Why Do We Need 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

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)

There have been many cases of Crimes against Humanity during history, the most well known one probably being “The Holocaust”. If you don’t know what The Holocaust is, it is when hitler gassed and worked to death over 6 million jews. This is the Crime that made the world create an international community such as the United Nations, to try to prevent or end any crimes, or mass genocides like the Holocaust. The United Nation is the society that issues punishments to countries or people who issue out genocides or commit Crimes against Humanity, and also deals with the protection of smaller countries that don’t have the funds to protect themselves, but some people say that the United Nations aren’t doing their job. Some people would think it is a better idea for the bigger, richer countries, such as United States, Russia, and other richer countries, to help end these crimes. If the whole world create a bigger, stronger international community, better than the United Nations, and really helped try to prevent or end these genocides, then the world would be a much safer place, and because many countries are working together to make the world a better place, it would also build on trust between other countries and less countries would try to start wars.

According to Bosco (2014) the development of international criminal justice was stimulated by the Nuremberg trials that came after World War II. The Nuremberg trials were presided over by jurists who came from different powers and set new standards that defined international war crimes. The courts all over the world were determined to bring the international community together through the formation of an international court. The international court was to be tasked with the function of prosecuting crimes against humanity and carry out the cause of justice as well as the rule of law in all places globally. Despite the need for international court and the determination of most countries to develop it, the start of cold was a major setback in its formation (Bosco,

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

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

One could argue that the International Criminal Court already exists, and there is no need for another one. However, the International Criminal Court follows The Rome Statute for jurisdiction which only allows action to be taken for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. Though there are some crimes committed through the darknet that can fall under this, such as terrorism, the majority of them do not. This does not mean these crimes are any less

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

The UN Security Council establish a Commission of Experts (hereafter the Commission) to examine and analyse information on crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in the territory of the former

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.

The international criminal court needs to show that it is open and impartial in its role in the fight against impunity in the world not only in

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.