scholarly journals The African Union, the United Nations Security Council and the Politicisation of International Justice in Africa

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benson Chinedu Olugbuo
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
African Union ◽  
African Countries ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Relationship

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.

A Tale of Two Institutions: The United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosa Aloisi
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Independence ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Relationship

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a judicial body that has been created as a politically independent judicial institution to prosecute the most serious international crimes. However, the political independence of the Court has been questioned considerably in the past decade because of the relationship between the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which has the power to refer or defer situations to the Court, and the ICC. In this work, I argue that in analyzing the relationship between the UNSC and ICC it is evident that clashing political and judicial interests have done a disservice to the implementation of international justice. I will focus on the two instances of referrals so far approved by the UNSC and highlight some of the political aspects that seem to be hindering and delaying, in spite of international pressures for UNSC attention, a referral of the situation in Syria.

scholarly journals Asset Freezing at the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights: Lessons for the International Criminal Court, the United Nations Security Council and States

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 502-525
Author(s):  
Daley J Birkett
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Nations

Abstract This article examines the human rights implications of the asset freezing processes available to the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council. It does so through the lens of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, from whose jurisprudence, although not uniform, a number of principles can be distilled. By scrutinising a series of cases decided under the European Convention on Human Rights and American Convention on Human Rights, respectively, the article demonstrates that the rights to the peaceful enjoyment of property and to respect for one’s private and family life, home and correspondence are necessarily implicated by the execution of asset freezing measures in criminal and administrative contexts. The article concludes that, considering the human rights constraints placed on the exercise of their powers, both the International Criminal Court and United Nations Security Council, as well as States acting at their request, must pay attention to this case law with a view to respecting the human rights of those to whom asset freezing measures are applied.

scholarly journals The International Criminal Court and Non-Party States

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Schabas
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations

Although more than half of the States in the world are parties tothe Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, morethan eighty have yet to ratify. The article considers the relationshipof the Court with these non-party States. It examines theexercise of jurisdiction over their nationals, arguing that internationallaw immunities continue in force despite the terms ofthe Statute. Declarations of jurisdiction by non-party States arealso studied, including the declaration formulated by the PalestinianAuthority with respect to Gaza in January 2009. NonpartyStates may be asked to cooperate with the Court and, whereso ordered by the United Nations Security Council, they may berequired to do this.Quoique plus de la moitié des États du monde soient Partiesau Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale, plus dequatre-vingt d’entre eux ne l’ont pas encore ratifié. Cet articleconsidère le rapport de la Cour avec ces États qui n’y sont pasParties. Il examine l’exercice de sa compétence à l’égard de leursressortissants, soutenant que les immunités du droit internationaldemeurent en vigueur malgré la teneur du Statut. L’article étudieaussi les déclarations de compétence d’États qui ne sont pas Partiesau Statut, y compris la déclaration formulée par l’Autorité palestinienneen rapport à Gaza en janvier 2009. On peut demanderaux États qui ne sont pas Parties au Statut de coopérer avec laCour, et, lorsque cela est ordonné par le Conseil de Sécurité desNations Unies, il peut être exigé qu’ils le fassent.

The International Criminal Court in the System of States and International Organizations

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 553-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
KENNETH S. GALLANT
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Internal Operations ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Party State

The International Criminal Court has a different mandate – exercise of criminal jurisdiction over individuals – from most international organizations. It may help to develop the law of international organizations concerning structure and internal operations, relationships with states, and relationships with other international organizations, as well as concerning relationships with individuals. The ICC assigns its judicial and quasi-political functions appropriately. Notably, the power to make agreements is divided functionally among the judicial and prosecutorial Organs and the Assembly of States Parties. The relationship between the ICC and states that are not parties to its Statute is far more important to the ICC than to most international organizations. Where situations are referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council, such states may be required to cooperate with the Court because of their duties under the UN Charter. Other situations require agreement to cooperate by the non-party state.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document