African Of The International Criminal Court

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

There have been a number of instances in which the United Nations is not effective in enforcing international law. They are not successful as states are able to decline the authority of the International Court of Justice to hear the case. This

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)

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.

The first International court is the ICC. The ICC has achieved some limited success with

- International law organization participation: [Accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with reservations; accepts the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court]. (1)

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

The evolution of international criminal justice is important to consider. Two ad-hoc tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR), have facilitated the adoption of the ICC. The ICC came into existence on July 1, 2002. The court operates on the principle of complementarity which means that the court does not function unless a state in question is unable or unwilling to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute for one of the covered crimes. Whereas the ICTY and the ICTR had primary jurisdiction and could supersede state action, the ICC only has the aforementioned

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

The Rome statute of the international criminal court is a treaty that establishes the courts jurisdictions and regulations. Article 21 of the International Criminal Court is the first article to describe which laws and treaties will be applicable to the courts. Since there are many states that are participating in this treaty it becomes very difficult to have very specific laws and regulations for the court since there is a variety of situations that can happen. An important statement is that any international law must be consistent with the Statute before anything, thus giving the power to the ICC statute to be the starting point of any application of laws. The court has to respect the laws within the different states before trying to intervene

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.

     Over the past few years, the International Criminal Court (ICC or “the Court”) has been igniting controversy the world over. As more countries rallied behind it, more objections have been made, particularly from Americans, regarding what many view as fundamental flaws. I have chosen two papers to compare and contrast the different viewpoints taken by the authors when reflecting upon America’s involvement with the ICC. One calls for total rejection of the ICC, the other weighs the risks and benefits and calls for revision but acceptance.

Modern African states have several problems ranging from corruption, to armed conflict, to stunted structural development. The effects of colonialism have been offered as a starting point for much of the analysis on African states, but the question of why African states are particularly dysfunctional needs to be examined, given the extent to which they have lagged behind other former European colonies in many aspects. In the first section, I will consider the problems with African states from the level of the state. That is, the nature of the states' inceptions and the underlying flaws may explain some of the issues that have been associated with African states today. Next I examine the development of, or lack of, civil

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.