Findings

The ICC was created to be an independent and impartial institution to try the perpetrators of the most heinous and violent violations of international law. Its independence and impartiality have repeatedly been questioned, especially by African countries who perceive that the ICC unfairly targets them and their leaders13. As a result, the ICC has been accused of being a tool of Western imperialism and undermining the countries’ sovereignty in the third world while allowing persons from the Western world to walk scot-free for the same crimes.

The ICC has committed itself to promote universal justice but ultimately falls short of this lofty objective. First, the procedure for initiating a case at the court leaves it open to manipulation. A case may begin either by the state, prosecutor, or referral from the UN’s Security Council. Powerful states that have not ratified the Rome Statute, such as the USA, Russia, and China, can operate outside the ambit of the ICC without the threat of repercussions from the court. On the other hand, the five permanent members can veto any referral from the UN Security Council, thereby undermining international peace and justice. In the recent past, it has been seen that the Security Council will refer to states without powerful allies, such as Libya. In contrast, a state such as Syria seemingly has immunity from its strong ties to Russia and China. Despite both countries suffering from gross human rights violations and mass violence, this is despite gross human rights violations and mass violence. As a result, the culture of impunity continues unfettered in some parts of the globe.

In executing its mandate, the ICC relies on the cooperation of member states. It seeks the assistance of member states in effecting arrests, investigations, and enforcement of sentences. Despite starting out enjoying the goodwill of most member states, the court has suffered a breakdown in networks between itself and its supporters. The USA, Russia, and China are not member states, and in some cases, they have actively worked to undermine the ICC. A case in point is the Bilateral Immunity Agreements the US has signed with more than 100 states ostensibly to protect its sovereignty. On the other end of the development scale, African countries have lost trust in the court due to a perceived African bias. Consequently, African states have failed to render support and cooperate with the court with the full blessing of the African Union. States such as Burundi and Gambia have opted out of the Rome Statute.

13 Werle, Gerhard, Lovell Fernandez, and Moritz Vormbaum, eds. Africa and the international criminal court. Vol. 1. Springer, 2014.