The Selection of Situations by the ICC: An Empirically Based Evaluation of the otp’s Performance

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alette Smeulers ◽  
Maartje Weerdesteijn ◽  
Barbora Hola
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
African Union ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Explorative Study ◽  
Selection Policy ◽  
Selection Of

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.

scholarly journals The African Allegations towards Ignorance of International Criminal Court: Does International Criminal Court unfairly focusing on Africa?

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. p37
Author(s):  
Lamessa Gudeta Guder
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
African Government ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Whole Process ◽  
And Function ◽  
Ongoing Support

Though, African continent has the highest number of state parties to the Rome Statute, recently several criticisms and allegations have been leveled against ICC interventions in Africa. AU and African higher official apparently call for non-cooperation of ICC. They believed that, ICC is unfairly targeting Africa and Africans, and it is a neo-colonial plaything and that Africa has been a place to experiment with their ideas. Such allegation begs question that is really the ICC unfairly focusing Africa and Africans? Therefore, it needs evaluating these accusations by considering the whole process and function of ICC. Accordingly, when we evaluate the allegations, it seems too far from trues. Because, on one hand, many of allegation and criticism itself is not representative of African peoples rather it is the allegation of some African political leaders of authoritarian nature of power those who fears the prosecution for the commission of mass crime and atrocities in their respective countries. On other hand the composition of the court by itself is Africans. It is a global court with historically strong African support. It would not be the court it is today without the valuable input, involvement and support of the majority of African states. The court seeks justice for victims of grave crimes, including African victims; it needs the ongoing support of African government, civil society and public in order to achieve justice. It was intended to be a credible, independent judicial body, able to adjudicate the most serious of international crimes fairly and impartially, where National judicial systems have failed and fight against impunity all over the world.

Conclusion

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Chernor Jalloh ◽  
Ilias Bantekas
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
African Union ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
National Implementation ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
The Relationship

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.

Individual Criminal Responsibility

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chantal Meloni
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

The recognition of individual criminal responsibility under international law is relatively recent. The commission of mass atrocities during the 20th century prompted the international community to recognize that individuals can be criminally responsible directly under international law and to work for the establishment of an international criminal court having jurisdiction on international crimes committed by individuals. Thus, after World War II, the principle was established that individuals—and not only states—can be the addressee of obligations, commit crimes, and therefore bear criminal responsibility directly under international law. As affirmed by the judges sitting in Nuremberg: “Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.” As a consequence, it is now undisputed that individuals shall be punished for the commission of crimes under international law (or “international crimes”) that seriously damage the interest of the international community as a whole, so that the goals of prevention and deterrence can be achieved. This principle is now well expressed in the Preamble of the Rome Statute of 1998, where it affirms that “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished” and that the International Criminal Court aims “to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes.” The attribution of criminal responsibility to individuals does not exclude that states can be held responsible for the violations of international law that also potentially amount to international crimes; however, individual criminal responsibility under international law possesses the same legal nature as the criminal responsibility under domestic law, whereas the responsibility of states is of an international/civil nature. Given the macro-criminal dimension of the crimes at stake, which normally involve the state apparatus and are committed by an organized group or in a systematic manner, the process of “individualization” of the responsibility encounters more than one challenge. First, the issue of immunities for heads of states and other subjects under international law; second, the regulation of the modes of liability, which need to take into account the collective dimension of commission of international crimes. To overcome some of the difficulties, the rules of attribution of criminal liability to individuals had been partly reinterpreted and new modes of liability developed. Moreover, the principle of personal culpability excludes collective and strict liability. As a consequence, several grounds to exclude criminal responsibility are recognized. Finally, the enforcement of individual criminal responsibility for international crimes is the real challenge in a context of collective commission and macro-dimension of the crimes, where, moreover, the mechanisms of enforcement are not homogeneous.

scholarly journals The Issues of Legitimacy of the International Criminal Court in Its Relations with African Countries in the Sphere of Counteracting International Crimes

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 332-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Batiste Bukuru ◽  
Aleksandr Solntsev
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
African Union ◽  
The South ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Western Countries ◽  
International Crimes

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.

Redrawing the Line? Serious Crimes of Concern to the International Community beyond the Rome Statute

2015 ◽  
Vol 52 ◽  
pp. 129-183
Author(s):  
SARA WHARTON
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Inductive Approach

AbstractInternational criminal law, like all areas of law, must continue to evolve to reflect contemporary realities. This article demonstrates that the current subject matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court under the Rome Statute is very much an artefact of history, and it argues that the historical and reactive line that the statute draws between “core” international crimes and other serious international or transnational crimes is inadequate. In order to ensure that international criminal law continues to evolve in a reasoned and principled manner, states need to better articulate the criteria by which conduct is included within the category of “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.” Using a primarily inductive approach, the article considers a number of such criteria that have been considered over the years. It concludes that, when assessed in the context of their systematic and organized perpetration, many other serious international and transnational crimes raise some of the same concerns that underpin the current core international crimes, suggesting that it may be time for the international community to consider redrawing the line.

NGOs for International Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjersti Lohne
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Relative Lack ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Oriented Approach

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.

scholarly journals Tilting at windmills: Reparations and the International Criminal Court

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Luke Moffett ◽  
Clara Sandoval
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Crimes

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