, acting individually or within the framework of the African Union, and the permanent Hague-based ICC. Topics examined include Africa, the ICC, and universal jurisdiction; the controversial use of the Prosecutor’s proprio motu power to initiate investigations in Africa; national implementation of the ICC statute in Africa; the complementarity principle; the sequencing of justice and peace; the question of immunity of sitting heads of state; the controversial role of the UN Security Council in referring and deferring situations under ICC investigation; the role of African domestic and traditional courts in the fight against impunity; and the recent withdrawal of some African states parties from the ICC.

Africa has been at the forefront of contemporary global efforts towards ensuring greater accountability for international crimes. But the continent’s early embrace of international criminal justice seems to be taking a new turn with the recent pushback from some African states claiming that the emerging system of international criminal law represents a new form of imperialism masquerading as international rule of law. This work analyses the relationship and tensions between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Africa. It traces the origins of the confrontation between African governments, acting individually or within the framework of the African Union, and the permanent Hague-based ICC. Topics examined include Africa, the ICC, and universal jurisdiction; the controversial use of the prosecutor’s proprio motu power to initiate investigations in Africa; national implementation of the ICC statute in Africa; the complementarity principle; the sequencing of justice and peace; the question of immunity of sitting heads of state; the controversial role of the UN Security Council in referring and deferring situations under ICC investigation; the role of African domestic and traditional courts in the fight against impunity as well as the recent withdrawal of some African states parties from the ICC. Leading commentators offer valuable insights on the core legal and political issues that have bedevilled the relationship between the two sides and expose the uneasy interaction between international law and international politics.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abd Alghafoor Saleh Mohammed ◽  
Yahya Salih Mohammed

The Security Council is one of the main organs of the United Nations, and according to its convention, this organ has been authorized with many main tasks, so as to maintain peace and international security, out of which the establishment of International Private Courts or what is called Temporary Courts to prosecute those accused of committing international crimes. With the absence of international judiciary at that time, and after the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the relationship between the two was under consideration, especially with regard to the role of the Security Council and its authority in the referral of international crimes to the Criminal Courts and the extent to which this condition is mandatory, where a lot of discussion were held among the delegations participating in the Rome Conference that established the International Criminal Courts system in 1998, in supporting the inclusion of the role of a political organ represented by the Security Council in the procedures of an international judicial organ represented by the International Criminal Court, where the court is supposed to be independent in doing its judicial function away from politicization. The study aims to clarify the relationship between these two organs and the extent of the obligation to refer crimes by the Security Counsel to the International Criminal Court. The methodology used in this research are descriptive analysis to extrapolate the texts and legal materials related to the subject of the research, and analyse all that in order to reach results of the research. The results of the study showed that the Security Council - based on chapter VII of the convention- consists of many deterrent sanctions, starting with economic sanctions and ending with military deterrence. Although, the separation between them achieves the independence of the international judiciary and ensures that no foreign political group interferes or controls the court, which is intended to be independent and free to ensure the application of the international law.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-23
Author(s):  
Gabriel M. Lentner

Abstract On February 26 2011, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1970 referring the situation concerning Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Th is unprecedented support for and acknowledgment of the ICC did not come without a price: conditio sine qua non for Council members not party to the ICC was the inclusion of operative § 6 into the resolution, which exempts certain categories of nationals of non-parties from ICC jurisdiction. Th e same highly controversial exemption was included in the Security Council’s referral of the situation in Darfur to the ICC in 2005. Deviating from the Rome Statute’s jurisdiction regime such practice not just poses challenges to principles of international criminal justice but raises the question whether the Rome Statute is altered by the resolution containing the referral to the effect that the ICC is being bound to the exemptions contained in its exercise of jurisdiction. Addressing these issues, the present paper elaborates firstly on the jurisdictional exemption of § 6 and its effect on the ICC, followed by a discussion of resulting challenges to the principle of legality, the principle of universal jurisdiction for international crimes, the equality of individuals before the law and the principle of independence of the court.


Subject Regional risks posed by the crisis in Burundi. Significance On January 31, the African Union (AU) heads of state voted against deploying a proposed 5,000-strong peacekeeping force to Burundi to quell violence triggered by President Pierre Nkurunziza's successful bid for a third term in office. The decision indicates tacit support by many leaders, some of whom are planning similar bids. Yet they remain concerned for the wider security implications should a full civil war erupt. Impacts Tanzania's new president, John Magufuli, is best placed to lead future peace talks given his strong standing regionally and internationally. If the crisis becomes genocidal, the UNSC may consider extending its DRC peacekeeping mission's mandate to include Burundi. AU opposition to the International Criminal Court means that Nkurunziza is unlikely to face charges if he steps down or is removed.


2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alette Smeulers ◽  
Maartje Weerdesteijn ◽  
Barbora Hola

The main aim of the International Criminal Court (icc) is to prosecute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. One of the most valued features of the icc is the independent position of the Prosecutor in selecting situations and cases to investigate. The Prosecutor, however, has been heavily criticized for his selection policy and countries from the African Union even threatened to withdraw from the icc because of its alleged bias and unfair focus on African political leaders. In this article we present the results of our explorative study in which we empirically evaluate the situations selection policy of the icc Prosecutor. We conclude that given the icc’s limited jurisdictional reach, the Prosecutor is generally focusing on the gravest situations where international crimes are supposedly committed.


2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benson Chinedu Olugbuo

There are two questions with multiple answers regarding the relationship between Africa and the International Criminal Court. The first is whether the International Criminal Court is targeting Africa and the second is if politics plays any role in the decision to investigate and prosecute crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. For the African Union, the International Criminal Court has become a western court targeting weak African countries and ignoring the atrocities committed by big powers including permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The accusation by the African Union against the International Criminal Court leads to the argument that the International Criminal Court is currently politised. This is a charge consistently denied by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. The aim of this paper is to discuss the relationship between the United Nations Security Council, the International Criminal Court and the African Union. It articulates the role of the three institutions in the fight against impunity and the maintenance of international peace and security with reference to the African continent. The paper argues that complementarity should be applied to regional organisations and that the relationship between the African Union and the International Criminal Court should be guided by the application of positive complementarity and a nuanced approach to the interests of justice. This offers the International Criminal Court and the African Union an opportunity to develop mutual trust and result-oriented strategies to confront the impunity on the continent. The paper further argues that the power of the United Nations Security Council to refer situations to the International Criminal Court and defer cases before the Court is a primary source of the disagreement between the prosecutor and the African Union and recommends a division of labour between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document