Is the International Criminal Court (ICC) targeting Africa inappropriately? (Essay Sample)

IS THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC) TARGETING AFRICA INAPPROPRIATELY?
By (Name)
Course
Tutor
Name of Institution
Date
Is The International Criminal Court (ICC) Targeting Africa Inappropriately?
Key Words
ICC- International Criminal Court
OTP- Office of the Prosecutor
The inception of the ICC was to prosecute successfully and try perpetrators of crimes against humanity (Du Plessis 2003, p. 5). Being the world’s leading permanent sovereign tribunal, the ICC was formed to end impunity through crimes under the universal law. Its focus has mainly been on genocide, crimes touching humankind and criminalities of aggression. The ICC was intended to be a centerpiece of global criminal integrity. It has a jurisdiction over individuals alleged to have committed international criminalities. Diverse statutes are in place to enable such activities. For instance, the Rome Statute evidently cites the scope of the International Criminal Court’s authority (Mariniello 2014, p. 67). Over the past few decades, the ICC has been accused of pursuing Africans while ignoring perpetrators of crime in other states also covered by the jurisdiction. The paper explores the possibilities of the alleged inappropriateness in targeting Africans. First, the paper will show moral, sociological and legal concerns laid against the ICC and the arguments presented to support the same. The paper will further present an argument that the ICC’s concentration on African matters is either legitimately or ethically inappropriate, and how it threatens to emasculate the provision of the Court’s fairness.
The ICC has focused on situations in Uganda, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Côte D’Ivoire. Additionally, the circumstances in Libya, Sudan and Kenya have also received much attention (Mills 2012, p. 406). Africa is in the middle of an important era of rational disagreement as African nations try to derive grips on the developing and opposing burdens on their characteristics. Africa has gone through a momentous era of democratization and development in social rights and values, yet numerous nations are still extremely dictatorial in administration, some, burning up in major vicious conflicts (Mills 2012, p. 406). The ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, is faulted for incongruously targeting Africans in the application of her prosecutorial preference in its first era of existence though overlooking global crimes committed in other regions of the world (Williams & Sherif 2009, p. 76). The Within the ICC case docket over eighteen investigations are related to Africans when atrocities are prevalent in various parts of the globe. It, therefore, raises concerns about the court and the OTP’s general prosecutorial policy in choosing circumstances and cases to try (Mariniello 2014, p. 69). The Court has delivered arrest permits for two African presidents and rejected struggles by diverse African regimes to circumvent ICC participation in numerous criminal situations. The AU has been progressively aggressive following the court’s issuance of an arrest warrant President Omar al-Bashir, of the Republic of Sudan (Mills 2012, p. 404).
Additionally, the Court declined to undertake investigations on crimes purportedly committed in Venezuela and Iraq (DeGuzman 2012, p. 18). These actions have led to these allegations, predominantly amongst African administrative leaders. The moral justification of the Court is questioned in its selection of cases it deems fit to try and prosecute (Mariniello 2014, p. 73). Questions arising from such arguments are, what is the moral obligation of the court in making its prosecution preferences? Evidence to back the assertion that the court’s decision-making is founded on odious distinctions is not enough to incriminate the courts misgivings. Certainly, various conditions outside the African continent are in their initial analysis and examination which may eventually culminate in prosecutions (Mariniello 2014, p. 68). Additionally, the ICC’s declaration that African conditions were nominated centered on their seriousness as and Iraq and Venezuela’s situations are excluded from the prosecution on a similar foundation is sincere. Though the idea of “gravity” is under-hypothesized, numerous individuals contemplate about the magnitude of the crime and the number of fatalities as a significant measure of this gravity. The African circumstances under inquiry all include big numbers of fatalities.
The legality of the ICC and its capacity to distribute undiscriminating justice for delinquencies in its jurisdiction is questioned (DeGuzman 2012, p. 20). Non-Africans and Africans alike have argued that the ICC is a Western plan seeking to regulate African governments through ICC examinations and hearings. Unfortunately numerous African leaders are simply victims of neo-colonial concern that has assisted them to externalize control being exchanged for protecting the post-colonial hegemonic and economic agenda (DeGuzman 2012, p. 23). Under these conditions, crimes under the ICC rule are committed.
The ICC recommendation process has converted into the novel deterrent of hushing resistance as well as a tool supporting the change of an existing regime (DeGuzman 2012, p. 13). Clashes that erupt in areas where super powers had a hand in influencing the president or in the formation of government may be declined. Such suggestions can be refuted using the fact that only two cases have been declined outside the African continent. Two situations is an insignificant number of resolutions which cannot provide an adequate basis to determine that the court is discerning in its assortment activities (Akande Du Plessis & Jalloh 2010, p. 44). Additionally, the ICC has convincingly emphasized that its resolutions are founded on the seriousness of the circumstances at hand (DeGuzman 2012, p. 14). On the other hand, the court, which is viewed as the lone possibility of holding certain militia and administrative leaders responsible for their deeds. Without the ICC, impunity would triumph and acquire state-sponsorship status in the occurrence of mass crimes.
The ICC is also accusing of failing to respect the independence of the African continent (Williams & Sherif 2009, p. 74). The accusers charge the court for declining to venerate the universal rule governing immunity enjoyed by the heads of states. For instance, the African Union has harshly criticized the prosecution of the Kenyan president and his deputy in the ICC. The law forbids the trial sitting presidents even for crimes falling under the court’s jurisdiction. They also allege that the Court is blasphemous to the Rome Statute’s requirements concerning the acceptability of circumstances that can be handled in this court (Akande Du Plessis & Jalloh 2010, p. 44). The argument is hedged on the belief in complementarity, which proscribes the institution from scrutinizing or trying cases in a state where jurisdictional responsibilities are done in good faith. On this case, the court asserts that the sufficiency of the evidence to back the claims is void. The ICC is also not allowed by law to scrutinize conditions or put on trial citizens of a given nation when domestic courts with the authority acting in good faith. For instance, the Kenyan cases at the ICC were to be placed on a local tribunal which the government of the day had offered to form. The way the ICC came for the prosecution of six citizens is regarded as an overlook on the court’s jurisdictional mandate.
According to Williams and Sherif (2009, p. 74), there are two categories of presidential in susceptibility to prosecution under the international law. Functional immunity also referred to as ratione materiae and individual immunity, ratione personae. The functional type of immunity ascribes to the performances of administrators while holding national offices. It is limited to official terms of office. Such regulations on the ICC has increased the accusations because of the continuation of cases against the Kenyan president and his deputy as well as the issuance of an arrest warrant against a sitting head of state of the Republic of Sudan (Williams and Sherif 2009, p. 75).
Though the legitimate necessities of acceptability and the rule of insusceptibility for non-member are unclear, the court has understood it to apply in a conceivable manner (DeGuzman 2012, p. 23). Additionally, the ICC is pursuing conditions in administratively scrawny nations while disregarding criminal circumstances concerning more influential states. Particular criticisms are centered on confusions around the levels of the court’s jurisdiction. Non-member states are not part of the court’s jurisdiction because the mandate to include them and start investigations against the perpetrators is well-defined by the Security Council (Akande Du Plessis & Jalloh 2010, p. 44). The Court will only examine conditions in non-party countries following the referral of the Security Council. The liability for the failure to explore grave circumstances in non-member nations, therefore, is the letdown by the Security Council and should not be blamed on the ICC. For instance, Du Plessis Maluwa and O’Reilly (2013, p. 563) reveal that the Security Council is presently hindering international examination of the colossal crimes happening in Syria.
The assertion that the ICC is discerning the Africa continent and Africans in determining the conditions to examine and Sue is a statement of ethical inappropriateness (Ssenyonjo 2009, p. 397). The squabble arises from the ICC’s approach to engaging discriminatory measures, producing bigoted consequences. The row is also entrenched in ideas of bureaucratic justice. Ceremonial justice necessitates that the decision-making progressions be organ...