“The International Criminal Court is a white man’s court that has sought to prosecute easy

targets in Africa. It will not survive as a universal institution because of this”. Discuss.
Introduction
The International Criminal Court, which was established through the Rome Statute, acts as a
permanent tribunal to prosecute people for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
The establishment of the ICC was widely considered as a success because it could resolve the
atrocities which occurred in the past few decades which may be traced back to the Second World
War where millions of people were victimized by war crimes. As a tribunal, it has the authority
to adjudicate cases which are referred into it regardless of the territory where the war crime,
crimes against humanity, and genocide, were claimed to have been committed. This is the
characterization of the very powerful nature of the ICC as a body because the immunity from suit
of the leaders of the state and the sovereign powers may not be able to protect them from the
prosecution of the ICC. Generally, it acts as a judicial tribunal but it is different only since its
jurisdiction is international in nature. However, in the recent years, the ICC was marred with
controversies and strong criticisms from the general public because of what appears to be a racial
bias. This claim is derived from the fact that the ICC prosecutes only individuals who are of
African descent but never actually prosecuted a ‘white man’. Media and national leaders from
the countries whose sovereignty was usurped by the ICC thereby described this tribunal as a
‘white man’s court’. As a result of this, the legitimacy of the ICC has been put on question and
fears that it will not be able to survive as an international tribunal because of it. This paper aims
to describe the biases of the International Criminal Court in prosecuting war crimes, crimes
against humanity, and genocide through the recital of the cases which could prove such claim
and provide an analysis on why it would not last as an international organization.
The International Criminal Court
The International Criminal Court was established through the Rome Statute in order to prosecute
the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It has the long term goal of perpetually
avoiding the persistence of such atrocities during the war times as well as to preserve the
harmony of the relationships through the nations. This court, indeed, is a very powerful one, with
the signatories of the Rome Statute submitting to the jurisdiction to the court and subordinating
them to its powers to execute judgment. It stands on the principle that it is a benevolent
institution which is acting for the greater good of the entire world.
The scope of the prosecutorial jurisdiction of the ICC expands gradually with the favourable
treatment among those which ratified the Rome Statute. As an evidence, there are 121 state
parties, 32 signatories, and 41 non-signatory UN member states as of July 2012. It is important
therefore, to highlight the differences between these three classifications of states which may be
considered as stakeholders of the ICC. The state parties are those who have both signed and
ratified the Rome Statute thereby subjecting it to ICC’s jurisdiction including majority of the
South American, European, and approximately half of the entire Africa. Meanwhile, the
signatory states are those which have signed the Rome Statute but have not yet taken any action
to ratify the said statute. As a result of which, it is not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Finally, the non-signatories are those which neither signed nor ratified the statute and are
exempted from its jurisdiction. While the signatory states does not yet fall within the jurisdiction
of the ICC, it is compelled by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to not commit acts
“which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty until they definitively decide not to
become states parties”.
The Headquarters of the ICC is located in The Hague, South Holland, Netherlands. It was funded
majorly by Britain, Italy, Germany, and France. Incidentally, it has been funded by the entire
European Union with its intention to put an end on the atrocities during war time which occurred
within its continents. It was first headed by Argentine Lawyer, Luis Gabriel Moreno-Ocampo as
the first chief prosecutor but he was eventually replaced by Gambian lawyer named Fatou
Bensouda upon the expiration of his term. Magazines and media outlets around the world
consider these leaders as few of the most influential personalities in the Civil Society category.

The Rome Statute

The Rome Statute is the ICC’s founding treaty. This is the codification and documentation of the
body principles of the institution, its jurisdiction, its structure, and functions. It has described that
the function of the ICC is limited to the prosecution of war crimes which the national court
systems, or the national legal systems have failed or refused to accused. In effect, the ICC serves
as the court of last resort against the grand scale crimes. The function of this body is subservient
to the principle of complementarity that the outright refusal of the local courts to prosecute or its
failure to do so would warrant the prosecution of the ICC. Otherwise, its jurisdiction is only
moot and academic.

The jurisdiction of the ICC is likewise limited by the principle of non-retroactivity of cases. The
ICC was established the same day as the Rome Statute was ratified by the member states
specifically on July 1, 2002. The effect of the signing and ratifying of the Rome Statute is that
the war crimes which have been committed from the date prior to July 1, 2002 is outside the
jurisdiction of this tribunal. It can only prosecute crimes which have been committed on and after
that date. This is known as the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC. In effect, the tribunal is limited
only to these three instances when they could assume jurisdiction.

1 – When a criminal is a member of a state party or any state that has otherwise acceded to the
court’s jurisdiction,
2 – When the crime was committed on a state party’s territory or that of a state that has accepted
its jurisdiction,
3 – When the court receives a referral from the UN Security Council

The limitation established against the jurisdiction of the ICC may be blamed on a very important
flaw which limited itself to the above mentioned circumstances. It could have prosecuted the
crimes committed internationally if the provision which render it capable of prosecuting crimes
regardless of the criminal’s relation to the state and the lack thereof. The United States, upon its
inception, has fervently opposed this provision. This lack of genuine international jurisdiction by
the ICC rendered it incapable of prosecuting individuals who have committed grand scale crimes
scot free and with impunity. This deprives the victims of the war crimes the justice that they
deserve. For example, the United States and the NATO nations are free to violate the
international law and to violate human rights with complete impunity as manifested by US’
invasion of Iraq and Israel’s attack on Gaza which involved civilian population as casualties.

Africa-Centric Prosecution

The principle which the ICC supposedly stands with that it is benevolent and acting for the
greater good of the entire world seem to be contradicted by the fact that the ICC almost
exclusively prosecuted so far 90% Africans. This fact, if one is to believe that the ICC actually
lived up to the above mentioned founding principles, that only Africans commit war crimes and
genocides and therefore requires the higher moral standards that the Western have imposed unto
them. Because of these, the ICC has been criticized for existing only to resolve the African
problems. The ICC is a western created institution which imposes a moral standard to the post-
colonial states to which it deems to have a moral responsibility towards these orphaned states
which has been liberated. This attitude of the Western Created Institutions is evident on other
institutions such as the NGOs, Government, AID agency, Think Tank, IMF, World Bank which
thinks that only them could resolve the problems in Africa.

The evidence is damning that the ICC is racially biased against the African leaders because of the
concentration of the cases being prosecuted by the tribunal on the African leaders despite the fact
that the atrocities and the grave war crimes were not exclusive to the African Continent. The
criticism was echosed by Ethiopian Prime Minister, who incidentally serves as the Chairman of
the African Union since he described the ICC to be hunting Africans. Because of this, there has
been strong opposition among the African leaders on the intervention of the ICC on their internal
affairs and they are in the belief that this tribunal should be dismantled. However, racial
prejudice is only one of the agendas of the ICC why it prosecutes these African leaders and in
fact, it could be the least of the most concerning agenda. It was cited by SOURCE that the
motive of the ICC is multifaceted and not focused merely on their racial prejudice against the
Africans. This racial prejudice and the quest for justice are two of the many motives of the ICC
for its intervention on the African Affairs but there seems to be a deeper motive which may only
be inferred from the course of actions taken by this tribunal. Regardless of their motivation, the
ICC have been instrumental in punishing emerging tyrants.

While the ICC has been instrumental in delivering justice to the victims of war crimes most
especially in Africa, the concentration inevitably raises suspicion among the critics and it stains
the organization or movement in which such prejudice is exposed. This criticism has been
aggravated by the fact that the ICC lacks consistency in applying the laws and its jurisdiction
with regards to the prosecution of the war crimes and crimes against humanity. With its
admirable task of delivering justice, the ICC is supposed to pursue every human rights abusers
anywhere in the world, regardless of their citizenship or who they have victimized. However,
such is not the case. The ICC has been effective in targeting the mass murders and those who are
guilty of the most heinous crimes. Its inconsistency in prosecuting the individuals, on account of
their race, is not tolerable and it highlights the flaws on the principles or the application thereof,
by the ICC.
Despite the fact that the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, is African herself, the ICC
remained strongly criticized by the African Nations. She claimed that the ICC’s focus on the
problems within Africa is a sign that the continent is dedicated to international justice. A
criticism of ICC and Bensouda herself indicate that she is voluntarily playing the role of the
ICC’s token black friend which is a way for this institution to not be considered as a racist. It
appears that Bensouda was contradicting herself because she supports the ICC’s programs which
are considered as racist. Nevertheless, the claim that Bensouda was appointed as the Chief
Prosecutor in order remove the racist tag on the institution is very plausible.

This is why it is surprising to think that many African nations have supported the inception of the
ICC. Through the examination of the events leading to the legislation of the Rome Statute, its
signing and ratification by many African states, it may be seen that many of these states have
responded to the incentives promised by the pro-ICC NGOs which convinced these nations to
accept it. In addition, the Cotonou Agreement of 2002 specifically indicates that those countries
that refused to ratify the Rome Statute would be denied hundreds of millions of Euros worth of
development aid. Which is why leaders of these nations are left without any choice but to ratify
the Rome Statute.

The ICC have dedicated a significant portion of its resources in prosecuting cases in Africa. One
has to question the rationale why the ICC have invested such interest on the African continent
considering the amount of funding and commitment required for more than a decade of work.
Many Africans doubt the intention of the ICC which is press released as to protect the
defenceless victims of human impunity against the uncivilized acts of vicious dictators. The ICC
seem to have interest in intervening on the African affairs despite the fact that they have exerted
concerted effort in enforcing justice within the continent without much aid and have actually
established an African union and the African Court on Human and People’s Rights. Many
Africans theorized that the Europeans are trying to maintain control of the continent by imposing
their Eurocentric plots.

One of the more recent violations of the ICC of the international procedures for the prosecution
of crimes as well as the Rome Statute itself is the case of Muammar Gadaffi of Libya. Gadaffi,
together with other Libyan leaders have been put on the list of fugitives wanted by the
International Criminal Court. The ICC took jurisdiction over the case of Libya despite the fact
that it is not a party to the Rome Statute and therefore, is not bound by the ICC unless it is
referred by the UN Security Council. It was stated by the said statute that:

“No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this

Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted
under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that
effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.” (Article
16, Rome Statute)

In the case of Gadaffi, the United Nations Security Council have recommended his prosecution
on February 26, 2011 through the Resolution 1970. It demands the full cooperation and the
provision of necessary assistance of the Libyan authorities to ICC. This is despite the fact that
Libya is not a party to the Rome Statute. The violation of the ICC on the prosecution of Gadaffi
of the Rome Statute itself is the fact that its action commenced only 6 days after the said
recommendation, foregoing the 12 months required by the court. Hence, all of the institutions
have conspired against Gadaffi.

Self-Proclaimed Independence of the ICC

The negative reputation of the ICC among the African Nations have been apparent with the
Chairman of the African Union, Jean Ping echoing the criticisms of double standards with the
ICC due to the emphasis the war crimes in Africa. In the process, Jean Ping criticized ICC for its
inaction during the incidents of war crimes in Colombia, Iraq, Caucasus & Gaza where the
Westerners or the White men have escaped their liabilities due to the same inaction. The self-
proclaimed independence of the ICC have since been criticized because it appears that the
tribunal serves as some kind of token to ‘free’ South Sudan.

In addition to the circumstantial evidence which proves that the ICC is under the rule of Britain,
it appears that ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair have been portraying Africa to the media as having
very little to not progress against poverty despite the increase on the country’s increase in the
GDP by 6% as of 2006. Further, the western governments and the media appear to be enjoying to
portray Africa as a haven for child soldiers, AIDS, and War victims when in fact such population
constitutes only 0.5% of the entire population of Africa. The probable rationale for the
continuous portrayal of the Westerners on the Africa is that their agenda of taking control over
the populations which it formerly held during the colonial times that it is portrayed as an orphan
to justify their continuous meddling of its affairs.

It is true that majority of the aid money goes to the African continent. However, not all of the
Africans favour such continuous flooding of aid money to the continent as it solves nothing.
According to Ugandan journalist Andrew Mwenda, the flooding of aid money encourages
laziness and neediness which in overall, is tantamount to dependence. He suggested that the
Africans should stop playing the victim role and appreciate the value of investment and treat
themselves as business partners of the westerners and not as beggars. Despite of this, his
suggestion remained unpopular among western policy makers as well as the local governments
in Africa. The effect of this point of view to the Africans as well as to the ICC, is that the
problems persisting in the African continent have been highlighted that it became subject of the
magnifying glass of scrutiny of the said tribunal. Ironically, it is the westerners themselves who
have portrayed Africa as a sickly continent which requires the intervention of an international
tribunal like the ICC.

Further evidence of the lack of independence of the ICC is the fact that George Bush, during his
presidency, have signed into law the American Service-members’ Protection Act (ASPA) which
granted the USA the right to use military force to free any US citizen being detained by the court.
Its implication could mean that the United States could easily invade the Hague, Holland and at
all times, the ICC must submit to the will of the US. This fact proves the self-proclaimed
independence of this tribunal. SOURCE also raised concerns on the independence of this
tribunal considering that the funding of the ICC comes from the voluntary contributions of the
UN, the state parties, and its signatories.
The African Union as well as the governments within the African continent are somewhat hostile
of the ICC’s intervention while it is highly popular among the ordinary citizens. A layman could
easily mistakenly interpret these attitudes as an evasion of justice of the African leaders.
However, it appears that the African leaders themselves are at the consensus that the ICC is
targeting African leadership regardless of the legitimacy, especially those who do not have the
blessing of the Western countries. It may be inferred from the list of acts of the ICC in the
African continent that its purpose was to subdue the world by forcing everybody to think his
way.

Double Standards of the ICC

It is hard to accept that the ICC have merely overlooked the fact that US and British forces have
also committed war crimes in Iraq where there are many illegal operations based upon
international humanitarian law. Hence, it is impossible that the human rights abuses persists only
on the African continent and only the victims on those countries are reporting the atrocities
committed by their leaders. Iraqi reporters and media sources beg to disagree with many
accounts of Iraqi infrastructures, communities, and families being demolished because of
inaccurate bombings. The standards set forth by the International humanitarian Law has been
violated particularly its provisions on rules of engagement because the US and British forces
merely assumed that every Iraqi is an insurgent. Such assumption has been proven to be deadly
as sheer amount of force and firepower have been utilized against civilians. For example, a
minivan was peppered with bullets by a US chopper on fear that it is being mounted by
insurgents. The passengers of the minivan were children who were killed instantly. This kind of
scenario is very common in the history of US’ invasion of Iraq. Based on the standards being
used by the ICC in prosecuting the leaders in Africa, it is erroneous to think that such acts and
violations are not war crimes or crimes of aggression.

Despite the resource rich nations in the African continent, it appears that it stagnates in
development. One of the reasons blamed is the continuous foreign encroachment of the African
development which leaves it at the mercy of the world. Then, the white man swoops in an takes
the role of a saviour who would undertake this burden and instil civilization in the world and to
rescue them from their savage ways. Unfortunately, the ICC has been used as an instrument of
the western powers to continuously control the affairs of the African nations. Neither did the ICC
took any action against foreigners who have committed war crimes within the African continent.

These claims of biases towards the ICC is not a denial of the fact that the African leaders are
guilty of the crimes that they have committed. Instead, the claims are evidence of the double
standards that the ICC have instituted in prosecuting war crimes. For example, Mugabe is
actually guilty of the crimes he committed in Zimbabwe. However, this is not always the case.
Laurent Gbagbo has been transferred to The Hague unusually quickly following the allegations
were made against him. Baseer (2012) have indicated that the transfer was so quick that it could
be compared to an abduction. The same is tantamount to breach of the international procedural
code and ignored the demands for peace of the Ivoirian. It aroused anger among the nations in
Africa and most prominently, Jerry Rawlings, the ex-president of Ghana have stated that
Africans should have the right to prosecute its own criminals without any foreign interventions.
Ironically, such transfer was made during the time when African, Bensouda, was promoted as the
Chief Prosecutor of the ICC. This was all part of a destabilization plot sponsored and strongly
supported by the Western powers as Alassane Outtara issued a military force and former rebels to
the north to cut off Gbagbo’s access to international financing and funds from the cocoa industry.
In addition to this, the western institutions such as the USA, UN, and the EU have imposed
sanctions on the economy of the Cote d Ivoire’s economy just to force Gbagbo to step down
from leadership. It did not work initially so the French and UN helicopters have bombed his
residence together with the city of Abidjan. This is an evidence of European and Euro-American
aggressions but the ICC seem to have turned a blind eye in the disposal of justice for the victims
of the said aggression. It cannot be avoided that the legitimacy of the ICC be questioned.

The most powerful in the world, the USA have exerted its influence in order to control the ICC
and exempt itself, as well as its citizens from being tried by the ICC. The American citizens may
not be tried by the ICC by virtue of merely being an American. The intention of the United States
to exempt itself and its citizens from the jurisdiction of the ICC may be inferred from the actions
of the state even on the commencement of the ICC as a tribunal. The United States, together with
its close ally, the Israel, have withdrawn or unsigned from the ICC jurisdiction after initially
signing the treaty. As member of the UN Security Council, it remains to have the power of
manipulating the ICC’s referral process. The influence and power of the United States have
allowed the arbitrary prosecution of Muamar Gaddafi where the former have initiated the efforts
in recommending the same by referral to the ICC. This is another evidence of the double
standards of the ICC since the USA could validly withdraw and unsign the treaty and not be
subject of the prosecution while Libya was forced to comply with the ICC jurisdiction even if it
did not ratify the Rome Statute. A more disturbing act of the United States is the passage of the
ASPA, discussed above, which virtually allowed the military personnel of the United States to
commit war crimes they wish with impunity and escape prosecution from the ICC. The United
States also enjoy the veto power as the member of the UNSC which could refuse referral of the
American Citizens to the ICC. Finally, the US threatens many countries with the withdrawal of
their military support if it has recommended one of its citizens to be prosecuted before the ICC.

Israel seem to be affected likewise by the exemption granted to the United States. Civilians and
military personnel alike have made attacks against Palestinian Civilians. While the victims of
such acts of aggressions and war crimes have attempted to report the incidents to the ICC for
prosecution, the latter have refused to investigate the issue on the justification that Palestine is
not considered by the UN General Assembly as a state and thereby invalidating all of its claims.
The ICC have set forth conditions that before the claims of the Palestine be taken cognizance by
the ICC and its prosecutors, Palestine should upgrade its status from mere observe to non-
member state.

Criticisms of the ICC

Many countries have been vocal of their criticisms against the ICC because of its double
standards and the practices of the Western countries citing that they have failed to live up to the
standards that the institution itself have portrayed itself as the same. Perfect examples would be
India and China which were critical of the ICC from the mid-2000s. China, for an instance,
criticizes the ICC because it interferes with the sovereignty of the states in determining its
internal capability to conduct their own trials and to deliver justice. It also cited how the ICC
interferes with the internal armed conflicts, which is inevitable, by qualifying the same as a war
crime. It also unfairly considered crimes against humanity even if the acts were committed
outside of wartime and finally, it weakens the UN Security Council of its power to prosecute
crimes of aggression. Nevertheless, the criticisms have not gained international support and
were not echoed by other states because it is self-serving despite having been meritorious.

One of the stronger citicisms of the ICC was raised by David Commissiong, the President of the
People’s Empowerment Party (PEP). This group which was established in the Barbados have
challenged Bensouda, the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC, to explain why majority of the
individuals prosecuted by the ICC are Africans and to disprove the claims that the ICC is being
used as an instrument to destabilize nations led by the African leaders the Western World wanted
to get rid of. It has also been demanded by the group that the ICC take cognizance and
investigate properly on the case of Libyans, Haitians, Ivoirians, and Africa-Americans in
consideration of the roles played by the Western powers including but not limited to Americans,
British, French, and Canadian. The leaders and other persons responsible for the violation of
rights, crimes of humanity, and war crimes committed against these individuals, were demanded
to be prosecuted by the ICC.

There are also critics citing the procedural flaws on the ICC as it appears that it has no standard
on determining whether the case falls under its jurisdiction or not as manifested by their actions
or inactions of cases. It confuses the nations on what are the crimes that it could take cognizance
to that it highlighted the selective nature of the ICC as an investigating body, serving only for the
interests of the western powers. In addition, most crimes are being prosecuted while there are
ongoing conflicts and in effect, it helps determine the outcome of the conflicts. There are also
problems on the presentation of evidence before the courts particularly on raising of the defence.

The temporal jurisdictions which acts for the non-retroactivity of the jurisdiction to the acts
committed prior to the establishment of the ICC and the ratification of the Rome Statute on July
1, 2002, could be a standard in most legal systems. However, it appears that most of the Western
powers which have committed grave abuses in the past, have been using such feature of the
temporal jurisdiction in protecting themselves. For example, the German genocide from 1904-
1907, the Slave Trade led by most of the European Powers which persist for more than three
centuries, the British atrocities in Kenya in the 1950s, will not be prosecuted by the ICC because
of the said temporal jurisdiction. It also restricts the capability of the victims, or their heirs, to be
compensated for the suffering and the violations that they have suffered.

Discussions

It is not true that ICC is targeting only the easy targets in the African region. It has proven its
might and influence when it struck down the leadership of Muammar Gaddafi who have gained
significant support from its neighbours and who have ruled Libya for more than four decades.
With sufficient funding and support from the United Nations and the Western Countries such as
the United States, the ICC could prosecute any war criminal it wanted to put behind the bars for
the crimes that they have committed. It is only a matter of choice for the ICC on who it wants to
prosecute. Unfortunately, the ICC has been selective in prosecuting war crimes that it refuses to
attack the powerful countries to whom its very funding and support comes from. As a result of
this, the powers of the ICC seem to be insufficient in delivering justice to all.

However, the premise that the ICC would not last as an international institution is true. This is
not because of the weakness which a layman could easily mistakenly interpret but because of its
lack of legitimacy in the international community. Currently, the ICC enjoys a significant amount
of support from the UN itself, its signatory states, and the state parties themselves. Ironically, the
African Nations which have been subjected of the ICC’s prosecution are the ones who have
supported majorly the ICC and have accepted its jurisdiction over them. This support, despite the
overwhelming statute that it enjoys today, could easily dwindle down because of the institution’s
lack of legitimacy. From the discussions, there are many reasons that could be inferred on why
the ICC lacks legitimacy on the international community. Firstly, the ICC has been selective of
prosecuting with the double standards set against the White Men and the African men; secondly,
the ICC has been proven time and again to be an instrument of destabilization by the western
powers to oust leaders that they do not want; thirdly, the image of the ICC as an independent
body has been compromised; fourthly, its acceptance has been forced to the state parties; fifthly,
it has violated the rule of law, even the Rome Statute itself. As a result of these, the legitimacy of
the ICC on the international organization will dwindle that it may not gain respect even from the
state parties. Without the international recognition, it would not exist that long.

Racial discrimination have been struck down in the past and it is not impossible for the
international community to outlaw it even in the global setting. The ICC, if it continuously
attacks the African Leaders, usurps the functions of the African Union as well as the AfCHPR
which plays similar function as them. With the conflict between the ICC and the AfCHPR, or any
other regional tribunals for that matter, the ICC could be rendered toothless because of the
concept of jurisdiction and the sovereignty among states and unions in submitting the
jurisdictions to the said body. It is not too long before the majority of the members of the African
Union withdraw its support to the ICC but instead fully pledge its support and be subjected to the
jurisdiction of the AfCHPR.

Meanwhile, the fact that it has been put on notice that the ICC has been destabilizing the nations
in order to impose their leaders on the African countries could significantly hurt its legitimacy as
an international organization because of the fact that its political motives have been disclosed. Its
effect is the withdrawal of support not only of the African nations but also of the majority of the
international community since anyone could be the target of the plots to which the ICC partakes
in. Even if the motive of the ICC on a certain case would be to deliver justice, its reputation is
tarnished by its political involvement.

It is hard to depart from the idea that the ICC is being controlled by the Western powers because
its funding have been flowing from these powers. The lack of independence of the ICC is
contrary to its ideals and principles that it was founded in. In addition, the impartiality that any
judicial tribunal warrants would not be possible for a non-independent body since there is a
chance that it would favour a party which supports it. This is very evident on the case of the
ICC’s inaction on the war crimes committed by the US and British forces during the Iraq
invasion.
Furthermore, from its inception, there is lack of voluntariness on the part of the nations to submit
to the jurisdiction of the ICC because of the various sanctions that they could face as the
consequence of their refusal to do so including the cutting off of the financial support from
foreign countries to withdrawal of military powers. Hence, it cannot be said that the party states
to the Rome Statutes have actually treated the ICC with respect. With this conformity to the ICC
being forced, it could also be easily be removed since the member states themselves does not
necessarily believe on the ideals of the tribunal since their compliance has been forced.

Finally, the very source of legitimacy of the ICC is the law. Specifically, the law which created it
namely: The Rome Statute. In the case of Gaddaffi, the ICC itself, have violated the very
provisions of the Rome Statutes. Therefore, it is self-destructing. In addition to this, the rule of
law including the internationally accepted procedures on the prosecution of the criminals, as well
as the basic tenets of human rights, have been violated by the ICC. This tribunal uses the rule of
law as its source of legitimacy but it destructs itself by violating the said laws. With the rule of
law being disregarded, then there is no reason for the existence of an international tribunal.

Conclusion

This paper has provided an overview of the purpose, function, and jurisdiction of the
international criminal court (ICC) together with its charter, the Rome Statute. It has been
discussed how the ICC is tasked to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide
with the hope of perpetual persistence of atrocities during war time. It has been inferred that the
primary purpose of the ICC is to enable a harmonious relationship between the nations. The
various features of the jurisdiction of the ICC through the provisions of the Rome Statute have
been discussed including its limitations namely the principles of complementarity and the
temporal jurisdiction that it exercises. In addition, this paper described how the ICC prosecutes
majorly the African leaders which is a cause of controversy for the tribunal where the tribunal
works as a means to oust leaders that the Western countries do not agree with. There are many
reasons which was analysed including racial prejudice and the multifaceted political motives of
the western countries, through the ICC, for what appears to be an Africa-Centric Prosecution. It
also discussed how the ICC is being claimed to be a white man’s court and how it applied double
standards on the cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed by white
men as it turn a blind eye on the atrocities during the Iraqi invasion. Further, many of the
injustices perpetrated by the ICC itself including its violation of the rule of law and how it is
being controlled by the United States and the British were discussed. It is in the stand of this
paper that the International Criminal Court will not survive as an international tribunal because
of the many flaws commencing from its establishment as well as the biases that it directed
against the European population. This is not because it is targeting only the weak leaders from
the African nations but because of its lack of legitimacy on the international community.

References
http://africanholocaust.net/international-criminal-court/?
fb_comment_id=373325229409764_2941681

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/06/a-white-mans-court/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sudan-dubs-the-icc-white-mans-court/