SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.17 issue1Developments in international criminal justice in Africa during 2009You may not refuse a blood transfusion if you are a Nigerian child: A comment on Esanubor v Faweya author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


African Human Rights Law Journal

On-line version ISSN 1996-2096
Print version ISSN 1609-073X

Abstract

ASAALA, Evelyne Owiye. Rule of law or realpolitik? The role of the United Nations Security Council in the International Criminal Court processes in Africa. Afr. hum. rights law j. [online]. 2017, vol.17, n.1, pp.265-293. ISSN 1996-2096.  http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2017/v17n1a12.

At its inception in 1998, the International Criminal Court was perceived as a permanent solution to the problem of lack of accountability for past crimes. Despite their initial excitement about the Court, the African Union and its state parties have made an about-turn and they now seek an African solution to Africa's problem of impunity. Central to this ICC-AU collision is the role played by the United Nations Security Council in the Court's processes. The UNSC has failed to apply the doctrines of referral and deferral equally. According to the AU, it has selectively exercised its referral powers with respect to African-based situations, yet heinous crimes committed in other areas go unnoticed. The UNSC has also been selective in the recognition and waiver of immunities for international crimes in favour of the interests of its permanent members. While it is a reality that international criminal justice operates in an environment instilled with politics, such politics seldom reflect Africa's interests. These factors have heavily compromised the legitimacy of UNSC's role in the Court processes. Thus, in its own legal framework, the AU asserts that its heads of state enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution. This position, however, is problematic for several reasons. For example, how does one reconcile a state's obligations under the Rome Statute, which abhors immunities, and that of the Malabo Protocol, which upholds immunities? Second, the Malabo Protocol lacks a clear distinction between immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae. The Protocol also is not clear on the nature of its immunity ratione materiae. However, although the AU and its member states are vehemently opposed to impunity, it does little to combat the vice. It is in this context that the article critically analyses the role of the UNSC in the processes of the ICC and how this has impacted on Africa's perception of the Court.

Keywords : ICC-AU collision; Africa and the ICC; UN Security Council; referral of cases to ICC; UN Security Council and recognition and waiver of immunities; immunity for international crimes.

        · text in English     · English ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License