ICC Arrest Warrants, Essay Example

The International Criminal Court (ICC) ensures that perpetrators of genocides are arrested and prosecuted. The member countries observe the ICC’s conventions. The contracting parties have obligations to perform once arrest warrants have been issued. For instance, the countries allow international forces to execute arrest warrants issued by the ICC. In this case, the ICC’s obligations to prevent genocide are achieved when the member parties observe the conventions’ obligations. However, the duties of contracting parties under the ICC’s Genocide Convention have ignited debates. For instance, the arrest warrant for Sudan president in 2010 led to a disagreement between the African Union (AU) and the ICC. This paper aims at establishing the obligations of contracting parties and the AU once the ICC has issued arrest warrants. Obligations under the Genocide Convention must be observed to ensure that individuals are protected from the consequences of genocide, such as deaths or homelessness.

Obligations of Contracting Parties

As per Article I of ICC’s Genocide Convention, it is the obligation of contracting parties to enact measures to prevent genocides, and in case of occurrence, the perpetrators are punished. As per the Genocide Convention, crime occurs during a war or peace. In this case, perpetrators intend to destroy particular groups hence must be stopped through prosecution. Indeed, the Genocide Convention’s purpose is to enhance international cooperation and ensure that humans do not undergo further losses due to genocides. Through international collaboration, there is the development of rights and freedoms enforced by the contracting parties. In order to ensure that the public observes rights and liberties, the contracting parties enact legislation to punish perpetrators. In this case, the contracting parties keep the principles set in the Genocide Convention. Prohibition and punishment of perpetrators of genocides are some of the principles established in the Genocide Convention.[1] Contracting parties must observe the principles as they are binding.

The second obligation of the contracting parties is to implement the arrest warrants issued by the ICC. Regarding the arrest warrant issued against President Al Bashir, contracting parties must cooperate and enforce orders issued by international courts. Article I of the Genocide Convention provides that contracting parties must observe court orders issued by proficient international courts. For instance, the contracting parties must observe the ICC’s arrest warrants to ensure that perpetrators are punished for the conducted crimes. This implies that the contracting parties’ failure to identify and arrest perpetrators is an infringement of the Genocide Convention. Thereby, it is an obligation set in the Genocide Convention’s articles that contracting parties must arrest perpetrators. As per Article 3 of the Genocide Convention, contracting parties must observe the internal penal tribunal’s jurisdiction.[2] The significance is to ensure that the tribunal tries perpetrators of genocides.

The third obligation of the contracting parties is to surrender perpetrators of crime to be punished under international law. As per Article V of the Genocide Convention, different mechanisms are followed by the ICC to ensure that surrendered perpetrators are punished. For instance, legislative enactment is one of the penalties whereby effective penalties are issued to ensure that genocide perpetrators are punished. Article I of the Genocide Convention also indicates the obligation types to punish genocide perpetrators. For instance, the ICC’s responsibility is to ensure that surrendered perpetrators are tried to establish whether they are guilty of the committed wrongdoings. Thereby, the contracting parties need to surrender genocide perpetrators to the ICC to ensure that they are punished for the prohibited acts. Effective discharging of responsibilities by contracting parties helps prevent genocides.

Obligations of African Union State Parties

As per Part 9 of ICC’s Statute, State Parties should provide judicial assistance to the ICC. This means that the African Union (AU) obligation is to provide judicial assistance to the ICC in case there is the issuance of arrest warrants. Irrefutably, state parties that are AU members are supposed to observe ICC’s arrest warrants as they are committed to the Genocide Convention. This means that the AU should not protect African Heads of States once the ICC has issued arrest warrants. The ICC observes the international law, and since there is no regional criminal court, the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute the perpetrators. The AU should observe provisions set in the Genocide Convention and provide judicial assistance needed by the ICC. For instance, the AU can ensure that the court and the prosecutor obtain the required evidence to prosecute individuals under international law. As per Article 13 of the Rome Statute, ICC’s jurisdiction is extended to ensure that perpetrators are punished according to the legal framework.[3] Provision of judicial assistance by the AU will enable the ICC to prosecute those that infringe the Genocide Convention.

Another obligation of AU as per ICC’s statute is to surrender perpetrators of genocides that have been subjected to arrest warrants. For instance, the AU was to ensure that President Al Bashir would be arrested and presented in the ICC for criminal proceedings. AU was to meet its obligation as Sudan is its member country, and it is also among ICC’s members. Although the arrest of President Al Bashir would destabilize some of the African countries, AU had an obligation to meet. The AU ensures that the African states cooperate with the ICC and surrender perpetrators. Undeniably, 33 African states are member states in the AU but are also committed to the ICC’s Genocide Convention. Thereby, the African States are to cooperate in surrendering perpetrators. The ICC might issue Non-compliance if the AU adopts a non-cooperation policy to ensure that member states do not surrender incumbent leaders to the ICC.[4] As per Article VIII, the states are to call upon competent organs as the compliance to the Genocide Convention will help conduct court proceedings.

Conclusion

To sum up, Article I, Article III, and Article VI of the ICC’s Genocide Convention indicate the obligations that must be observed by contracting parties. Obligations under the Genocide Convention must be kept to ensure that individuals are protected from the consequences of genocide, such as deaths or homelessness. The contracting parties’ obligations include the arrest and surrendering of genocide perpetrators to the ICC. The AU also ensures that its member countries are committed to the ICC’s Genocide Convention arrest and surrender the genocide perpetrators. The AU is to ensure the arrest and surrender of perpetrators to the ICC in case they visit state territories. The essence is to ensure that the ICC tribunal tries perpetrators of genocides as per international law. Acceding to the Rome Statute implies that member states were willing to enact measures to prevent genocides. Therefore, observance of ICC’s Genocide Convention will lead to arrest warrants’ execution to arrest individuals engaged in genocides.

Bibliography

Akande, Dapo. “The Immunity of Heads of States of Nonparties in the Early Years of the ICC.” AJIL Unbound 112 (2018): 172-176.

Quigley, John. The genocide convention: An international law analysis. Routledge, 2016.

Sva?ek, Ond?ej. “Al-Bashir and the icc–Tag, Hide-and-Seek… or Rather Blind Man’s Bluff?.” In The Rome Statute of the ICC at Its Twentieth Anniversary, pp. 177-190. Brill Nijhoff, 2018.

Wierczy?ska, Karolina, and Andrzej Jakubowski. “Individual Responsibility for Deliberate Destruction of Cultural Heritage: Contextualizing the ICC Judgment in the Al-Mahdi Case.” Chinese Journal of International Law 16, no. 4 (2017): 695-721.

[1] Quigley, John. The genocide convention: An international law analysis. Routledge, 2016.

[2] Wierczy?ska, Karolina, and Andrzej Jakubowski. “Individual Responsibility for Deliberate Destruction of Cultural Heritage: Contextualizing the ICC Judgment in the Al-Mahdi Case.” Chinese Journal of International Law 16, no. 4 (2017): 695-721.

[3] Sva?ek, Ond?ej. “Al-Bashir and the icc–Tag, Hide-and-Seek… or Rather Blind Man’s Bluff?.” In The Rome Statute of the ICC at Its Twentieth Anniversary, pp. 177-190. Brill Nijhoff, 2018.

[4] Akande, Dapo. “The Immunity of Heads of States of Nonparties in the Early Years of the ICC.” AJIL Unbound 112 (2018): 172-176.