The efficacy of the international criminal court in handling African cases, with a focus on Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-al-Rahman of Sudan case.

Abstract

This study aims to assess the perceived efficacy and effectiveness of the International Criminal Court (ICC) based on its handling of African cases, with a focus on the Ali Kushayb trial relating to the Darfur, Sudan conflict. While the ICC promised revolutionizing global justice, questions linger around its performance years later amidst accusations of bias against African nations due to predominantly prosecuting cases from the continent. Greater insight from high profile African trials like Kushayb could provide answers. It has brought only African leaders and militia members to trial despite investigations spanning multiple regions, fuelling views of disproportioning targeting of Africans. A qualitative case study approach combining document analysis and elite semi-structured interviews was utilized. Documents analysed included court transcripts while 15 legal experts and policymakers were interviewed. Thematic analysis identified patterns in documentary and interview data. Interviews revealed the ICC demonstrated strengths prosecuting Kushayb but faced challenges including perceived lack of impartiality stemming from focus on African situations only. Critics argued cases targeting weaker states and failure to prosecute allies undermine universalism. Structural constraints frustrate full efficacy. While achieving objectives in individual cases, perceived politicisation threatens ICC credibility. Greater UNSC backing and cooperation from word powers could strengthen impartiality. To enhance effectiveness and legitimacy, the ICC requires power state ratification and cooperation; should explore relationship reform with AU and states; address neo-colonialism critiques through proportional prosecution; strength regional capacities as complementary options. Pursuing justice in equitable, politically sensitive manner preserves reputation.