Is The International Criminal Court Bias?

Is The International Criminal Court Guilty Of Selective Prosecution?
In the eyes of many Africans, there is a problem in how justice is meted out in the world’s judicial body. Currently, there are eight cases before the International Criminal Court involving leaders from Africa, a fact that is leading some to allege the ICC is engaging in biased prosecutions.

“[Kenyan President Uhuru] Kenyatta did succeed in deferring his Nov. 12 court date to February. But the Security Council – with Russia, China, Pakistan, and Azerbaijan on one side, and Britain, the United States, South Korea, Australia, and France on the other – has now said there can be no further court delays. That is leading Kenya toward a new animosity toward the court and a new narrative that claims the ICC is a tool of a still-imperialist West that ignores crimes committed by its own leaders and unfairly targets Africans,” reports The Christian Science Monitor.

Kenya’s attorney-general Githu Muii is now alleging that charging President Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto would “create particular problems in the context of regional peace and security.”

Makau W. Mutua, dean of the Buffalo Law School, State University of New York, and the author of “Kenya’s Quest for Democracy: Taming Leviathan,” believes it would be a mistake for the US to bow to pressure and would be a nail in the coffin of the ICC.

“[Kenyatta’s] government, a pivotal ally of the United States, has stated that Kenya’s ‘true friends’ must support the deferrals, or risk a deterioration of relations. Kenya is forging closer ties with China, Russia, Brazil, India and South Africa, another sign of its effort to pressure the West to delay the cases.

“If the Obama administration caves in, it would sound a death knell for the I.C.C. It would represent a legal and moral abandonment of victims of violence and their survivors, and give criminal suspects more time to intimidate, bribe or even kill witnesses,” he wrote earlier this month in The New York Times.

More Insight On Iran Nuclear Deal
Uri Friedman argues in The Atlantic that the deal reflects a dramatic end and a new beginning to US-Iranian relations.

Eli Lake of The Daily Beast believes the decision to allow Iran to continue to enrich uranium is a dangerous softening of the US stance.

Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund and the author of Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the World Before It Is Too Late, praises the Iran nuclear deal.

Laura Rozen profiles Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and highlights his role in cementing an agreement.

The Wall Street Journal views the deal as favorable to Iran, while The New York Times editors see the agreement as making the world safer – at least temporarily,



Recent Posts
Contact Us

Drop us a note and we will get in touch soon!

Not readable? Change text. captcha txt

Start typing and press Enter to search