African States, the African Union, and the International Criminal Court : A Continuing Story

This article analyses the strained relationship between African States, the African Union, and the International Criminal Court. It starts by scrutinising the allegations of ‘anti-Africa bias’ that the African Union and some African States have voiced towards the International Criminal Court. Then it looks at the threat of a pull-out of certain African States parties from the ICC Statute after Burundi, South Africa, and The Gambia declared in October 2016 that they were planning to withdraw from the Court. Finally, it analyses the Malabo Protocol, an initiative by the African Union which aims to create criminal chambers in the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights, simply put: an ‘African Criminal Court’.

Download Full-text

African States Failed Withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: From Withdrawal Notifications to Constructive Engagement

International Criminal Law Review ◽

10.1163/15718123-01705003 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 17 (5) ◽

pp. 749-802 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Manisuli Ssenyonjo

Keyword(s):

South Africa ◽

International Criminal Court ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Secretary General ◽

The Gambia ◽

African Union ◽

Constructive Engagement ◽

The Impact

In 2016 three African states, namely South Africa, Burundi and The Gambia submitted written notifications of withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) to the Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to Article 127 of the Rome Statute. Although the African Union (au) welcomed and fully supported the three States’ withdrawal notifications and considered them as ‘pioneer implementers’ of the au’s ‘Withdrawal Strategy’, The Gambia and South Africa withdrew their notifications of withdrawal before they became effective. This article examines three issues arising out of the said withdrawal notifications. It begins by examining the reasons as to why the three states submitted withdrawal notifications from the Rome Statute. It then considers the impact of the three states’ withdrawal notifications. It concludes by identifying steps that might be taken to ensure constructive engagement between African States and the icc.

Download Full-text

The Situation in the People's Republic of Bangladesh/Republic of the Union of Myanmar Decision to Authorize Investigation (I.C.C.) and the Gambia V. Myanmar Order for Provisional Measures (I.C.J.)

International Legal Materials ◽

10.1017/ilm.2020.28 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 59 (4) ◽

pp. 616-693

Author(s):

Alessandra Spadaro

Keyword(s):

International Criminal Court ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

The Gambia ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Preliminary Stage ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

First Time

For the first time, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are dealing concurrently with the same set of events, which concern the violence to which those in the group that self-identifies as the Rohingya have been subjected in Myanmar, and that has prompted their mass exodus to Bangladesh. Before both courts, proceedings are at a preliminary stage.

Download Full-text

'South Africa is Not an Accused'

Strathmore Law Journal ◽

10.52907/slj.v3i1.58 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 157-175

Author(s):

Jerusha Asin

Keyword(s):

South Africa ◽

South African ◽

International Criminal Court ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

African Union ◽

Judicial Decision ◽

High Court ◽

The Republic ◽

The Government

There is a confrontation between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and state parties, and at this particular point in time, the Republic of South Africa, in connection with the arrest warrants issued by the Court for the President of Sudan in 2009 and 2010. Between 13 and 15 June 2015, President Omar al-Bashir was present on the territory of South Africa for purposes of attending the 25th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union. Despite judgments from both the ICC upholding the obligation of South African authorities to arrest and surrender President Bashir and parallel domestic proceedings at the South African High Court in which authorities were ordered to prevent the departure of President Bashir from South African territory pending final judicial decision on whether the Government was required to execute the ICC arrest warrants, President Bashir nevertheless departed from the Waterkloof military air base on 15 June 2015, even as Government lawyers assured the High Court in a hearing on the same date that he was still in the country. Only after his plane had safely landed in Khartoum did the same lawyers then notify the High Court that he had left South Africa. This article will analyze this case in the following lines.

Download Full-text