by Albert Bangirana
Both debates in African Parliaments and news headlines frequently focus on the state of the ICC, questioning its legitimacy as an international “watch-dog”. They argue that the ICC has, since its inception on 17 July 1998 in Rome, Italy,[1] systematically targeted Africa as opposed to perpetrators outside the content. This worrying trajectory is slowly but surely threatening the functionality and geopolitical jurisprudence of the ICC in Africa.
Structurally, the ICC has six field offices: Kinshasa and Bunia (Democratic Republic of Congo, ‘DRC’); Kampala (Uganda); Bangui (Central African Republic, ‘CAR’); Nairobi (Kenya), Abidjan (Cote d’Ivoire), all of which are based in Africa. The six official languages of the ICC are English, Arabic, Spanish, French, Chinese and Russian, all of which are non-African languages.[2] It is also notable that three of the countries, whose languages are official to the ICC, including China, Russia, and the United States, except India, are not signatories to the Rome Statute.
Cases currently under investigation include Kenya, Uganda, Central Africa Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Libya, Ivory Coast, Darfur-Sudan at top of the list, with Georgia being the only non-African Country in the cohort. Of the 17 Judges forming the ICC team, only four are from the African continent and just one from the Africa in Diaspora – the Island of Trinidad and Tobago.[3]
This unequal representation contributes to the criticism of the legitimacy of the ICC. The current trials are disproportionately skewed towards one geographical area – Africa. In fact, some have argued that the exorbitant 139.5 Million Euro Annual budget (2016)[4] could be channeled instead to improving the lives of many victims of structural injustice in Africa.
This is why a number of African Countries, and lately, South Africa, Gambia and Burundi have indicated their intentions to exit the ICC.[5] Other countries, including Kenya, Uganda, Northern Sudan, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, have also expressed their dissatisfaction with the institution.
The CIHA Blog is tracking this unfolding phenomenon. For more on this debate go to:
Why African states are leaving the ICC
http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/why-african-states-are-leaving-the-icc-2084346
AU Countries Threaten To Leave ICC
http://www.mintpressnews.com/au-countries-threaten-to-leave-icc/170459/s
As 3 African Nations Vow to Exit, International Court Faces Its Own Trial
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/world/africa/africa-international-criminal-court.html
South Africa to quit International Criminal Court
What South Africa leaving the International Criminal Court would mean
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34509342
[1] In July 1998 – at a United Nations conference in Rome, Italy – governments overwhelmingly approved a Statute to establish a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). On April 11, 2002, the Rome Statute of the ICC received more than the 60 ratifications required, and the treaty then entered into force on July 1, 2002. http://mehr.org/History.htm [Accessed 7 November 2016].
[2] https://www.icc-cpi.int/about [Accessed 8 November 2016].
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/why-african-states-are-leaving-the-icc-2084346 [Accessed 8 November 2016].
Albert Bangirana is a PhD candidate in the School of Religion, Philosophy and Classics at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.