African Countries Case Study

Africa, like many other continents, was a very tremendous and a very diverse civilization that is very complicated to introduce due to all its wonderful but also diverse features and beliefs. From the differences between its society and language to its religion and politics, Africa always had the reputation that its empires, cities, and kingdoms never progressed in the developments and achievements for their civilization. Many people believed that the Europeans were actually the cause of Africa’s achievements and advanced developments for their civilizations. However, this is further than the whole truth. Before the arrival of the Europeans between the 15th and 16th century, African kingdoms, empires, and cities had many achievements and accomplishments

Crimes against the international community are a collection of offences that are recognised by the international community as being of universal concern. However the prosecution of crimes against the international community can be controversial. Such crimes may be committed in the context of military conflict. They may be highly politically motivated, or they may have been ordered or committed by the state itself. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 was a significant development in the law of crimes against the international community. The independent international court established by the Rome Statute, acts as a last resort for crimes fitting into the three categories of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Due to Australia’s Dualistic system, both the War crimes Act

Geneva Conventions are rules laid down by various member nations that are applied in times of armed conflict. The Geneva convention seeks to protect people the sick, civilians, the wounded, and prisoners of war. USA is a member nation of the Geneva Conventions, having signed the 1977 protocols. Under the Geneva Conventions, the torture and abuse of prisoners is barred. Waterboarding is a torture technique used on prisoners, hence, it is also

WH9 Kaulike Jansen Africa DBQ January 6, 2016 Before the Europeans arrived to the empires, kingdoms, and cities of Africa, the African civilization flourished in many achievements with Art, political status, trade, and culture. The Africa we know today is not like the Africa we knew before the Europeans arrived in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Africa traders have used their skills to trade with other lands. Beautiful cities were built with an advanced political structure like the city of Kilwa. They even maintained a thriving culture.

Brett Schaefer and Steven Groves believes the United States decision was justifiable. They argue that the International Criminal Court has a worthy purpose, but still has issues that need to be addressed before the United States would join the court. Schaefer and Groves explain the Article 98 Agreement and the American Service Member Protection Act. Also their argument contains the five concerns the Bush Administration had about joining the ICC, but the two major concerns regard the fear of political abuse of power and also the threat to national sovereignty.

- Participation of the International Law Organization: [Accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with reservations; accepts the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court]. (1)

Why does this happen? In fear of offending the host country, Africans will not respond or reciprocate in-kind to end unfair judicial

The concern of the US government being undermined by a UN committee should be nonexistent. The United States’ Supreme Court’s decision in 1957 ruled that no international law could override the country’s Constitution (oyez.org). After the case, Reid v Court, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black stated

The book Rough Justice: Battle to Fix the World, One Prosecution at a Time was authored by David Bosco. Basically, the book focuses on the establishment of the international court and how years after its formation the powerful nations do not cooperate with it. Powerful nations such as the United States and Russia do not support the activities of International Criminal Court (ICC) and thus leaving its mandate to the poor African Nations. The book was chosen because it touches on one of the subjects of international law. The ICC is part of United Nations that deals with the violators of the international law: it helps to provide an enforcing mechanism for international law that has been lacking for long time.

frequently seen as above international law. No US or UK politicians have yet been trialled in

The United States’ decision to not join the ICC is largely contested today; however, many may be unaware that though its role is currently vehemently debated, the United States was once instrumental in the creation of the Court. Even prior to World War I, the United States was a proponent of international courts, as well as was the creator of many standards of global law now incorporated into the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court. Among these contributions are, “Inclusion in the jurisdiction of the Court of crimes committed during internal armed conflicts, and the drafting of a supplemental code explaining the precise actions and intent that must be proved for each of the crimes in the Statute…” (AMICC

To support my argument, I will first discuss the evolution of international criminal justice and the ICC. Then I will address my three subsidiary arguments. First, I will argue that the International Criminal Court is effective because it increases accountability of human rights violators. Secondly, I will argue that the existence and use of the court increases disapproval and deterrence which protects human rights making the ICC effective. Third, I will argue that the International Criminal Court is effective because it allows for a universal standard of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour as well as transcends and empowers national jurisdictions. Finally, I will address the counter argument and conclude.

In 1998, the International Criminal Court was created through the Rome Statute. The court was made with the intention of being a justice system that had jurisdiction over international crimes such as war crimes and genocide. Originally, there were 124 states that ratified the International Criminal Court and there were 31 states that signed. Recently, states have decided to leave the International Criminal Court or retract their signatures. There are many arguments as to why these states are choosing to leave, but, specifically for African states like South Africa, people argue that the International Criminal Court is mainly prosecuting crimes committed in Africa; they believe they are spending an unfair amount of time on the crimes in

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

     Besides posing a threat to America’s sovereignty, some aspects of the ICC pose a threat to the rights of American citizens. Many legal protections that Americans are entitled to under our constitution have no place so far in the ICC’s treaty. Dempsey points out that “the prohibition against double jeopardy, the right to trial by an impartial jury, and the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him” are American legalities not present in the ICC, and by agreeing to hand over our nationals for trial in an internationally-regulated courtroom we are denying them these constitutional rights and participating in an unconstitutional act.