Why The Luis Moreno-Ocampo's Failure

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 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

This paper will clearly lay out the Unites States concerns with the International Criminal Court and will attempt to resolve them. I will then argue that no country has the right to be above international law, including the United States and that it is in the best interest of America and the world community for the united states to join the efforts of the ICC and sign the Rome Statute.

To support my argument, I will first discuss the evolution of international criminal justice and the ICC. Then I will address my three subsidiary arguments. First, I will argue that the International Criminal Court is effective because it increases accountability of human rights violators. Secondly, I will argue that the existence and use of the court increases disapproval and deterrence which protects human rights making the ICC effective. Third, I will argue that the International Criminal Court is effective because it allows for a universal standard of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour as well as transcends and empowers national jurisdictions. Finally, I will address the counter argument and conclude.

In 1998, the International Criminal Court was created through the Rome Statute. The court was made with the intention of being a justice system that had jurisdiction over international crimes such as war crimes and genocide. Originally, there were 124 states that ratified the International Criminal Court and there were 31 states that signed. Recently, states have decided to leave the International Criminal Court or retract their signatures. There are many arguments as to why these states are choosing to leave, but, specifically for African states like South Africa, people argue that the International Criminal Court is mainly prosecuting crimes committed in Africa; they believe they are spending an unfair amount of time on the crimes in

Crimes of aggression: The Court is not yet able to prosecute individuals for these crimes. The Statute originally provided that the Court could not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agreed on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it could be prosecuted. Such an amendment was adopted at the first review conference of the ICC in Kampala, Uganda, in June 2010. However, this amendment specified that the ICC would not be allowed to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until two further conditions had been satisfied, the amendment has entered into force for 30 states parties and on or after 1 January 2017, the Assembly of States Parties has voted in favor of allowing the Court to exercise

The Rome statute of the international criminal court is a treaty that establishes the courts jurisdictions and regulations. Article 21 of the International Criminal Court is the first article to describe which laws and treaties will be applicable to the courts. Since there are many states that are participating in this treaty it becomes very difficult to have very specific laws and regulations for the court since there is a variety of situations that can happen. An important statement is that any international law must be consistent with the Statute before anything, thus giving the power to the ICC statute to be the starting point of any application of laws. The court has to respect the laws within the different states before trying to intervene

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.

Under that circumstances, the Human Right Watch has raised serious concerns on the Gacaca Court’s ability to try the perpetrators of genocide with fairness. The Human Right Watch has criticised the capacity of the Gacaca Court to conduct fair trials for the Hutu genocidaires without state impunity in particular (Tiemessen, 2004). Before the Tutsi-dominated government in Kigali, many human rights experts have raised fundamental concerns on the ability of the Gacaca Court to guarantee fair trials of 130, 000 and genocidaires and suspects (Tiemessen, 2004). Many Hutu genocidaires have deteriorated in the state cells since the RPF military leadership seized these genocidaires for arrest after the RPF military authorities took the state power from the Hutu regime in July 1994 (Jones, 2002). The RPF authorities have authorised local judges without legal professional training to try genocidaires, yet the court has no independent oversights on its proceeding; moreover, the RPF regime has enabled these untrained persons to administer the national law on the question of the genocidaires and suspects of the Hutu. These Hutu genocidaires are languishing in the state prisons before the Tutsi government, but they are not being provided with legal counselling by credible legal clerks from any legal institutions. In addition, social concerns have emerged on this court. First, the Tutsi women, the Tutsi-dominated government and the Tutsi people have elected local chiefs to try

On October 12, 2016, the parliament of Burundi, a country located in the Eastern part of Africa voted to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) with a vote of 94 to 2. Weeks earlier, Gambia and South Africa announced their intention to withdraw from the ICC, and this wave of action by these three African nations has paved the way for other African nations to reassess if they wanted to still be part of the ICC. Since its establishment in 1998, the ICC has tried “criminals of war” mainly from African members-states. This treatment has raised a lot of concerns within African nations, and they are expressing themselves about the unfair treatments and bias towards them from the International Criminal Court by threatening to leave this longtime praised establishment..

     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.

 On May 25, 1993, U.N. Security Council Resolution 827 established an international tribunal charged with prosecuting violations of international law arising from the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Not since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, following World War II has an international court tried individuals accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTFY), which was established at The Hague, Netherlands, is widely seen as an important step toward the deterrence of crimes, the establishment of the firm rule of international law, and the promotion of world peace. Yet, from its inception, the tribunal

Notice in the previous examples used of court cases that all of them involve African Nations. The ICC has been criticized for focusing solely on African countries (Cruvellier). Until 2016, the ICC was only seriously investigating crimes committed in African nations (Cruvellier). The ICC claims this is because, in their mandate, it states they must investigate the “gravest” of crimes, however, surely not all of the worst crimes are committed in African nations (International Criminal Court). Since the time that the ICC was founded, there have been many violent outbreaks in South and Central American countries. All South American countries are Member States of the ICC, meaning that they are all under the

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