Sunday, March 18, 2007

Sudan and the ICC: the story continues

Sudan has categorically ruled out challenging the admissibility of the Darfur report. Its point: being non-state member, there is no point in doing so. Period.

But will it get away? Let us just shade some light here. Put the nature or gravity of the case aside and let us look at ICC. The ICC has no jurisdiction over Sudan because it is a non-signatory of the Rome Statute. The statute said non-signatories can be referred for prosecution to the ICC if the conditions are deemed "a threat to international peace and security". The UN had referred Sudan on these grounds.

Now the question: why should any government sign the Rome statute if either way you will be prosecuted with it? Signing or not signing makes no difference. Now if Sudan does not cooperate, the arrest warrants go to Interpol for execution. I feel that Sudan is being tried as a test case and they want to succeed whatever way. Too bad.

The case is not going to end soon. And mind you, America is pushing Sudan to cooperate with the ICC, when it is no signatory itself! It is wary about Americans being dragged into the ICC! Call it double standards at global scale.

4 comments:

Aaron Stewart said...

Ummm hello.... does the term "Super Power" mean anything to you? We kind of make our own rules, I thought the world would be used to that by now.



*sarcasm off*

Black Kush said...

Some people are more equal than others...? No wonder people around the world feel victimized by American policies.

Just see how USA is resisting the issues concerning Guantanamo. Super power rules!

hipster said...

Sry but this ICC issue seems prepostorous to me!!!
Why did it take them 7 years to press charges?!!!

Anonymous said...

Regardless of your attitude toward the US, some faceless bureaucrats in Belgium deciding what should happen in the Sudan based on their notions of law should be offensive to everyone.

Yes the Sudan has a foul Govt. But calling what the ICC does 'International Law' is a joke.

The Sudan did not sign any treaty. So what does this 'Court' base its authority on? Answer, nothing. They just decided that if a situation warrants it, whatever that might mean, they can do what they want. The recipient of this action has no say.

This isn't law, this is International Politics as usual dressed up in fine words.

Call my simple, but I prefer my petty tyrants to be a little less passive aggressive.