Footnote 1 Those referrals proved controversial because these two African states are not party to the Rome Statute of the ICC. Within the resolutions, the African Union (AU) placed on these states an obligation to ‘comply fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor’. In 20 respectively, the UN Security Council (UNSC) referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) the situation in Sudan (Darfur) under Resolution 1593 (2005) and in Libya under Resolution 1970 (2011). It concludes that the regional court for international crimes is unlikely to be established unless the ICC takes further action against incumbent leaders but that the Protocol’s provisions could be used in the development of a more Africa-centric international law. It shows that nevertheless the Protocol’s provisions on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, although imperfect, better address the specific character of armed conflicts in Africa than current international law, including the Rome Statute of the ICC. It argues that the enthusiasm for establishing a regional criminal court, which lacks jurisdiction to prosecute incumbents, has not been sustained and African states remain committed to the ICC. It places that within the AU’s rejection of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants for African Heads of States that are not party to the Rome Statute and a more general protection of incumbents. This article considers the African Union’s (AU) proposal for a regional court for international crimes under the Malabo Protocol 2014 (Protocol).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |