The Kenyan Situation : Deferral And Enforcement 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

The structure and power of the UN Security Council is a major factor regarding how some states are able to exert power over the UN. For example, any permanent member of the UNSC (China, Russia, the US, Britain or France) can veto any resolution proposed as they please. As a result of this we have seen much needed resolutions been dropped due to permanent members vetoing due to national interests. In the case of the conflict in Syria, both resolutions proposed by the UNSC were vetoed by Russia and China as they went against their national interests. In this way, the permanent five members are certainly more powerful than the UN. Furthermore, states sovereignty imposes limits on the extent to which the UN can protect human rights. States sovereignty can also mean that states can refuse to sign international agreements that are seen as against their national interests. For example, the US’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Nevertheless, the UN does exhibit some power over states. It can authorise the use of force or peacekeepers or economic sanctions against states where internal conflict has occurred. For example, in 2006 the UNSC authorised the use of peacekeeping troops in Sudan in response to the conflict in Darfur. Similarly in 2011, the UNSC authorised the use of force to protect civilians against the attacks of the Gaddafi regime. Conclusively, although the UN has the ability to authorise various

Under the UN Charter, the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and is argued to have power to intervene in the most serious issues which disrupt world order.

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.

The war in Darfur materialized at the wrong time for the United States, Norway, and Britain, two of which are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. At the time, they were focused on ensuring the success of the Naivasha negotiations in Sudan. The Naivasha agreement, also known as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was an permanent ceasefire agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/ Sudan People’s Liberation Army to end the Second Sudanese Civil War. This was long time coming because the conflict had started all the way back in 1983. The Security Council used the ‘Brahimi principal,’ which states “regional organizations take primary responsibility for the problems in their backyard” to push responsibility on to the A.U. The Brahimi principle The Security Council was glad to give someone else the responsibility of Darfur so they could focus on others tasks at hand.

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

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

Before knowing, the conflict of colonialism of Kenya; you need to know about colonialism. Colonialism is “the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.” It was said that Kenya was the “study for human history”. It was a learning process of colonialism and imperialism, of conquered other countries for the needs of materials (or any way to supply your country).

The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) intended to ensure the pursuit of criminal accountability of mass human rights violations did not go as smoothly as was hoped. Overtime, sensitive questions emerged on the impact of ICC prosecutions on ongoing or recently ended conflicts. Particularly, with regards to the possibility of the ICC impeding the progress of domestic initiatives seeking to deal with the aftermath of a conflict through peace and reconciliation processes. In such instances, should the Prosecutor only consider the facts of the case, or should she also take into account broader considerations, such as the impact of her actions? The Rome Statute left these uncertainties on the relationship between the ICC and local peace and reconciliation initiatives unaddressed. In drafting

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

Initially, this was seen following World War II with the Nuremberg trials in response to the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany. However in more contemporary history, the ICC was formed to in response to the events in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. These tribunals were unprecedented, not only in their global

     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.