The International Criminal Court (ICC) has had its fair share of criticisms throughout its short existence. The accusation of double standards is a common one. Why does the ICC seem to focus all its energy on Africa? What about Israel, what about North Korea, what about torture during the Bush Administration?
The ICC is a court of last resort. The ICC does not step in unless asked by the country or unless it feels that country is incapable of prosecuting leaders suspected of war crimes . For instance, the ICC is currently keeping a close eye on Columbia.
The Central African Republic, the Congo, and Uganda all asked the ICC to intervene. The ICC cannot intervene into the affairs of a country that has not ratified the Rome Statute. The United States, Russia, and China have not ratified the statute. But what about Sudan?
Sudan did not ratify the treaty and yet there is an ICC arrest warrant for its president. For the ICC to issue a warrant for al-Bashir’s arrest, it had to go through the United Nation’s Security Council. Once through, the ICC was able to circumvent standard procedure to bring al-Bashir to justice.
“We have limited jurisdiction. We cannot investigate all the crimes so we prosecute the greatest. Africa, unfortunately, has the greatest number of crimes. We base our case load on being granted access, on evidence, and on jurisdiction,” said the International Cooperation Advisor at the ICC,Olivia Swaak-Goldman last night after the screening of The Reckoning.
