Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and Kenyan Sovereign Rights

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Date
2020-02
Authors
Ndlela, Lainah
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Kenyatta University
Abstract
The notion underlying the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court remains critical in the formulation of the Rome statute. Proponents of the international court claim that the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction strengthens the international criminal law regime since it intervenes in situations of international human rights violation regardless of national jurisdiction. On the contrary, the Court’s opponents claim that it diminishes national sovereignty. This claim has emerged in the context of the Court’s apparent focus on Africa. As of December 2017, twenty three cases before the International Criminal Court pertained to crimes allegedly committed in five African states, Kenya, Sudan (Darfur), Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic (CAR). This focus has led to claims that Africa has become a victim of a politicised process that ignores human rights violations in more powerful and resource rich states. Accordingly, the notion of International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction has not boarded well with most African countries, who have claimed that the Court is undermining sovereign rights. The central issue is the contestation between the scope of International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction and sovereign rights. This contestation is highlighted against the background of the indictment of former accused Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto for their alleged involvement in crimes against humanity during the 2007/8 post election violence (PEV) in Kenya. The opponents of the Court claim that by prosecuting the two, who later took the reigns of power, amounted to usurping Kenyan sovereign rights. Kenya signed the Rome statute that established the International Criminal Court on the 11th of August 1999 and ratified the same on the 15th of March 2005. With the case before the International Criminal Court, Kenya challenged the admissibility of the cases based on the complementarity principle of the International Criminal Court and raised questions of sovereign rights infringement, after failing the admissibility test This work enters into this debate by raising questions regarding the extent to which the International Criminal Court’s intervention in Kenya violated Kenya’s sovereign rights. Various views were therefore gathered from experts in international law, international relations, foreign policy makers and politicians as well as ordinary citizens through questionnaires and interview schedules. In addition to this, secondary data was obtained from books, online sources, newspapers and general public opinions in various media. The data gathered was then analysed and presented through headings and chapters. The current study established that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and Kenyan sovereign rights has been shrouded and shaped by political feelings and political affiliations that existed during the trial period. Moreso, African countries’ emerging resistance towards the Court greatly had a bearing on how Kenya as a country and Kenyan citizens absorbed and interpreted the intervention by the Court. Further to this perceptions and feelings from those who sympathized with the accused and those who supported The Hague based Court ultimately shaped the notion regarding the sovereignty of Kenya against the intervention of the International Criminal Court
Description
A Thesis in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree of Masters of Arts in International Relations and Diplomacy of Kenyatta University. February 2020
Keywords
Jurisdiction, International Criminal Court, Kenyan Sovereign Rights
Citation