International Criminal Court Unfair Towards African Nations Vis A Vis Western Nations? Essay

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)

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 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

Rome Statute is a treaty that was signed in 1998 by 122 country members to create the first permanent International Criminal Court(intlaw 221).

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

Jurisdiction is the most prominent issue for enforcement officers to deal with international crimes stemming from the deep web. There are illegal markets for gambling, weapons, explosives, assassinations, exotic animals, terrorism and hacktivism all of which can be accessed by anyone in the world if they knew the right ways to get in. The darknet has an international customer base, and cases can get even more complicated when criminals from different countries start to work together. Questions of which country’s law should be followed and what punishment should be given arise, and not all parties involved end up satisfied. While it is impossible to please everyone with a trial and punishment, having an international court disfuses any issue concerning jurisdiction in order to deal with the criminal.

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

Over the course of the past decade, UN sanctions has changed from comprehensive measures to targeted sanctions directed at individuals and small groups. This modification, in addition to other strategies outside the UN, have the means to make sanctions a more effective tool, where Thomas Biersteker states that targeted sanctions are effective about 20% of the time (Biersteker, Sanctions as Tools of Compliance: When and How do They Work?). The recently lifted UN sanctions on Liberia since 2003, are a prime example of how targeted sanctions can be successful. The sanctions contributed to the downfall of President Charles Taylor, who was found guilty of 11 counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international

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.

supporting countries armies, police force, national guard, etc… to capture the warrants that are handed out for the apprehension of criminals. If the increase of the $146 million dollar budget is to happen, then the funding could help support a sole police task force for the International Criminal Court, in which they do not have to rely on other countries but rather themselves. Solely having their own police task force will allow for the issue of more warrants within supporting countries due to not having to rely on their police force, but rather their own. As stated from the International Criminal Court, “As a judicial institution, the ICC does not have its own police force or enforcement body; thus, it relies on cooperation with countries worldwide for support, particularly for making arrests, transferring arrested persons to the ICC detention centre in The Hague, freezing suspects’ assets, and enforcing sentences.” As stated by the following quote, the current jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is not vast, and

Impunity is defined as an exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action. More specific, it refers to the failure to bring perpetrators of human rights violations to justice, thus denying victims the right to justice and restoration. These violators may be government officials or private individuals and they are often protected by special jurisdictions, sanctions, immunities, or amnesties. In 1945, at the Nuremberg Trials, which judged the accused war criminals of Nazi Germany, the international community pledged that "never again" would it allow monstrous crimes against humanity or genocide to take place. The United Nations recognized the need for an international criminal court to prosecute and punish persons responsible and to help end impunity for these perpetrators of the most serious crimes against humanity. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. By 1951, international treaties against genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity had entered into force, establishing a body of law known as International Humanitarian Law. On July 17, 1998, the international community reached a historic milestone through the adoption of the Rome Statute, the legal basis for establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of crimes

     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.