An extract from a long article on the perceived skewed treatment if African leadership by the International Criminal Court. The ICC-sceptics argue that even though African legal systems may not be able to live up to some illusionary ‘international standard of the administration of justice’, there is no reason to sub-contract the judicial process to a remote and aloof court in The Hague. They further argue that the ICC’s exclusive focus on African cases during its first ten years of operation is tantamount to judicial imperialism and a neo- colonial encroachment into national jurisdictions. On 26 January 2011, approximately 30 civil society organisations from about 20 African countries wrote collectively to African members of the ICC Assembly of State Parties urging them to support the Court. Even though these civil society initiatives are receiving scant attention from the AU and the majority of African states, they can contribute towards encouraging a more constructive dialogue between the Union and the Court. Ultimately, the matter will be resolved at the level of governments, due to the state-centric nature of international relations. Policy recommendations To the ICC: • The ICC needs to reorient its stance towards the AU. • The ICC needs to improve its outreach and active engagement with African civil society, both through meetings across the African continent and by adopting a more welcoming and accommodating approach to representatives when they come to engage with the ICC in The Hague. • The Second Chief Prosecutor needs to appoint a senior political advisor to fulfil a liaison role with political organisations like the AU. This might assist with efforts to accredit the ICC to the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa. • The Second Chief Prosecutor should issue an OTP Policy Paper on sequencing the administration of justice to enable the promotion of peacebuilding, particularly in countries that are still war-affected. To the African Union: • The AU needs to reorient its stance towards the ICC. There will be instances in which the ICC can function as a partner to the AU in terms of addressing the violation of human rights on the continent. • The AU should enter into a dialogue with the ICC and utilise the presence of African countries in the ICC Assembly of State Parties to further communicate its views to the Court system. To the UN Security Council: • The UN Security Council needs to acknowledge that it also has an important role to play, to communicate formally with the AU on issues that the Council has raised relating to Sudan and Kenya. A policy of silence will only foment confusion and misunderstanding. To civil society: • African civil society should continue to play an important role in undertaking policy analysis, victim support, documentation, awareness raising, advocacy and lobbying aimed at African governments on issues relating to international criminal justice. • African civil society should also adopt a balanced view when analysing the impact of the ICC’s interventions on peace-building processes on the continent. This will require adopting a posture of constructive criticism towards the ICC. Conclusion The ICC is a court of last resort and not a court of first instance. Ideally, national criminal jurisdiction should take precedence in efforts to address impunity. While the Preamble of the Rome Statute recognises “that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world”11 it does not further elaborate how the Court will contribute towards advancing ‘peace’ in the broader sense, beyond ensuring that the perpetrators of these crimes are punished. In Africa, the activities of the ICC have focused on exercising its criminal jurisdiction without. Please comment.
Posted on: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 04:57:29 +0000