Kenya 's Reform Agenda And Engagement With 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

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.

The UN and the US government are accredited for deploring conflict situations as well as contributing humanitarian aid, and this is what these two organizations did in Rwanda and Darfur. However, the UN did not do anything to punish or prevent the genocides that took place in these two countries. The US government promised to support the peace talk’s agreement in Darfur and hold the perpetrators accountable for their acts. It never kept that promise since nothing has been done. So far, the UN’s Security Council has also failed in its peace keeping mission effeorts, and is instead pressuring Sudan with words only. No solid steps have been made to bring the wrong doers into justice (Shapiro).

In midst of making meticulous plans, the anti-Tutsi Hutu’s had hopes to slaughter a list of Tutsis and their Hutu sympathizers. That being said, how the key international leaders should have acted during these times of structural violence remains abstruse, “the belief was that the price to the world of such a risk would not be as great as the price of inaction” (Gourevitch 1998: 169). The international community had deployed from their legal responsibilities to mitigate the colossal humanitarian tragedy. The peace-keepers at the time of genocide express that they did not have enough militants to save thousands of lives or act quickly enough. Although the peace-keepers had good intentions, an intelligence capability for early warnings and planning could have been useful during these times of tragedy in

- 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.

Bosco (2014) makes such conclusion because Ocampo expressed some independence when he declared a warranty of arrest on the president of Sudan, Al-Bashir. The view that the prosecutor is strategic is very much debatable because in the book there in no explanation on why the prosecutor is not captured. The first prosecutor was fully captured, and his authority was only limited to the lesser states such as Sudan and Congo. Ocampo was not capable of investigating and prosecuting the United States for killings in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He opted to carry out investigations and subsequent prosecution in countries such as Sudan, Kenya, and Congo. The increased focus on African nations which are perceived as weak has made the African Union to raise alarms sometimes threatening to withdraw from the Rome Statute. The second prosecutor, Bensouda portrays a captured behavior because she is yet to initiate a successful investigation. The office of the prosecutor in the ICC is overpowered by the most powerful nations, therefore, hindering any efforts to investigate such

this essay I will attempt to examine and analyse the effectiveness of international courts and

The Pentagon’s Africa Command has worked tirelessly on a decade-long counterinsurgency operation against the guerrilla group. The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity and war crimes

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

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

Through this research, I found that there are pros and cons in the organization and its attempts to create peace and security between the two countries it was considered necessary to intervene in resolving internal issues in a proper manner. But because of the resolutions, the Charter and the laws of the Organization that provide for non-interference in these problems. This has led to increased chaos and problems throughout Africa. A negotiator should be able to deal with the worst humanitarian crises and use a way to convince some countries Prevent the existence of poverty and debt in Africa by quickly dissolving political corruption and the development of strict laws to prevent the establishment of secret accounts for members of the Organization Strong entry into European markets and opportunity to sell their agricultural

From the point of view of a realist, states tend to pursue their own interests. Specifically, states that have not ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court can do what they deem necessary whether or not it is in accordance with international law. Therefore, states, such as South Africa, are driven by their own self-interest to leave the International Criminal Court. For South Africa, their self-interests may include protecting their citizens from what they believe is an unjust court system. African leaders, like the leaders in South Africa, believe that the International Court System is “biased” and is a “tool for Europe to beat up on Africa.” (NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE). In particular, realists believe that self-interest is driven by the state’s pursuit of power. In this case, the countries that are not under the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction do not have to follow the international laws that are defined in the Rome Statute. Therefore, in pursuit of power, the South African government may choose to follow the suit of other powerful countries and leave the International Criminal Court.

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.