Cultural Imperialism: The International Criminal Court (ICC)

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

The book Rough Justice clearly explains the struggle between power and justice in the realms of international law. The international criminal court was established on the principle that all the perpetrators of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocides should be subjected to investigations irrespective of ethnicity, nationality or political affiliation. The ICC was also expected to operate fairly in an international legal and political system. The international court is also required to operate in a straightforward manner without portraying any favoritism. The states were also required to avoid the actions of ICC if they wished by not ratifying the Rome Statute: thus, voluntarism remains an important principle of the international law.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), created in 1998 (Thayer and Ibryamova 2010), is responsible for investigating and prosecuting the most extreme cases, including crimes against humanity, aggressive crimes, war crimes, and genocide. The credibility of this institution, however, has been compromised due to the United States revocation of support and membership. Initially it is important to recognize the arguments against the United States becoming a member state of the ICC and what precipitated the U.S. withdrawing its signature from the document that instituted the Court. Once this has been established, addressing and refuting these objections will develop the arguments in favor of ICC membership. Finally, this analysis will lead to

Though there are many countries that are apart of the ICC, a fair question is what sparked the need for such a powerful court? Because even though the ICC is doing their best not to repeat the mistake of have crimes go unpunished there are situation such as the United States refusing to join the organization and has immunity from being prosecuted that makes the court look unfair and re enforces the idea that that the powerful are untouchable. Another case would be that the ICC has been heavily criticized for being prone to prosecute cases only in Africa, which raises the question why do they prosecute countries that are not wealthy and ignore the corruption in wealthy countries. These small questions can make one consider if there really is a need for an international criminal court. However what one fails to understand is there is a need for an international court. In this paper I will be discussing exactly what was the cause of such a powerful court, why the United State has continuously refuse to join the ICC and had immunity before official leaving and finally why does it seem like the ICC is prosecuting countries that are not wealthy such as countries in Africa and ignore the corruption in wealthy countries.

The ICC portrays a significant responsibility in serving as a court of last resort, and was established by the Rome Statute in 2002 in the Hague, The Netherlands (4). The Rome statute pledged the 121 states, such as Australia, to the establishment of a Permanent Criminal Court, under the jurisdiction of 'mass atrocity crimes', such as War Crimes, Genocide and Crimes against Humanity. However, the uncooperative nature between the ICC and member states is what mitigates its overall enforceability and effectiveness of a successful International Court. The level of enforceability and lack of individual rights which the ICC portrays is demonstrated by the Prosecutor v Al Bashir [2009] (5)case. Omar Al Bashir is a Sudanese Politician head of the Congress Political Party. On the 14th July 2008, the ICC alleged that Al Bashir broke the International Responsibility for all three acts which the ICC hold jurisdiction over, committed since 2003 in Darfur. This allegation became supported by not only the ICC, but by other International measures such as Amnesty International, Genocide Intervention Network and NATO. The Court has issued 30 arrest warrants, only winning two convictions; this has allowed Al Bashir to allude

In international politics power tends to rise above everything else because after the war human rights became an issue. The idea of human rights comes from moral beliefs and principles, entitled specifically to individuals. After World War I, nations were still trying to settle down and establish their powers. At the end of World War II, efforts in attempting to institutionalize and implement new human rights occurred. The construction of human rights is a global challenge which are trans-regional, nation states cannot resolve on their own, and needs collective action from states. Human rights are made up of material needs which are a part of the societal needs and moral needs. Some rights are more universal compared to the others such as slavery, sexual orientation, or persecution. Culture variation is one factor that changes among different countries. The question here is, how does human rights relate to international politics? There are several connections between human rights and international politics. One connection is that states must work together to establish these rights to create the balance of power for individuals even through the culture differences. Human rights suggest a universal morality because of the shared ideas of moral principles and the ideas of the natural law. In discovering the principles to human rights morality was very important during the process because those principles served as a guide to the society’s behavior. The importance of morality in this situation is states must work together to form these rights for the people to create a balance of power and

Although it might sound like a good idea from the start, the entire system violates basic human rights. The Constitution guarantees us, Americans, legal protections and with the ICC involved, we would be denied these protections. Such as, no guarantee of due process, no jury or right to a speedy trial, and no protection from double jeopardy. Joining the ICC can be detrimental to the reputation of the U.S and to be a reliable government if the President or someone of higher power were to be prosecuted by the ICC. The system is also ineffective, without trial or prosecution how can one prove if the offender is guilty or not? What if the person being charged for the crime wasn't guilty and the criminal is free to pursue any other heinous crimes

Governments direct exchange, lead war with different nations, give fundamental administrations, and most essential, limits individual conduct. Left to itself; governments can and have executed, tormented, detained, and oppressed their kin. Governments have practiced unfair control over such matters as discourse, religion, and affiliation. The acknowledgment of human rights, regularly communicated in a lawfully restricting bill of rights, is a response against such oppressive regimes intended to constrain the force of the administration.

Universal theories state that, regardless of race, origin, religious beliefs or culture, every human being is entitled to basic rights. These rights are inherent to the fundamental nature of that person, and are meant to be implemented transnationally, without bias. The universal theory of legalism states that the “only way to create social harmony is through legal rule”, and that there cannot be an expectation on individuals to regulate themselves (Juric). The regulation of individuals is achieved through government. However, the government agents are also subject to the law. This notion is known as the Rule of Law and states that no individual is above the law. Legalism proposes “that the law is not arbitrary, they are rooted in reason and agreed upon by all of us” (Juric). Legalism makes the assertion that the only creditable government is democratic in nature. Through a majority vote democratic governments give the individuals of the society the ability to choose the legislative party that is responsible for creating the laws that the citizens abide by. In this way, legalism states that citizens have influence over the laws and policies of their country. In order for Legalism to be considered a valid universal human rights theory, it must be accepted by all nations. This paper discusses the notion that the universalist theory legalism is inoperative because of its Cultural limitations, and difficulty implementing Human rights Standards. There is a strong Western

Our planet is currently in the process of transforming into a “global village” where everyone and everything seems to be interconnected physically, as well as virtually. Thus, the occurrence of an idea and a phenomenon of global governance in the modern world is rather commonsensical than striking. Despite the overwhelming power of globalization that, as it had been believed in its incipient phase, had been expected to introduce the same standards and values everywhere, it caused reappearance of nationalistic ideas and manifestations of sovereignty in the number of countries. This undoubtedly is an act of willingness to maintain the identity and dissimilarity. However, global governance is not intended to take away the sovereignty of the

The international criminal court (ICC) is an unalike international organization, as it deals with individuals of the state parties and non state parties both. The Court among its wide prospects prosecutes individuals, accepts communications and complaints from them, and also allows for an independent official to initiate prosecution. But, independent officials in international organizations always have a controversial position given the fact that they have autonomy and authority to act independently creating a probable threat to the national sovereignty of the member nations. In addition, here the statute also had the proposal to keep the court under the purview of a political institution (Security Council) which was also

The issue of human rights has become more prevalent and global since World War II (WW II). Numerous institutions, groups, individuals and organizations have dedicated time, money and effort into seeking to address and solving problems related to human rights, some, to the peril and even loss of their own lives. Protection of human rights though now a global issue, dates back to about 1300 BC, when God reintroduced the 10

When it dawned on the Kenyan government that the intervention of the ICC was real, the government though divided, immediately began pushing for the deferral of the investigations. On February 2011, in a memo titled “Kenya’s Reform Agenda and Engagement with the International Criminal Court (ICC)”, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Kenya forwarded to all Permanent and Observer Missions to the United Nations regarding seeking to justify the government’s case for deferral ahead of any consideration of the matter by the UNSC. On 4th March 2011, the mission formally wrote to the President of the UNSC requesting under Article 16 for deferral of the investigation opened by OTP. However, as will be extensively discussed in chapter three of this study, this request was seen by some quarters as a ploy of shielding the alleged suspects against potential prosecution at the ICC.

Paul Heinbecker opens a debate at the UNSC; that, Mr. Heinbecker argues, that the bill of the establishment of the ICC is passed by the legislative United Nations on a meeting in Rome; that, Mr. Heinbecker argues, that it would be unethical for the UCSC to cancel the ICC; that, the legislative body of the United Nations accepts the establishment of the ICC with a majority vote; that, the fundamental IL founds the ICC's jurisdiction; that, the ICC plays a constitutional role in maintaining the Justice against any kind of injustice international affairs.36

Although article 16 of the ICC’s statute provides for deferral, the deliberations of the Kenyan deferral requests bring out critical legal issues and gaps that need to be addressed. Article 16 reads as follows, ‘No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions’. This therefore means the major consideration before a deferral is arrived at is whether an investigation or prosecution is a threat to international peace and security or not.