scholarly journals EXAMINE THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE PROCEDURE AND PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

2021 ◽  
pp. 45-54
Author(s):  
Iyanuoluwa F. Olaniyi ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Member States ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Do So

The international criminal court started from something called the Rome statute, which had to be signed by states who want to become member states of the ICC. After the agreement of states to join the international court, the court began to resume its duty gradually, by trying individuals for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The main reason for the creation of the international criminal court is to investigate, punish and try people who have been accused of serious war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC tries powerful individuals who oppress weaker states or weak people who do not have a voice and the court helps them get justice. The ICC works like any other court and follows a procedure. There are lawyers and there are judges. However, the ICC does not possess the police force but when they want to investigate, they do so using the forces of member states. The theory adopted for this study is liberalism which is a theory that supports human rights and checks and balances which the international criminal court also supports. This paper concludes by stating why the international criminal court should not stop its global service, and why the international criminal court should keep on investigating afghan and the USA despite the obstacles the court is currently facing.

scholarly journals PROSECUTING PRESIDENT AL BASHIR, AND THE SHORT ARM OF JUSTICE

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-209
Author(s):  
Suzanne Bullock
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court ◽  
Heads Of State

Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al BashirIn this decision the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) condemned Malawi, as a member state of the ICC, for the failure to comply with the request to arrest and surrender the President of Sudan, Omar Al Bashir. Significantly, the Chamber determined that the traditionally sacrosanct concept of immunity of Heads of State no longer applied before an international court or tribunal. Whilst the intention to create universal jurisdiction over perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity is extremely laudable, the legal reasoning by the Chamber is regrettably unsound. If the decision remains unchallenged, the implication is that no Head of State, whether or not they are a signatory to the ICC, is immune from prosecution on the mere basis of the ICC’s status as an international court.

scholarly journals Managing Frozen Assets at the International Criminal Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 765-790
Author(s):  
Daley J Birkett
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The Hague

Abstract On 8 June 2018, more than 10 years after his arrest, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reversed Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo’s conviction by the Trial Chamber for crimes against humanity and war crimes, acquitting him of all charges. Soon after the start of his time in detention in The Hague, assets belonging to Bemba were frozen by states across a number of jurisdictions at the request of the ICC. Many of these assets remain frozen, more than 18 months after his acquittal. This article examines the consequences of prolonged asset freezes by the ICC through the lens of the Bemba case, demonstrating the existence of gaps in the legal framework applicable to the management of frozen assets under the ICC Statute system and suggesting possible responses thereto at the domestic and international levels.

scholarly journals Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir, Judgment in the Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-109
Author(s):  
Angela Mudukuti
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Head Of State

In 2009, the International Criminal Court (ICC) stepped into uncharted waters as it issued its first arrest warrant for a sitting head of state, then President of Sudan Omar Al-Bashir. Following the UN Security Council's referral of the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan to the ICC, Al-Bashir was charged by the Court with war crimes and crimes against humanity, and in 2010, he was also charged with genocide. As a consequence, all of the states parties to the Rome Statute had a duty to arrest Al-Bashir. Several states have nonetheless failed to arrest him during country visits, allowing Al-Bashir to evade the ICC. This has given rise to a number of cases before the ICC Chambers, including this Appeals Chamber judgment regarding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The International Criminal Court and Non-International Armed Conflicts

2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heike Spieker
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Conflicts

Non-international armed conflicts are more numerous, more brutal and entail more blood-shed today than international ones. The Statute of the International Criminal Court explicitly upholds the traditional distinction between international and non-international conflicts, and armed conflicts will have to be characterized accordingly. But the tendency to adapt the international humanitarian law (IHL) regime for non-international conflicts to the rules for international ones emerges. Article 7 on Crimes Against Humanity and Article 8(2)(c) and (e) on War Crimes amount to real progress in this respect. Yet, the regulation on war crimes in particular does not provide for comprehensive criminal responsibility of individual perpetrators in non-international conflicts.

The International Criminal Court and the Warrant of Arrest for Sudan's President Al-Bashir: A Crucial Step Towards Challenging Impunity or a Political Decision?

2009 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 397-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manisuli Ssenyonjo
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court

AbstractOn 4 March 2009 the Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held that it was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, the president of Sudan, is criminally responsible under Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute as an indirect (co)perpetrator for war crimes and crimes against humanity (but not for genocide). The Chamber issued a warrant for the arrest of Al Bashir making him the third sitting head of state to be charged by an international court following Liberia's Charles Taylor and Yugoslavia's Slobodan Milošević. Since then the ICC has been accused of making a "political decision" and that it is "part of a new mechanism of neo-colonialism". This article examines the ICC's decision against the background of the situation in Darfur. The article concludes that although the ICC decision and warrant cannot be considered political and neo-colonial in nature, the decision and warrant can be criticised as selective. It calls on the ICC to broaden its scope of investigations and for the international community to affirm its support for the ICC and insist that Sudan and other states cooperate fully as required by the United Nations Security Council.

scholarly journals ON THE COMPLEXITIES OF PROSECUTING ROBERT MUGABE AT THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Everisto Benyera
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The World ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Robert Mugabe ◽  
Do So

One of the most desired actions by human rights activists the world over is to see Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe brought to The Hague to answer to allegations of genocide and crimes against humanity committed during his more than three decades in office. This desire notwithstanding, there are both legal and practical imperatives that render his prosecution highly improbable judging by the failed attempts to do so by various organisations. This article is a contribution to the debate on the fate of heads of states accused of genocide and crimes against humanity by focusing on the complexities surrounding the various attempts at having Mugabe brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The conclusion reached is that, no matter how desirable, the prosecution of Mugabe at the ICC, or any other court of law, is a distant reality due to various reasons outlined in the article. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document